1996-01-31 - NOISE: Cypher-list noise levels! »»

Header Data

From: Laszlo Vecsey <master@internexus.net>
To: Jonathon Fletcher <jonathon@pobox.com>
Message Hash: c181caec5ec99a66e6d28f27a8110f0734e3f0cafe5e52448908d3353fe96903
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960130225132.16003A-100000@micro.internexus.net>
Reply To: <199601310201.VAA26901@pobox.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-31 12:14:43 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 20:14:43 +0800

Raw message

From: Laszlo Vecsey <master@internexus.net>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 20:14:43 +0800
To: Jonathon Fletcher <jonathon@pobox.com>
Subject: NOISE: Cypher-list noise levels! >>>>
In-Reply-To: <199601310201.VAA26901@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.960130225132.16003A-100000@micro.internexus.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>   Can someone on the PGPdomo cypher-list tell me how good the signal to
> noise ratio currently is, and how good the content is. I've not signed
> up, but I'm tempted to try and get away from the noise on here
> recently.
> 

I thought I'd contribute some noise to the cypherpunks list too, so here
goes. Why not just subscribe to the PGPdomo list, and see what the 
traffic is like for a couple days? Its not like you will be locked into 
the mailing list forever.

FYI the traffic on the PGPdomo list has been very low lately. I haven't
received a message from the list in a few days. But then again there is
even more 'noise' on that list because every message I've seen posted on
it talks about PGPdomo, the mailing list, getting PGP software to work,
etc.. From what I've seen people just sign up to test it out with a test
message, and thats about it. Even with mkpgp for pine its still a bit
inconvenient to use, I think thats the reason for the low-traffic.





Thread