1997-01-11 - Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: e0a483b0e6c410043e1bd8a98077dcbef98ccfe78da2f3e5dc676a1963ee4e6b
Message ID: <32D7CCDB.6720@gte.net>
Reply To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970109162541.11773A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-11 18:51:36 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:51:36 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:51:36 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970109162541.11773A-100000@beast.brainlink.com>
Message-ID: <32D7CCDB.6720@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Against Moderation wrote:
> Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes:
> > > 3. Not making the unmoderated list first-up (i.e., cutting posts first,
> > >    then making the "full" list available later) is suspicious, or at
> > >    least a bad idea.[snip]
> What is the advantage of not having a cypherpunks-raw?  I just don't
> understand it.  It costs you nothing, it shows your willingness to
> compete with other moderators or moderation schemes, and it will make
> people a lot more confident that you aren't suppressing some messages
> from cypherpunks-flames list.
> If for some reason load really is the problem (though I can't see
> how), then can you set some maximum number of subscribers you would be
> willing to mail cypherpunks-raw to?  I mean 50 people shouldn't be
> that big a deal, right?  And if more than 50 want to subscribe and you
> think toad can't handle the load, I will run a mail exploder on a
> different machine.

Great ideas, but if I had to bet money, I'd place my bets with
Dr. Vulis on what lies behind their real reasoning.