From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 08:02:20 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "Cyherpunks Named Official Signing Authority"
In-Reply-To: <199412011053.CAA25543@netcom3.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199412011701.JAA13163@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)

   First of all, I am generally commenting on this:

   "I am still considering the "sign-or-delay" proposal for the toad.com
   server, that is, sign your articles to the list or they'll be delayed
   and eventually rejected." [Eric Hughes, 1994-11-28]

Tim, I've not been referring to that exact proposal for some time now.
In very specific detail, I have dropped the premise that they might be
rejected.  This happened almost immediately after this recent
discussion began.  I wanted to restrict discussion to what might be
implemented first to avoid the (alas, unavoided) less than productive
discussions about what could happen later.

Was I insufficiently clear that I was now discussing a smaller
proposal?

What I see is that you are refusing (by omission) to address the
subject at hand.  I see a direct, if not intentional, effort to
address something that is not what I have been talking about.

   "Eventually rejected" mean to me that unsigned messages will not be
   passed through to the list. I call this a "compelled signature" in
   that the signature is compulsory, not optional.

This is all well and good, but it is on a different but related
subject.

I ask again the quetion that I specifically asked before.  I'll even
not abbreviate to be clear that I'm actually asking for two things.
Does a marking action by the server create a compulsion to sign?  Does
a delay action by the server create a compulsion to sign?

Eric