From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 1996 18:49:21 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Thank you for the Archives 100 messages
In-Reply-To: <199606071402.HAA10943@netcom4.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960609005510.6682B-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Skippy <qut@netcom.com> shared with the group:

> Apologies, but rich has deleted me from
> his mailboxes, and for a few days now,

This isn't true. I don't believe in killfiles. Being on my twit list simply
means that you're entitled to a brief acknowledgement of every message you
send me. Skippy was added after he sent me the 3MB results from the
rec.music.white-power vote as a rather limp mailbombing attempt (free clue:
it takes a lot more than that to make a dent in our bandwidth or disk
space); see http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/potw2/rec.music.white-powder for
that email. 

> somebody has placed a global cancel bot on
> me.  I'm gonna have plenty of fun figuring
> this out.  Kwow any good sniffers?

The one that used to be running on darth.stanford.edu was pretty good. 
Since February 22nd, I've working on the assumption that everything I do
unencrypted is public. I would revoke my PGP key, but I never used it much
for receiving mail anyway, and I'm not sure that it was found. 

> I agree the list should be public usenet:
> A mail gate-way to a usenet group that
> ALSO permits unmoderated posts.  This
> would be a nice way to combine a strict
> moderated mail-list, with a standard 
> netnews group.

Gee, what a great idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that? hks.net, for
example. Unfortunately, there are too many copyright terrorists here.
There's a tradeoff between freedom and visibility. As astute readers are
aware, hks.net had to take down the archives after WSJ made a threat that
was a little too credible.

-rich