From: ichudov@algebra.com
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 19:56:34 -0800 (PST)
To: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Subject: Sandy suppresses truth about his moderation policy
Message-ID: <199702080356.TAA08306@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Below are some interesting facts implying that:

1) Sandy uses a bot to reject articles of people he does not like
2) When I exposed him with an article showing all Received: dates, 
he
	a) rejected the article exposing him
and
	b) changed his moderation software so that Received: headers
	   for the cypherpunks-flames do not show the times when 
	   messages came in

3) Sandy apologized to Tim May for rejecting one of Vulis's articles, and
yet he rejects my message quoting same article. I question how genuine were
his apologies to Tim.

At this point, I have enough data to conclude that 

	* Sandy is not a good moderator
	* Sandy does not have the interests of his readership in his mind
	* Sandy should not be trusted

At this point, two events are likely to happen: either moderation ceases,
or Sandy and John will pull the plug on the unedited and flames list.

	- Igor.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Note that there are no more incoming Received: lines in the message
that went to flames, BUT yesterday the received lines were there.
Note also that my address (From: line) has been rewritten in such
a way that my name disappeared. I believe that the latter is due to
a sloppy perl script that got screwed up by presence of "@" character
in my name.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Received: (from geek@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) id SAA06751 for ichudov; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 18:57:04 -0600
Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id JAA03038 for geek+test+cypherpunks-flames@algebra.com; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 09:12:23 -0600
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id KAA16283 for <geek+test+cypherpunks-flames@algebra.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 10:11:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA24873; Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:11:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199702071511.HAA24873@toad.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 01:34:36 -0600 (CST)
From: ichudov@algebra.com
To: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>, tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: anonymous remailers
Sender: geek@algebra.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

[I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure]

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It
> > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal
> > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion.
> > 
> > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is
> > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had
> > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com," thus I surmise it
> > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more
> > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.)
> 
> Currently, there are three lists.  It looks as though the message
> in question appeared on the Unedited list.  This is NOT the same
> as the Flames list.  
>  
> I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I
> read it on the Unedited list.  If it went to the "wrong" list,
> my apologies to the author.  As I indicated before, I don't think

I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be
corrected.

Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in
3 seconds after arrival to toad.com.

That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human
involvement.

> a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high
> 90s under the criteria I enunciated.  Not perfection, but a 
> definite improvement over the prior condition.

I see three problems with the current state of the list: 

	1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so 
	   your 90% statement is meaningless
	2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers,
	   therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers
	3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get
	   rejected.

>From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com  Thu Feb  6 22:20:35 1997
Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors@toad.com>
Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
        id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500
Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf)
	via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST
	for cypherpunks@toad.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: anonymous remailers
From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Comments: All power to the ZOG!
Message-Id: <iJkq2D46w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST
In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604@mail-relay.internetmci.com>
Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

c.musselman@internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes:

> C'punks --
> 	When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup
> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group,
> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers?  ATF,
> FBI, DEA, that's who!"  Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid.  Does
> anyone know the answer?  Specifically, how can we choose a trusted
> remailer?

Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk"
remailers are run by people who should not be trusted.  Check out their
remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific
person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like.

---

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