From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 16:47:31 -0800 (PST)
To: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"
In-Reply-To: <199702111721.JAA22739@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199702120105.TAA00951@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> (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.

     Might "we" get wider propigation with something like "talk.issues.crypto"
or "talk.cypherpunks"? 

> Charter for alt.cypherpunks: (suggested)
> "Alt.cypherpunks is for the unmoderated discussion of cryptography and the
> political, social, and economic implications of unrestricted, strong
> readers are strongly advised to learn how to use filters and other tools
> for making virtual anarchies manageable for their own tastes."

     Maybe a pointer to these tools?

> * Disadvantages

	-Mailing lists easily penetrate firewalls, while many places don't 
provide Usenet access. 

	Another possibility would be to create a "private Usenet" setting up
NNTP servers that _only_ talk to each other. This would eventually allow for
the same sort of redundancy that the "regular" usenet offers, provide some of 
the same efficient use of resources, and ease of use (almost) but provide some
protection against spammers & etc. 

	For those who don't understand, this is how it would work (and correct
me if I am wrong): 

	Usenet works by servers exchanging messages with one or more other 
servers it is decentralized and has no central authority (execpt the cabal 
--there is no cabal) inherent in the process. These servers are told _who_
they get their feed from/to, so it should be possible to set up another 
network of Usenet servers just to serve our purposes.

	As part of setting up the servers, they can be configured as to who
they allow to conenct to them with newsreader software. This means that 
if we were to set up a secondary news network, people who couldn't get a 
reliable feed locally could easily find a server non-locally who would allow
access. 

	In otherwords, you would use your news reader to "read remotely" from
one of many servers. 

	There would be several advantages to this: 

	1) It would be easy to set up different groups for different 
discussions  i.e.:

	cypherpunks.politics 		#politics and social implications.
	cypherpunks.code		#cypherpunks write code. 
	cypherpunks.announce		#non-discussion--"self" moderated
	cypherpunks.flames		#just for fun.

	2) It provides for easy propigation, without the same amount of risks 
(spam &etc.) as a general usenet feed. 

	It would be easier to provide mail2news gateways for anonymous users
as the liability of providing a general usenet mail2news gateway would be
reduced. 

	Disadvantages:
	
	It would require people to actually setup and maintain fairly complex
software on (possibly, I don't know how flexible the software is) dedicated
hardware, altho the necessary hardware would be relatively cheap (in the 
386/486/sun3\/50 range for the probable load).

	It still leaves the problem of people behind firewalls.


	I have a small server that I am willing to add this to, and I am going 
to start looking at INN this evening. I am willing to provide a feed until 
my service provider screams at me (I doubt he will) assuming that I can 
get the software up and running.