Eric Hughes wrote:
Let me review the exact proposal. First, a recognizer is set up at toad.com to distinguish between digitally signed and unsigned messages. Second, some action on the message would be taken, which would gradually increase in effect over time. The first action would be to add a header to the end of the mail identifying it as unsigned. A later action would be to delay the mail at the server for some amount of time. A final action would be to delete or bounce messages that weren't signed.
As "all crypto is economics," the question is "why?" Why delay/bounce messages that don't fit someone's idea of proper usage? Not to trivialize this proposal by frivolously insulting it, but consider a mailing list that decided to delay/bounce any messages that were not written in TeX, or in Acrobat, or whatever. How would people react who lacked these capabilities, or preferred to use alternatives (like simple unadorned text), or who merely object to an enforced standard? If there's a good reason, fine. Or if the "owner" chooses to set arbitrary policies, fine. "My house, my rules" and all that. I don't want to open the pointless debate about who "owns" the list. I'm relatively happy with the way things are: John Gilmore owns the toad machine and lets us use the CPU, etc., Hugh Daniel performs various maintenance actions on toad, and Eric Hughes is the de facto chief operator of the list. But that Eric--or John or Hugh or anyone else--has some notions of what people _ought_ to be using does not seem to be enough to effectively bar those who helped form the Cypherpunks group (many of us) just because they choose to communicate in one particular way. If some flavor of PGP is mandated, I expect I'll unsubscribe (as I can't stand reading but not posting...lurkers obvious feel otherwise). Absent a compelling reason, a market reason, why bother with someone's notion of ideological reasons? If people feel my unsigned messages are ideologically incorrect, they can not read my stuff.
I note that Tim is not objecting to the nature of these effects, but rather their existence, especially since he is not addressing the timing of any ramped up vigor at the server. Just to set the record straight, refusing messages would be at the very least over year away, and certainly wouldn't be taken until crypto mail readers were widely available. For purposes of discussion then, I leave out message deletion and only address the server actions of notification and delay.
I didn't address the timing because it's not the main issue. I agree that a year-long delay would lessen the effects, but it's still unwise to let ideology interfere with communication. (For example, if I ran the list, instead of Eric, perhaps I'd insist that all posts be paid for in digital cash...or bought, or whatever. Lots of folks would be justifiably concerned that my ideology was getting in the way of letting folks communicate as they see fit.) (Like I've said, anyone who doesn't want to read unsigned posts is perfectly free to filter out unsigned messages.)
One underlying premise of Tim's argument is that the presence of these actions at the server makes his life harder.
In what way? The server will not require a digital signature. Unsigned messages will still be sent to the list. There need be no change in the way that one sends and receives mail.
What about the *bounce* plan? If my posts get bounced, that'd qualify as making my life harder. Or so it seems to me.
I refuse the argument that toad.com server actions make anybody's life harder.
I can imagine many such actions that would make many people's lives harder. A requirement to post in TeX, a stipulation that all posts use a certain format, academic rules for footnoting, etc. All of these sorts of "rules" can and do make lives harder. (I'm grappling with specific format requirements for a paper to be published in a French publication. Such format requirements have their advantages, and I don't dispute the right of the French publishers to impose them, but they undisputably make the lives of authors harder.)
I'm not saying that these server actions would have no effect, far from it. The effects are all in the social realm and have far more to do with peer pressure and social position than with technology. Can it be said that being marked as a non-signer makes one's life harder? I think not, perhaps others feel otherwise.
Again, I thought the proposal was to ultimately reject non-signed articles? That's a bit more that merely "being marked as a non-signer." Speaking of this, it's already pretty clear who signs and who doesn't. What could be clearer than "----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE---"? Why is anything further needed? If the proposal is to stamp a scarlet letter on non-signers, it seems overly harsh, somewhat petty, kind of insulting, and not needed. Cypherpunks can clearly see who signs, who doesn't, and can decide what they wish to do with messages. I don't wish to sound angry, as I'm not, really. This is a fascinating issue unto itself, worthy of discussion. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay