From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 22:42:03 -0800 (PST)
To: gbroiles@netbox.com
Subject: Re: Dissolving Choke Points
Message-ID: <01IF016KB5609AN1BM@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"gbroiles@netbox.com"  "Greg Broiles"  4-FEB-1997 01:26:13.34

>(I'm working on a message re moderation and the list which will better
>explain what I think about that - but I'm not trying to argue, above, that
>we *must* have moderation for a long time - simply that it's too early to
>call it a failure for failing to significantly increase the number of
>useful messages.) 

	I'll be interested in that message. I have problems with the
takeover of the original list name, personally. While it is certainly
John Gilmore's right to do whatever he wants with the mailing list
software/hardware (I believe we've settled that, right?), I'd prefer
for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored
list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I
simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way. For instance,
if John was getting an email overload for toad.com and was trying
to indirectly reduce the load via reducing responses to flames, there
are other ways to solve the problem - such as the distributed mailing
list idea. I do think that Sandy's filtered list could provide a
valuable service - most of the other filtered lists seem to filter
out a bit too much, judging by the "cc any replies to this message
directly to me, I'm on the [insert name of filtered list]" messages I
see. If the list switches to cypherpunks and cypherpunks-edited, I
might go with cypherpunks-edited (or with some combo of cypherpunks-edited
and cypherpunks-flames, the latter more filtered by procmail). My
objection is mainly due to the principle of the thing.)
	Incidentally, I checked the cyberpass.net services, and it
does list mailing lists - including a 10$ per month charge per
100 subscribers. At that rate, I can afford about 100 subscribers
on a local distributed list, given the 10% discount. (Depending
on how it goes, I might be able to afford more... I haven't looked
at my personal finances in detail recently.)

>I think you misspelled "Usenet". Hope this helps. 

>Seriously, if you want a distributed no-choke-points "flooding" message
>distribution system, you're talking about Usenet. Robust software exists
>for clients and servers, and it's already supported worldwide on many
>operating systems. No need to write more software to graft that
>functionality onto E-mail. If the list is going to turn into Usenet (we've
>already got most of Usenet's better kooks), we might as well just move the
>damn thing over to alt.cypherpunks and be done with it. (Anyone care to
>guess who founded alt.* as a way to route around censorship?)

	I'd point out that we _know_ every list member can get email,
but not that they can get Usenet. I can't conveniently get it, for
instance - I'd have to read it via HTTP and respond via email to
a news-to-mail server. Sure, I can get an account at infonex or
wherever and pick up the news groups there... but I'd prefer not
to be forced to, and I suspect the same is true of many people.

>(Of course, Usenet is a technical success and a spectacular failure,
>content-wise. So opponents of moderation will be forgiven for failing to
>mention this sparkling example of an unmoderated, anything-goes forum for
>discussion.)

	Usenet also has easy crossposting, has been discovered by
just about every spam artist known to humankind, and doesn't have
very good filtering software (IMO, the last time I checked). Limited
propagation, especially for a new alt group, especially for a _controversial_
alt group, is also a problem.
	Sure, Usenet has its advantages. (Under allens@earlham.edu and
allens@yang.earlham.edu, I was the second or third highest poster on it
for a few weeks a few years back. I'm familiar with Usenet.) But it also
has its problems.
	-Allen