From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:42:11 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Airport security [no such thing]
In-Reply-To: <199701240655.WAA12732@toad.com>
Message-ID: <Lg711D10w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


ichudov@algebra.com writes:

> Dr.Dimitry Vulius K.O.T.M. wrote:
> > Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
> >
> > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > > Dr.D. Vulius K.O.T.M. wrote:
> > > > > Nurdane Oksas <oksas@asimov.montclair.edu> writes:
> > >
> > > > But think about this: suppose there is a couple, bob@household.com,
> > > > and alice@household.com. Suppose that Rev. Mallory does not like bob.
> > > > Mallory forges a lot of emails like "I can still taste your sperm
> > > > on my lips", that appear to originate from Cindy@phonesex.org.
> > > > Then, promptly, Mallory sends an anonymous alert to alice@household.com
> > > > warning her about naughty email activities of bob. Alice gets mad at hi
> > > > and divorces him.
> > > > How would bob protect himself against such developments?
> > >
> > > Frame-ups are as old as time.  The ones that work the best are those
> > > that are the most believable.  O.J., for example.  Unless Alice is
> > > unusually flaky or paranoid, she'll consider her options against the
> > > time she has invested in Bob.
> >
> > Here's an interesting twist of Sandfort's moderation policy.
> >
> > My article was crypto-relevant and flame-free and was tossed to
> > cypherpunks-flames.
> >
> > Igor's response to my article was also crypto-relevant and flame-free
> > and was tossed to cypherpunks-flames.
> >
> > Dale's response did not quote me, so it made it to the censored list.
>
> Is it really true that my response was tossed out as flames?

Yes.

> It was crypto-relevant.

So was my original article. They did not contain any flames or
personal attacks, contrary to what Sandy claims.

> BTW, this is a more than perfect illustration why rejections
> based on "shitstrings" are completely inappropriate for moderating.
>
> I have nothing again "grey lists", when moderators are alerted when a
> message containing certain suspicious word arrives (the way it's done in
> STUMP), but am opposed to autorejections (unless mods are mailbombed).

It's ironic that Igor's article which I'm quoting ALSO got tossed into
cypherpunks-flames, even though it wasn't a flame.

Apparently the only comments on moderation that Sandy passes to the
censored list are the ones praising him.  This way he'll be able to
report unanymous support for his moderation policies.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps