From: Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 02:13:56 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Stronghold
Message-ID: <7b12b2df380aa9e3ba09439e3676b9b1@anon.efga.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com> writes:
> This is revisionist history.  I can't recall any intimation at the
> time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.

There were three lists.  The unfiltered list did not go through the
moderator's hands in any way and continued to received all messages
(which is how unfiltered subscribers found out about the problem).
The filtered list had the posts approved by the moderated.  Then there
was supposed to be a "flames" list where the moderator sent posts he
had rejected.  In theory, the moderated+flames lists should have the
same contents as the unfiltered list.  Here is the original statement
by the moderator laying out his policy:

> 3)  Cypherpunks who wish to read all posts to the list may do so
> by taking advantage of either of two optional lists.  The first
> (cypherpunk-flames@toad.com), will consist solely of messages
> expurgated from the main Cypherpunks list.  (Those who subscribe
> to "flames" will be able to easily monitor my moderating
> decisions.)  The second (cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com), will
> contain all posts sent to Cypherpunks.  It will be the equivalent
> of the current open, unmoderated list.  It will appeal to those
> who don't want list moderation.
> 
> 6)  Because every message submitted to Cypherpunk will be posted 
> to two of the three sister lists, I don't intend to lose much
> sleep over whether or not this or that moderating decision was
> perfect.  I will do the best job I can, within the constraints
> listed here.  If I err, it isn't fatal.  Everyone who wants one
> will have two Cypherpunk venues for their posts.  Sounds fair
> enough to me.  What do you think?

Here is a message from a pseudonymous poster laying out what actually
happened.  Many list members may not have seen this message, unless they
were subscribed to the unfiltered list.

> Well, as it turns out, a number of messages have made it neither to
> cypherpunks nor to cypherpunks-flames.  Making matters worse, however,
> not only are certain messages being suppressed from both lists, but
> even messages mentioning that fact get suppressed from both the
> cypherpunks and the cypherpunks-flames lists!

and here is a letter to him from the moderator, confirming this fact:

> Hi,
> 
> On 7 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:
> 
> > What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the
> > fact that it went to *neither* list.
> 
> Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that.  As soon as I can
> arrange it with John, I am going to stop moderating the list.
> In the interim, I *will not* be sending your post onto either
> the Flames or the Moderated lists.  This is done for legal 
> reason.  As it is, you have already published a libel on the
> unedited list by repeating Dimitri's libel.  This exposes you to
> legal liability, but as an anonymous poster, you are somewhat
> insulated from the consequences of your act.

In sum, no messages were filtered from the unfiltered list, which
is how cypherpunks who avoided moderation learned of the situation.
The messages were eliminated from the regular (moderated) list, but they
were not sent to the "flames" list, contrary to the stated policies.
No hint was given to the subscribers to the moderated list, which was
the majority, that this was being done.  Messages referring to these
facts were also filtered.  A sad episode indeed.