1997-01-05 - Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks “moderation” experiment in Jan

Header Data

From: “Mark M.” <markm@voicenet.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2b03e63cead2791f62e14465f34d1af7ac292fc7a002ae9c84c6646dc4ed6fff
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970105173751.329A-100000@eclipse>
Reply To: <199701051939.LAA05342@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-05 22:50:40 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:50:40 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 14:50:40 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
In-Reply-To: <199701051939.LAA05342@toad.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970105173751.329A-100000@eclipse>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, John Gilmore, quoting Sandy Sandfort, wrote:

> 3)  Cypherpunks who wish to read all posts to the list may do so
> by taking advantage of either of two optional lists.  The first
> (cypherpunk-flames@toad.com), will consist solely of messages
> expurgated from the main Cypherpunks list.  (Those who subscribe
> to "flames" will be able to easily monitor my moderating
> decisions.)  The second (cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com), will
> contain all posts sent to Cypherpunks.  It will be the equivalent
> of the current open, unmoderated list.  It will appeal to those
> who don't want list moderation.

To reduce the load on toad.com, I think it would be better to have just
"cypherpunks" and "cypherpunks-unedited".  Messages approved for the moderated
list would be tagged with an "Approved:" header and sent to both lists.
Rejected messages would still go to the unedited list, but would not have an
"Approved:" header (this would, of course, require that the moderation
software rename or delete "Approved:" headers).  The only problem with this
is that the lag time for distribution of the unedited list might increase.

> 6)  Because every message submitted to Cypherpunk will be posted
> to two of the three sister lists, I don't intend to lose much
> sleep over whether or not this or that moderating decision was
> perfect.  I will do the best job I can, within the constraints
> listed here.  If I err, it isn't fatal.  Everyone who wants one
> will have two Cypherpunk venues for their posts.  Sounds fair
> enough to me.  What do you think?

I think it's a good idea.  As long as an unedited version continues to be
available, it shouldn't effect people who want unfiltered list traffic.

Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv