From: IN%"mclow@owl.csusm.edu" "Marshall Clow" 5-FEB-1997 04:04:13.13
At 4:05 PM -0800 2/4/97, aaron@herringn.com wrote:
If I might make a suggestion:
Some people want moderation. That's fine, I've never been very big on letting other people choose what I read, but some people want it.
For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved" header. The responsibility for setting up a filter to toss everything that doesn't have the header is the responsibility of the end user. Toad will need to filter incoming posts to make sure they don't come "pre-approved", but that's the only hole I can think of.
Everyone gets all of the Cypherpunks list. Those who want moderation filter the unapproved posts, those who want all of it get all of it.
Hopefully, this will make (almost) everyone happy.
I like this idea. However, I would suggest an additional refinement: Implement a cypherpunks-moderated list which is all the 'approved' messages. This way, people who wish to have the benefits of a filtered list are happy, people who wish to have posts rated for them (but be able to check on the "rater") are happy, and people who wish to see every message are happy.
(I know that John has concerns about toad's mail capacity, and this may be too big a load)
Lance's offer for informix to host the unmoderated version of the list may be of assistance here.
ObCrypto policy: Was anyone else besides me amazed by the guy from Deloitte-Touche at the Internet Privacy Coalition luncheon last week? I mean, he all but advocated violent overthrow of the government. D-T is the most "establishment" of the big-6 accounting firms, last time that I looked.
What all did he have to say? -Allen