1997-02-12 - Re: Recommendation: Creation of “alt.cypherpunks”

Header Data

From: “Timothy C. May” <tcmay@got.net>
To: Igor Chudov <ichudov@algebra.com>
Message Hash: 03034a000ebaad698570d7d5f8b817545d6cd82212a97b600f914486c9b5b91c
Message ID: <199702120555.VAA07276@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-02-12 05:55:47 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:55:47 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:55:47 -0800 (PST)
To: Igor Chudov <ichudov@algebra.com>
Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
Message-ID: <199702120555.VAA07276@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup,
>we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different
>hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks,
>comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that.
>
>A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages
>over an alt.* newsgroup:
>
>1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.*
>2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars
>3) The propagation will be a lot better
>4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers
>   not carrying alt.*.
>
>I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup  worse than
>alt.* newsgroup.

Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating
"alt.cypherpunks."

But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission
or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever
takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the
ground.

(Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the
the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the
best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that
only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew
discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of
sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.)

Since posting my comments I've just seen the proposal that tivoli may host
a list. Fine with me. But I wonder how long Tivoli and its parent company,
IBM, will tolerate such things as postings of dumpster divings at Mykotronx
and RSADSI, of deliberate slams against Tivoli products (a la the case John
Gilmore referred to this morning), postings about assassination markets,
and so on.

I still feel that the time has come to move virtual forums such as ours out
of U.S. jurisdictions. Given that most European nations are worse in some
ways (no Holocaust denial posts allowed in "cypherpunks@foobar.de"?), I
recommend the alt.cypherpunks as the best overall compromise.

--Tim May



Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."










Thread