From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 00:34:14 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@algebra.com
Subject: Re: Depends / Re: Senate spams
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970227011400.00deefe0@mail.io.com>
Message-ID: <33195684.620C@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Greg Broiles wrote:
> At 07:27 PM 2/28/97 -0800, Toto wrote:

> >  Only asinine, dip-shit numbskulls would be capable of making this
> >idiotic extrapolation.

> Please sketch out the details of this "extrapolation".

  Simple enough. 
  Snow stated:
"given that there are [many some a-few] messages being sent to this list
that
are sent by non-human entities (bots, auto-replies, bounces etc.) is
there
a way to avoid propigating them."
  Which Greg extrapolated to suggest:
"Will you count Raph's remailer statistics as "machine generated" and
exclude them, too?"
  Which I suppose could be taken to yet another level of extrapolation
by asking the question,
"Will you count cc:'d messages as 'machine generated' and exclude them,
too?"
  After which it could be further extrapolated to ask,
"Will you count posts composed on computers as being 'machine generated'
and exclude them, too?"

  Greg, in his typical muddying of the waters, tries to twist the
thoughts
of others around to the extent that, if one followed Greg's logic to its
conclusion, one might believe snow is of the opinion that the "Welcome
to Cypherpunks" message should be deleted because it is auto-generated.
  If this is, indeed, the case, then I would expect snow would explain 
his reasons for thinking thusly.
 
> You cannot talk about spam (using the "inappropriate or off-topic message"
> definition, not the "posted too many times" definition) without talking
> about content.

  Once again, you are self-servingly using the C2nsorship definition of
spam, which is not common to any of the anti-spam forums that I follow.

  Of course content must be taken into consideration, even in the case
of auto-generated messages.
  Auto-generated messages, such as remailer information, can be on-topic
for the list. As far as I am concerned, posts by list subscribers cannot
possibly be off-topic, since it is up to the subscribers to decide what
they consider to be a suitable topic for the list.

> You are also talking about censorship based on content, but you don't seem
> to want to admit it.

  Another misrepresentation on your part.
  All moderation/censorship is based on content. I have always 
maintained, however, that a rational person is capable of looking
at the content, source, and destinations of a post and determining
if it is shotgun-spawned crapola and/or a mailbombing or denial
of service attack.

> >  Anyone who read my post to Igor, suggesting that I would have no
> >problem
> >with him intercepting autobot-replies that result from mailbomb attacks,
> >also knows that I suggested even the empty spam-messages being deleted
> >should be stored where they are open to scrutiny, and that I, for one,
> >would indeed be scrutinizing them.
> 
> Boy, this sounds like a really familiar system .. can't quite remember
> where I've seen it used before ..

  Well, you certainly didn't see it on the CypherPunks list. What was 
seen there was a fascist takeover of the list by a dictator who
relegated
posts he and his employer personally disliked to the flames list.

> There was some guy named Toto who wrote
> to me a few weeks ago,

  Try including specific quotes, Greg, even if they are out-of-context.
 
> >> I don't see anything morally wrong with deliberately altering the flow of
> >> messages to and through the list, but I think it's bad form to pretend not
> >> to be doing that.
> >
> >  Who is doing this, Greg? Name names. Give us an example of who is
> >doing this and pretending not to do it. Why are your claims so vague?
> 
> Because I'm interested in talking about ideas, not people.

  Not just because you were blowing smoke?

> I realize this
> may come as something of a surprise, but there are some circumstances where
> simply calling someone an "idiot" or a "liar" or saying that they've got
> their employers' sperm in their mouth is not a meaningful substitute for
> explaining why you think they're wrong.

  Never let it be said that I am one to let bad taste (pardon the pun)
stand
in the way of a cheap shot.
  And I do explain why I think you are not only wrong, but purposely 
attempting to misrepresent the stances taken by others.

  I will reiterate that I am of the belief that there should always be
a completely unmoderated, uncensored CypherPunks list, and that
additional,
filtered lists, should be merely a conjunction to that list, in the 
interests of spreading information regarding strong crypto in the
widest possible manner.
-- 
Toto
-----------------------------
"The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html