cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-01-07 - Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy

Header Data

From: C Matthew Curtin <cmcurtin@research.megasoft.com>
To: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)
Message Hash: 1b13f70dea69f06de701dc70c2c7973afdc48286c0d10de1227cd9137ff0cf55
Message ID: <199701070209.VAA04413@goffette.research.megasoft.com>
Reply To: <199701060306.WAA22463@wauug.erols.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-07 02:19:22 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:19:22 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: C Matthew Curtin <cmcurtin@research.megasoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 18:19:22 -0800 (PST)
To: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)
Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
In-Reply-To: <199701060306.WAA22463@wauug.erols.com>
Message-ID: <199701070209.VAA04413@goffette.research.megasoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "Igor" == Igor Chudov @ home <ichudov@algebra.com> writes:

Igor> Moderation may or may not be a good idea, but it is important
Igor> that readership keeps a close eye on their rulers.

I certainly agree, and would venture a guess that Sandy would also
agree. After all, doesn't the proposal also include a completely
unfiltered version of the list, as well as a list made up of messages
that the moderator rejected?

Some of the most interesting projects to combat spam and other
nonsense recently have tended to focus on ways to allow folks the
ability to choose whose judgement they want to trust, and/or ignore
the rants and spews of idiots without actually silencing them.

These seem to be the solutions with the greatest potential for dealing
with the problem without introducing lots of other social
ramifications.

I, for my part, will read the moderated version, and watch the list of
rejects for things that Sandy's criteria for rejectable might be
different from mine. I expect these differences to be few and far
between, if they exist at all. If you prefer to read the list
completely without moderation, that is your prerogative, and the
proposed requirements for a moderated list (i.e., availability of an
unmoderated list) allows that. What isn't clear to me is why some seem
so interested in the (pointless) name-calling and opposition to the
availability of the list in moderated format.

- -- 
Matt Curtin  Chief Scientist  Megasoft, Inc.  cmcurtin@research.megasoft.com
http://www.research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/    I speak only for myself
Hacker Security Firewall Crypto PGP Privacy Unix Perl Java Internet Intranet

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Have you encrypted your data today?

iQEVAwUBMtGwPH6R34u/f3zNAQHvIgf+NUc0+a/BXxuYdqBC7+3LLrur4tYB4EQE
ZJNmx++nMiHr6c3vIxlWxxK/i+jvJrOxsMl6Cn1kyALFOURpz3Bh8oJ8m8jsSaBQ
uc20CXhy8x4JWlK1UZBSRSlfSLLyq584Iav6DtTPnas2sFHP9JQUSPrNtj82ab71
O7Zct+GFZ7EuSdf8otRDx5Yo+wElNxCYOtZvLGTXEgEL8kaXdm7JtTKHLpujU5Kx
JpBqODyXiplt5+sy4F/0svFoH2pKFcDGKCsap0+er4t185yz6a1G/xkki+whrrG2
xJ9vAEc3HtDYZsE6PGQUdikOZXKXQeZ0qeGg7ffOxrmAagJB4Wscug==
=mfvS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread