Greg Broiles allegedly said:
At 09:04 AM 2/13/97 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
This is where the distributed nature of the list comes in.
if someone disagrees with Jim's AUP, he or she can use soem other mailing list host.
Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this is the case.
Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect?
Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator?
Both realistically and idealistically speaking, the peer relationships should be up to each list operator. And, once again, both realistically and idealistically speaking, each list operator should set their own policies. The beauty of this scheme is that it gives maximum freedom to both the list operators *and* the list members -- if a list operator wants to filter out clever asci art, they can, and contrariwise, if the list members want to change list operators as a result, they can. In fact, I don't see why moderated versions of the list couldn't happily coexist as part of the distributed list. Let those flowers bloom! BTW, I am planning on an upgrade to majordomo 1.94.1 this weekend, and I will be setting up cypherpunks@songbird.com at that time. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F