Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
At 10:49 PM 1/10/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote:
Yes. Igor's STUMP software seems like the way to go. The vast majority of posters to this list are not a problem. Discussions amongst them may get heated, but they have basic human decency and never even come close to the level of abuse and bigotry we have seen from Vulis, aga, et al.
I think that the move to human moderation is a good thing, and am pleased that Sandy will shortly begin to act as moderator. However, I think that forming lists of "approved people" and "unapproved people" and treating them differently is likely to do more harm than good, even if we have nice software which does it very efficiently. I don't like it for several reasons: 1. Political. It's symbolically disturbing, and it tends to shift the focus of the group (and of the moderation process) away from messages, and towards the people who post them. I think it'd be tempting to turn it into some sort of bureaucratic system, with punishments (being on the bad list) and rewards and status changes and written warnings and all of the other features which frequently bring out the worst in people. I suspect that agreeing on "the 10 people who are clearly a problem" will turn out to be as difficult as finding any 10 things that cypherpunks can agree on, and then we've got to decide who decides who's a problem, and then we've got to decide how we decide things, and argue about whether or not John Gilmore is a good person, and [...] 2. Technical. It requires that the people on the "good list" authenticate their messages (otherwise people will post with the names of "good people" to avoid moderation), which imports a lot of hassle with different platforms and signing and certification and key distribution and [...] which we don't have good solutions for yet. 3. Conceptual. It's a complex problem technically and politically, which means that it's difficult to understand or debug, and it's got a lot of points of failure. In general, complex solutions (which require many people to install and learn new software) are difficult to implement, take longer than anticipated, and are frequently avoided by the people they're supposedly helping. (See, e.g., RISKS Digest; both for how a human-moderated list can work nicely, and for examples of how complex technical solutions to problems often create more or worse problems than they solve.) I think that the human moderator solution suffers less from these problems; in general, it's a well-tested solution to the "what about off-topic assholes?" problem. It's not perfect, but it does work, more or less; it's easy to understand, easy to implement, and requires no software changes on the users' end. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |
I think that the move to human moderation is a good thing, and am pleased that Sandy will shortly begin to act as moderator.
Last night's barrage of SPAM convinced me that this is a really good thing.
However, I think that forming lists of "approved people" and "unapproved people" and treating them differently is likely to do more harm than good, even if we have nice software which does it very efficiently. I don't like it for several reasons:
Why jump to conclusions about the moderator's behavior? Lets give the new moderators a chance - PLEASE!!! I think our new moderators have been around long enough to know what's appropriate and what's not. I for one am getting really tired of seeing so many off topic messages (not necessary SPAM) on here. I have been tempted to unsubscribe a couple of times, but I haven't because I don't want to miss information on the DES/RC5 Challenge and other important info. I have been on well moderated lists, as well as had to ask a friend of mine who was on a closed list to forward postings to me (I couldn't get on the approved list because I hadn't sent them $20).
1. Political. It's symbolically disturbing, and it tends to shift the focus of the group (and of the moderation process) away from messages, and towards the people who post them. I think it'd be tempting to turn it into some sort of bureaucratic system, with punishments (being on the bad list)
In the case of this one closed list that I know of, I'd agree with you, but I'd argue that this isn't generaly true. Let me ask you this: How many of the messages posted to this list have you actualy read/found useful? I personaly don't find more than perhaps 5% useful.
2. Technical. It requires that the people on the "good list" authenticate their messages (otherwise people will post with the names of "good people" to avoid moderation), which imports a lot of hassle with different platforms and signing and certification and key distribution and [...] which we don't have good solutions for yet.
I sort of see your point, but I don't think we have to go that far. A moderator's main function is one of keeping the discussions on track (Ie. SPAM selling Metamucil doesn't qualify). Authentication goes a little beyond that. I think forcing authentication will really turn this into a political problem. Good luck Sandy and other moderator! Bernie
Bernie Doehner <bad@uhf.wireless.net> writes: This is the jerk responsible for the mail loop last Xmas, which the Armenian liar Ray Arachelian tried to blame on me.
However, I think that forming lists of "approved people" and "unapproved people" and treating them differently is likely to do more harm than good, even if we have nice software which does it very efficiently. I don't like it for several reasons:
Why jump to conclusions about the moderator's behavior? Lets give the new moderators a chance - PLEASE!!!
That's what the German industrialists kept telling Hinderburg. "Lets (sic) give Adolf Hitlet a chance - PLEASE!!!'
I think our new moderators have been around long enough to know what's appropriate and what's not.
Hitler wrote _Mein Kampf in 1926 and came to power in 1933.
Good luck Sandy and other moderator!
--- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Greg Broiles wrote:
At 10:49 PM 1/10/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote:
Yes. Igor's STUMP software seems like the way to go. The vast majority of posters to this list are not a problem. Discussions amongst them may get heated, but they have basic human decency and never even come close to the level of abuse and bigotry we have seen from Vulis, aga, et al.
