From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 18:13:08 +0800
To: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: The Nature of the Cypherpunks List
In-Reply-To: <199609241913.PAA19989@jekyll.piermont.com>
Message-ID: <3248D7E9.C0A@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Re: below whimpering/whining/sniveling.
Why don't you guys learn to use your computers?
People who write this stuff must be thinking something like:
"Gee, that cypherpunks list has SO much good info on it, I can't stand 
to not keep track of what's going on there.  But those occasional 
irritating posts just upset me so much, I can't deal with it, so I 
better get it off of my chest and tell everyone.  Oh, I feel so much 
better now, maybe they'll let me go home today."

Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Timothy C. May writes:
> > While some folks would rather we talked only about "crypto," just
> > how many times can basic questions about Diffie-Hellman, or RSA, or 
> > elliptic curves be discussed?

> I think a better question is "do we need to have to make sure people
> are posting for the sake of posting? Why must we have a charter broad
> enough to generate too much volume to allow conversation?"
> Sure, there is a limit to what can be said about cryptography and the
> direct politics of cryptography. *THAT IS THE POINT*. That is why I'm
> starting a new list -- so that I can abandon this waste heap to those
> that like frolicking in the mire.

> > And as I was there at the initial planning meeting in July of '92,
> > and then at the first physical meeting, I can assure you that what
> > soon became "Cypherpunks" was never intended to be an announcement
> > list for research discoveries in mathematical cryptography!

> No. It was intended for discussion of cryptography *and* the politics
> of cryptography. Not theories about some airliner was shot down by
> aliens, not random musings on "assasination politics". The idea was
> never to be restricted just to the technical aspects of cryptography,
> but the notion was to have a place where the non-technical discussion
> also was on *cryptography*. This list no longer has *any* charter. A
> posting on sexual practices in Botswana is probably as "on topic" as
> anything else these days.
> The new list, however, will have a charter, and it *will* be enforced.

> > Much as some have been shrilly claiming "This list is for crypto and
> > programming discussions only," this was *never* the intent.

> Tim, I hate to say this, but cypherpunks is a sewer which has driven
> off anyone seriously interested in the area, and you are part of the
> reason.

> > The serious crypto researchers, e.g., the Matt Blazes, the Whit
> > Diffies, and the Carl Ellisons of the world, have various channels
> > they use to communicate in.

> For those who can think back a few years, this *used* to be one of
> those fora. No longer, of course. This is not for people serious about
> anything. I no longer read 99% of what is posted here -- its drek.
> I do not believe it would be good, however, for the list to be shut
> down, because there have to be sewers to carry the world's
> intellectual waste products, and if this list did not exist the likes
> of Jim Bell and the others would be out causing harm on other mailing
> lists.
> PS Still looking for a solid site that can host a 1500 member
> significant volume mailing list without choking.