-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -> To: hughes@ah.com (Eric Hughes) From: plaz@netcom.com (Geoff Dale) Subject: Re: Banning any subscriber I said:
I personally disagree with censorship. It would be impossible to enforce anyway. A move of this type would simply drive Detweiler to use the Cypherpunk remailers which would be harder to detect. Then what do we do? Stop accepting mail from our own remailers?
Eric replied:
Basically, yes, except for signed letters from previously authenticated pseudonyms. This is a simple form of a positive reputation system. A kill fill is a negative reputation--'not that person'. A positive reputation rejects all but a particular set of identities.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you wanted to erect a barrier against anonymous newbies, such as "wonderer" and "Dark Unicorn" were recently. You know, Detweiler might get a new account under a new name, better seal the list to only postings from "previously authenticated" accounts too. Then we'd be all happy and safe from the dreaded Detweiler. <- Why am I always an example? :( What needs to be addressed, is what this list is. Is it private in the sense that we exclude anyone? Are we in a position to regulate disruptive posters? Frankly, LD's posts simply take a lot of space and time. I could care less if LD is a reputable person. Just so long as he is not disruptive. Frankly, he could be a moron (yes yes, I know...) and I still wouldn't mind because correcting his mistakes is part of what this group is all about (to me anyhow). We were all newbies once, even if it was before this list was around. That says to me that if we want to promote cryptographically literate users with this group, we simply cannot exclude. Even a bloody twelve year old might be obnoxious at first, but who knows what we might spur into him/her? Could it not be that we might foster a loyal supporter of cryptography in this twelve year old? At the same time, we must deal with disruptive elements. LD isn't posting for any real constructive purpose. Even he knows it. Perhaps he is having fun, but it is at our expense. Fine. 1> Ignore it (this never works, as we are proving even now) 2> Address it (this just encourages him) 3> Remove it. (ethical questions abound). If the problem is to prevent disruption without excluding it seems to me that you have to use a negative reputation system. A system that gives everyone a chance, without disrupting unduly. Why not a probatory check? Every member of the list is given the chance to contribute constructively, newbie or not. If and when our example newbie user gets out of hand, his/her messages are to be moderated. This cuts down on the man power required to moderate the entire list and still gives newbie user the opportunity to reform. I'm not sure if we can find a willing moderator, but it seems to be a system that would cut down dramatically the LD type problems. Frankly, the traffic on this list is excessively high. (I'm as guilty as anyone I'm afraid.) I can deal with high and valuable traffic, not high and disruptive traffic. Eric -> Authentication, in this context, can take many forms. It could be as simple as sending a key to the mailing list server. It could be developed to require someone to vouch for the pseudonym. It could require a sponsor who would read and repost until a separate reputation develops. The point is to put a bound on the noise from disrupters both inadvertent and intentional, not to completely prevent noise. <- I agree, but prior authentication is a little excessive no? - -uni- (Dark) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3 iQCVAgUBLPqJcxibHbaiMfO5AQEyFQP9FEypBg25aPS/RPZTfaChsORrRrApgcKc L0DUoYkaySZFIemI6a/vtNbN6jnSlJ/0MY50Z9PnFNhnTX2MsvPK9eibSkpQdMrt hC53ZnTn9NbW9p6gMrfWEKFuTCPg92KEa3CXDOhZznI4LBBMoj7FCUkes+eT6cyp p//99+WPW1g= =1xby -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----