From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 06:32:25 -0800 (PST)
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
In-Reply-To: <199702122142.NAA06036@toad.com>
Message-ID: <o7D32D23w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


(My apologies to all the peole I like whose e-mail I haven't answered yet)

ichudov@algebra.com writes:

> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> > > 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 permissio
> > > 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 ske
> > > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part
> > > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.)
> > >
> > (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've
> > had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also,
> > I posted
> > the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.)
> >
> > Random thoughts:
> >
> > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of
> > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that
> > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-)
> > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporat
> > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their
> > firewall lets them.)
>
> > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup.
> > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help
> > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet
> > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-)
>
> Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives:
> a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process
> ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups
> of readers.
>
> I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is
> not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or
> less flame-free zone.

I'm concerned about smart people stuck behind corporate firewalls
and able to see comp.* and sci.*. Nearly every big Wall St firm
is that way. Did I ever relate to you the story how I had to
break through the firwall at GS to accomplish mywork?

> It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a
> prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help
> them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage.

Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less
cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more
likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that
cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like,
and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins
or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea.

What's going to happen when (not if) someone posts something in
alt.cypherpunks that Chris Lewis (spit) judges to be "spam"
and forges a cancel? Or someone posts a binary and Richard
"little dick" Depew forges a cancel?

> > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this maili
> > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious des
> > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read
> > to other people.
>
> It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better.

There's a bunch of net.cops in e.g. comp.lang.eiffel that complain to
sysadmins of anyone posting to that newsgroup who's in a member of the
"in" crowd". It may or may not cut down on the crap, but is it worth it?

> > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the
> > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very
> > handy.
> >
>
> It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work
> independently from list nodes.


Yes - from the legal liability point of view (since it bothers the lying
cocksucker Gilmore (spit, fart, belch) so  much): suppose someone
anonymously posts  skipjack source code to alt.cypherpunks. Under the
present systen, say, the arachelian asshole might decide not to forward
it to his mailing list feaing the NSA. NoCeM's can separate the function
of highlighting interesting articles from the function of forwarding
these articles to subscribers who only want to see the highlighted
articles.

---

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