From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 11:30:34 -0800 (PST)
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
In-Reply-To: <v03007800af264c8cba96@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199702111920.NAA18063@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


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.

igor

Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> 
> (Please leave my name in any replies to ensure I see your comments.)
> 
> I talked to Hugh Daniel at the Saturday meeting about the creation of an
> "alt.cypherpunks" unmoderated (of course) newsgroup as a possible
> alternative (or supplement) to cypherpunks@toad.com. Greg Broiles and John
> Gilmore were there for part of the discussion, too.
> 
> (We did not, unfortunately, get to the "future of the list" topic at the
> physical meeting...the excellent presentations ran way over the expected
> time and we never got to this topic. Sort of too bad, given John's edict
> that we have 10 days to find and implement an alternative....)
> 
> A Usenet newsgroup has many advantages and disadvantages. Whether it might
> be gatewayed to other mailing lists--perhaps even the list(s) which
> survives "cypherpunks@toad.com"--depends of course on the decision of those
> hosting others lists.
> 
> A charter statement is needed, and then the issuance of a creation message.
> A better charter statement will increase the chances of more sites carrying
> the newsgroup. While many sites carry essentially all newsgroups--more than
> 30,000--, some sites do not and only carry some of the alt.heirarchy. And
> some sites do not carry _any_ of the alt newsgroups.
> 
> At Hugh's suggestion, I'm suggesting a "first cut" at a charter statement.
> Suggestions for additional language or changes are welcome.
> 
> Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested)
> 
> "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the
> political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong
> cryptography. The Cypherpunks grpup has existed since 1992 and has been
> central in the debate about strong crypto, government restrictions, crypto
> anarchy, and in showing weaknesses of various ciphers and security
> products. The mailing list has had as many as 1500 subscribers, plus
> gateways to newsgroups and Web sites. It is expected that "alt.cypherpunks"
> will be a free-wheeling forum for many viewpoints. As it is unmoderated,
> readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools
> for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes."
> 
> I invite your comments, editorial suggestions, etc. Perhaps when enough of
> the "collective mind" has made inputs (ughh!), the charter can be submitted
> with the creation message. (I'm not knowledgeable about the process, but
> I'll bet many of you are.)
> 
> There are of course disadvantages to such a newsgroup, as any Usenet user
> certainly knows. However, there are advantages as well. Here are some of
> each:
> 
> 
> * Advantages:
> 
> - Usenet is set up to automagically propagate articles across tens of
> thousands of sites.
> 
> - there is no "nexus" of control, no chokepoint, no precedent (in the U.S.)
> for halting distribution of Usenet newsgroups. (Canada stopped some
> Homulka-Teale newsgroups a few years ago, other countries have blocked
> entire sections, but note that the Scientologists have been unable to block
> "alt.religion.scientology"...I surmise that a mailing list version of
> a.r.s. would have faced lawsuits against the list.owner, if reachable in
> U.S. or European courts...a lesson to think about with the current
> imbroglio over certain claims about certain products and the possible
> liability of Sandy and/or toad.com.)
> 
> - fairly sophisticated newsreading software already exists.
> 
> - no "unsuscribe" and "unscrive" messages! (It makes it easy for newcomers
> to discover the group, read it for a while, then stop. It also, of course,
> increases the number of "What is crypto?" sorts of messages.)
> 
> - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list
> 
> - with a Usenet group, there is no ability to impose notions of "order" on
> the list (e.g., requirements for PGP-signing, demands for "on-topic" posts,
> removal of "illegal" posts, etc.). Thus, people must deal with a virtual
> anarchy by using proper tools, by ignoring what they don't want to see, or
> by contracting out the role of "nanny" to others.
> 
> 
> * Disadvantages
> 
> - Usenet newsgroups are easy targets for spammers, even more so than are
> mailing lists.
> 
> - crossposting often gets out of hand. (With 30,000+ newsgroups, even
> well-intentioned posters often pick the "three or four most likely" targets
> for their posts).
> 
> - propagation is often spotty, and some sites have no access at all to the
> "alt.*" hierarchy. (Many corporate sites block the alt heirarchy. Many
> academic sites block just the alt.binaries.pictures heirarchy. Etc. A news
> to mailing list gateway is possible for these readers.)
> 
> - propagation may be slower than mailing lists.
> 
> - Usenet is of course archived and easily searchable via Alta Vista, Deja
> News, etc.. This bothers some people. (However, the CP mailing list is now
> also archived and searchable, so the disadvantage is becoming moot.)
> 
> - persons cannot be unsubscribed from an unmoderated list (this is also an
> advantage, of course)
> 
> - there will be more newbie-type messages, as casual browsers of Usenet
> discover alt.cypherpunks and ask questions. This is both a disadvantage and
> an advantage.
> 
> 
> * Discussion of some of these points:
> 
> 1. The issue of slow- or non-propagation can be handled by having mailing
> lists which bounce the traffic (from a well-connected site) to folks who
> get slow distribution, or no distribution at all. News to mail gateways, in
> other words. Traffic in the reverse direction (end reader back to
> alt.cypherpunks) can be handled either by "blind posting" to the a.c.
> newsgroup, via one's newsreader, or through mail-to-news gateways, or
> perhaps via the distributor described here.
> 
> 2. And the services of "moderators," such as Eric Blossom's and Ray
> Arachelian's "best of" lists, or even Sandy's list, are of course still
> possible. A newsgroup does not change this, except for the latency in
> getting messages out to newsgroup sites.
> 
> 3. The advantages of a "no nexus, no chokepoint" distribution are huge. The
> Usenet carries huge advantages in terms of having no place to attack it.
> 
> 4. Some have raised the point that Usenet is "inefficient" and should not
> be used for this reason. Well, it may indeed be ineficient, but the costs
> have already been incurred, and alt.cypherpunks would only be 1/30,000th of
> additional load (very roughly speaking). In other words, might as well use
> what's out there. If a "second Usenet" ever comes into existence, fine.
> 
> 5. Some of us discussed the creation of alt.cypherpunks back in '92-93. At
> that time, we thought the mailing list had some major advantages. In my
> view, the situation has changed dramatically since then. The mailing list
> has become huge, the volume of noise has increased, majordomo is allowing
> the list to be used for spamming (any 'bot system will probably have this),
> and the list is already gatewayed to many sites as a _newsgroup_ anyway.
> 
> So, I think the time has come to just create it. The "activation energy
> barrier" of a mailing list, where people would have to make the effort to
> subscribe, has long since become irrelevant.
> 
> It may be a target for spammers, but it's hard to imagine it being much
> worse than what we have now.
> 
> Usenet is an anarchy. We might as well use it.
> 
> I've never created an alt group, but I presume many of you have (and I know
> of one currently fed up Cypherpunk who created the entire alt.* hierarchy a
> decade or so ago). I presume some of you can thus help in such an effort.
> 
> --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."
> 
> 
> 
> 



	- Igor.