On Sat, 27 Nov 1993, Jim choate wrote:
If this is truly a private list then you need to put more effort into being
clear that this is a indivudualy supported mail-list and is not officialy associated w/ CypherPunks. I would offer the following protocol:
"Officially" associated with Cypherpunks? I don't know about where you are but in most places in this country there is no "Official Cypherpunks Organization." This LIST is the original basis of the Cypherpunks. From there, some people who have other interested parties in their locales have gone on to form local groups. This isn't like the Extropians who have the Extropy Institute officially behind them.
1. User sends mail w/ 'subscribe' in the body.
2. The mailer responds w/ a numbered header.
3. The user is requied to copy the message from #2 completely and to append
'agree'.
4. The user is then added to the list.
Why bother?
While it is true that some of you may see this as trivial but if you really
want to keep CypherPunks an open forum and this list private (ensuring that
they are seen as seperate entities) it is critical that this is made at eve ry oppportunity.
What is the "CypherPunks" you are refering to if not this list? All mailing lists are, by the very nature, semi-private forums. You have to ask to get on them. If someone is disruptive, I see no reason they should not be asked to leave. Of course, the idiot in question isn't even on the list anymore. If you aren't the list, the list shouldn't accept your postings and mail them to members. I see no reason why non-members of the list should be able to mailbomb us all by sending to the list address.
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(* ) | Al Billings aka Grendel Grettisson | "You are, each one, a priest, | | mimir@u.washington.edu | Just for yourself." | | Sysop of The Sacred Grove (206)322-5450 | | | Admin for Troth-L, The Asatru E-Mail List | -Noble Drew Ali- | (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(* )
So what you are saying is that the group which recently formed here in Austin as the Austin chapter of the CypherPunks is in actuallity a fraud? If this is so then I would agree w/ you that there is no 'official' CypherPunks organization (course the existance of this list and the various user groups make a very strong oppositional argument to this position). But, if the local CypherPunk group is to be considered a serious entity w/ any kid of change in effecting legislation and public sentiment (closely related wouldn't you agree?) then some form of officialdom better be created quickly. Even if the individual groups are to have any effect on local politics then they have to band together and choose some commen forums and planks of discussion. Then again, perhaps I am mis-informed about the nature of the CypherPunks. It was my understanding they were here to help protect and guide users of cyberspace and provide some sense of security on an individual level. The presentation of the group in the electronic and print media has been one which fostered a sense of uniformity and cohesion among the various groups and individuals. I am shure I am not the only follower of the crypto scene who is new to c-punks and a little confused (a very bad thing for newbies to any kind of movement to be) about what is going on and why. You seem to miss the entire point that I am making. It is not that what you are doing is wrong or incorrect, it is simply that the reality is different from the actuality and I am simply saying that there has been very little effort to fix that. The reason to bother w/ a procedure (not necessarily the one I offered) is to make shure that eveyone is informed and knows what to expect as well as what is expected of them. To be taken seriously this has to be done as a primary goal. If you have no intention of 'doing' anything (writing code, writing letters to politicians, etc.) then by all means the structure(less) you have now is sufficient. However, there are people interested in this topic that both expect more and want to give more. These people will be put off by such handling. I agree with your position on the list PROVIDED that the subscriber is told that UP FRONT (which is not the case now). All I am saying is whatever method you choose to handle the list is fine as long as ALL NEW SUBSCRIBERS are advised of the situation. You can not assume that a user knows what is going on simply because they can manage to subscribe to it. Just be fair is what I am saying.