Because of the large volume of bandwidth eaten by the lists, he does not want to maintain both the "flame" and "unedited" versions of the list. If list members decide to continue to have the list moderated, one of those lists will probably have to go.
You could maintain all options *and* still strictly reduce traffic on toad.com by encoding the moderator's decision in a header line. Then letting people subscribe to one of cypherpunks@toad.com or cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com. The first could forward only messages somehow approved, and the other would forward *all* messages, *with the decision shown in the headers*. Those of us who want to use the moderator's decisions as only advisory or who want to monitor the moderation process can subscribe to the full list and use the header in whatever manner we want. If the decision is available as a message header in the full list, there is no need for the "flames" list. The drawback is that the full list is now delayed by the moderation process (for the very few here who still seem to read in real time.) Keeping two versions of the list one delayed and one not delayed is not so good anyway because it makes it harder to use the decision as "advisory". Advantages of moderation headers: a) A more general solution, maybe later letting more than one moderation group step in (should we ever manage to muster that much manpower) maybe even letting people filter (on their own machine) on the basis of several moderator's decisions. At any rate, leaving space for any option we may want later. Initially, subscribing to moderated and flame is equivalent to a header solution. For that matter, it *is* a header solution. b) Strictly reduced traffic on toad.com by keeping some on the full list, and others on the reduced list. No need to ever subscribe to any two lists as the full list would show the moderators' decision(s). c) Keeps the two versions of the list more in sync (same delay), making it painless to switch from one version to the other at any time. 'more reading time' vs 'less volume'. d) If the moderators are into that level of dedication and software complication, they *could* now detail their decision: 'grumph, ok', 'mostly drivel', 'drivel', 'utter drivel', etc... ;-) Otherwise, I fully agree that if some are willing to help filter, I would like to be able to use their review (and I would provide reviews myself now and then), Pierre. pierre@rahul.net