cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1997-01-06 - Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks “moderation” experiment in Jan

Header Data

From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
To: antimod@nym.alias.net (Against Moderation)
Message Hash: b656a731f89c9d10293453f88efdcd65de55bcf1a74d22fdafb7f2bbee296a4f
Message ID: <199701060041.QAA01983@slack.lne.com>
Reply To: <19970105224324.3104.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-06 00:41:58 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:41:58 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Eric Murray <ericm@lne.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:41:58 -0800 (PST)
To: antimod@nym.alias.net (Against Moderation)
Subject: Re: Sandy and I will run a cypherpunks "moderation" experiment in Jan
In-Reply-To: <19970105224324.3104.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199701060041.QAA01983@slack.lne.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Against Moderation writes:
> 
> Have you considered using a system like NoCeM (see http://www.cm.org)?

NoCeM doesn't appear to do mail yet.  At least not according to the
info on the web site

> I think such a system has many advantages over centrally controlled
> moderation.  The basic idea of NoCeM is that instead of moderating a
> newsgroup or mailing list, people post lists of articles to be
> ignored, and you can configure your mail/newsreader to pay attention
> to NoCeM's by whichever people you trust.

There's nothing in John and Sandy's proposal that forbids
doing that.  Just apply it to the cypherpunks-unmoderated list.

> NoCeM would prevent any message delays which moderation might
> introduce

NoCeM for mail would require a delay (for the 'retromoderation' or
whatever it's called message to arrive) otherwise you'd see the spam.
Unlike news, once email's delivered it can't be deleted by a cancel.

> NoCeM would also prevent anyone from accusing you of censorship.

The unmoderated version of the list doesn't do that?

> If we continue to get important
> messages like implementations of the RC2 and RC4 ciphers, a moderator
> could be found responsible for approving such an article.

If such a message were to arrive and the moderator felt it would
be too illegal to post it, it would still go to the unmoderated list.
Remember, _everything_ goes to that list, before it's looked at
by the moderator. 
 
> Obviously there are some issues related to NoCeM.  Not all mail- and
> newsreaders support NoCeM.

It appears that NO mailreaders support it. :-)

>  However, there are definitely solutions to
> those problems.  For instance, a perl script could be used to delay
> messages and apply NoCeM's, so that people can subscribe to customized
> filtered versions of the list.  I might even be willing to write such
> software if there is interest.

I don't mean to sound really negative, NoCeM looks like an
interesting solution to the problem of Usenet spam.  But it's not
ready for mailing lists.  We need a solution now, and the proposed
solution does not make it any harder to use something like NoCeM
when it's ready.


-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

Thread