From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:52:58 -0800 (PST)
To: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)
Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
In-Reply-To: <3302E815.5E66@netbox.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970213144604.027ebc5c@mail.io.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>
>This is where the distributed nature of the list comes   in.
>
>if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other
>mailing list host.

Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators
can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot
impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds
very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this
is the case. 

Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list
operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the
rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect?

Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with
other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator?

--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
                            |