On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 12:21:21AM -0800, Sarad AV wrote:

I prefer not getting flamed like every one else and that too in quick succesion :-). so my guess is that as far as newbies are concerned all the discussions are taken private.

This is why the cpunks list has very little new subscribers... most newbies who post questions get flamed. Usually by Tim who sears them for not having read some post from 1992 or for bringing up a topic that was discussed in 1996. Perhaps if the archives were complete, well organized and easy to find it would be appropriate to politely tell newbies to read the FAQ. But they're not. It's also not a complete waste of time to discuss topics that have been discussed previously... some new information may come from the discussion. Someone who is not interested can just skip those posts. If the list is restricted to discusing topics that are only of interest to Tim (or any long-time member, Tim's not the only one) then only a few people will even be able to follow the discusssion, let alone participate. Tim, before you reply, I suggest that you look back through the last year or so's worth of your cpunks posts to see how many are the thoughtful incisive kind vs a barage of insults or complaints that the poster you are replying to is an idiot. A related problem is the tendency for a number of posters to turn every thread into an intellectual dicksizewar. It's gotten to the point where I don't post much, and I've been _working_ in security for the 8 years (and on Usenet, where the dicksizewar was invented, for 15). I can only imagine what it's like for new people. Only the most stubborn will stay. The list is selecting for obstinance. On a related note, I do see the addresses of people who unsubscribe, and they are often addresses that recently subscribed. Other people have made the point that mailing lists are "old tech" and I agree. I don't like the new replacements (blogs, web boards) as much as lists, but perhaps that's because of what I used first. Kids these days don't know how to use shell shortcuts either. BTW, there's about 415 list members. LNE doesn't censor, we do block networks that we've gotten spam from. Currently we block about 12,000 spams a week and receive another 1500 or so. We're still on dial-up (Verizon rural phone service sucks). Allowing those 12,000 spams through to process them would make our 43k line unuseable. Hence the blocking. I explained this to John in private email, and also explained how to get unblocked by following a link in the bounce message. He's refused to do this, prefering to claim that I'm "censoring" him. Whatever. The CIA agent reading over my shoulder says that John's way too paranoid. I realize that my spam solution is non-optimal but its the best I can come up with at the moment. I'm getting tired of running the list. As it is now it doesn't provide much value and I could use my time for something else. Could someone please set up another node? I'll send you all my scripts etc. But I won't maintain it on a machine you provide, you'll have to do it. Maybe some of our list members from the government would like to step forward with some homeland security $$. :-) Eric

On Dec 8, 2003, at 12:21 AM, Sarad AV wrote:

I have friends who will help me with my queries. I prefer not getting flamed like every one else and that too in quick succesion :-). so my guess is that as far as newbies are concerned all the discussions are taken private.

No, I think few topics on the Cypherpunks list are taken private. I've had several people write to me in private, asking questions about things that came up on the list. Sometimes I reply, but usually I urge them to "stop lurking and post on the list!" My reasons are two-fold: First, to get them to stop lurking and participate. Second, to work up the energy to compose an essay (or mini-essay, whatever), I need some motivation. I am not energetic about writing a long response to some stranger who asks me a question in private. If he posts publically, I may (or may not...) decide to use his post as a jumping-off point for something that I think needs to be said. As for you, I have dumped on you because most of your posts to the list look a lot like you are asking for help on a homework problem or have just semi-randomly pulled an example out of a crypto or algebra book and have decided to "participate" in the list by asking if anyone knows the answer to some puzzle. "hi, Table shown is completed to define 'associative' binary operation * on S={a,b,c,d}. ... So can (a*d)*d=a*(d*d)=d considered as associative over * for this case as per definition?" and "hi, If we are to convert a k-bit integer n to a base b number,it takes us O(log n) if the base b is a power ... Is there an algorithm with time complexity O(log n) which allows such conversion to base b ,when b is not a power of 2?" are just two of your more recent examples. Now if you had told us you were implementing a crypto system for use in India (where I think you are from...), and had run into a tough problem, these might be interesting for people to comment on. But they sure do look like homework problems. A more fruitful sort of post might be for you to discuss the general crypto situation in India, the telecom infrastructure, and Indian government attitudes. Or, if these topics don't interest you, your thoughts on implementing DC Nets, or using digital money, or whatever. But to post snippets of problems out of textbooks is NOT participation in the topics of the list. Think about it. I wish you no ill-will, but you should find ways to participate which suggest you are actually reading what others are saying and giving your own views or responses to them. --Tim May "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked ...A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system." -- Grady Booch