I think that the move to human moderation is a good thing, and am pleased that Sandy will shortly begin to act as moderator.
However, I think that forming lists of "approved people" and "unapproved people" and treating them differently is likely to do more harm than good, even if we have nice software which does it very efficiently. I don't like it for several reasons:
1. Political. It's symbolically disturbing, and it tends to shift the focus of the group (and of the moderation process) away from messages, and towards the people who post them. I think it'd be tempting to turn it into some sort of bureaucratic system, with punishments (being on the bad list) and rewards and status changes and written warnings and all of the other features which frequently bring out the worst in people. I suspect that agreeing on "the 10 people who are clearly a problem" will turn out to be as difficult as finding any 10 things that cypherpunks can agree on, and then we've got to decide who decides who's a problem, and then we've got to decide how we decide things, and argue about whether or not John Gilmore is a good person, and [...]
2. Technical. It requires that the people on the "good list" authenticate their messages (otherwise people will post with the names of "good people" to avoid moderation), which imports a lot of hassle with different platforms and signing and certification and key distribution and [...] which we don't have good solutions for yet.
3. Conceptual. It's a complex problem technically and politically, which means that it's difficult to understand or debug, and it's got a lot of points of failure. In general, complex solutions (which require many people to install and learn new software) are difficult to implement, take longer than anticipated, and are frequently avoided by the people they're supposedly helping. (See, e.g., RISKS Digest; both for how a human-moderated list can work nicely, and for examples of how complex technical solutions to problems often create more or worse problems than they solve.)
I think that the human moderator solution suffers less from these problems; in general, it's a well-tested solution to the "what about off-topic assholes?" problem. It's not perfect, but it does work, more or less; it's easy to understand, easy to implement, and requires no software changes on the users' end.
Greg brings up a number of very good points. A small correction: robomod does not necessarily require authentication of posters from the preapproved list. It is merely an option that can be turned on and off. We should all understand that forgeries in the names of preapproved people are only a SYMPTOM of a problem, not a problem in and of itself. The true problem in such case would be that the forgers feel that they are treated unfairly by moderators. Such people may think that the purpose of moderation is to get rid of their persons altogether. Therefore, if moderators face a problem of forgeries and perceive a need to turn this authentication option on, they should step back and this what THEY did wrong. Did they give the forgers an impression that moderators want to silence them? Do they treat everyone, including the former "problem" people, fairly and equally? I have a suggestion, actually. I can rewrite STUMP in such a way that when moderators receive messages for moderation, they would not see any header information indicating who wrote the message (this information would be in the packet that arrives to them, but it would be encrypted with Internal Traffic Key). This way, a moderator would not know if the message is, say, from Tim May or from Dr. Vulis, and would make their decisions (including decisions to preapprove) based solely on the message contents. That may give some way towards fairness. Greg mentions several important and real dissadvantages of preapproved lists, but the huge advantage that they give is a reduction in costs of human moderation. Namely, human moderators do not have to work as hard, and the latency (thanks, Rich!) of most posts is dramatically reduced. DISADVANTAGES (Greg): 1) creates two "classes" of posters 2) somewhat arbitrary 3) possible forgeries require authentication and that's a pain ADVANTAGES: 1) reduces moderators' effort 2) reduces latency 3) depends on how you look at it -- required authentication may be "good". 4) for people like Eric Murray, who post on-topic articles, the list becomes essentially unmoderated, as it used to be. Note that another important feature of STUMP that we seem to overlook was designed specifically to address the problems of preapproved lists. This feature is the presence of "bad words list". This is a set of regular expressions, stored in a file, such that if incoming messages match these expressions, they would be considered "suspicious" even if they purport to be "From: " preapproved persons. That goes a long way towards security and fairness because now nobody (including, say, Paul Bradley along with Dr. Vulis or myself) would be able to call someone else "cocksucker" without review by human moderators. *If* moderators are fair, that would ensure that people are treated equally even if some of them are preapproved and some are not. - Igor.
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
when moderators receive messages for moderation, they would not see any header information indicating who wrote the message (this information would be in the packet that arrives to them, but it would be encrypted with Internal Traffic Key). This way, a moderator would not know if the message is, say, from Tim May or from Dr. Vulis, and would make their decisions (including decisions to preapprove) based solely on the message contents. That may give some way towards fairness.
If the content says: "Dr. Vulis is a crazy Russian Jew, don't tell him what a petard is, and fuck the colored race", then the origin is pretty obvious.
Note that another important feature of STUMP that we seem to overlook was designed specifically to address the problems of preapproved lists. This feature is the presence of "bad words list". This is a set of regular expressions, stored in a file, such that if incoming messages match these expressions, they would be considered "suspicious" even if they purport to be "From: " preapproved persons. That goes a long way towards security and fairness because now nobody (including, say, Paul Bradley along with Dr. Vulis or myself) would be able to call someone else "cocksucker" without review by human moderators.
But Plucky green would be able to call people "vermin", and "crazy Russian" just like Igor is able to call his enemies "eunichs". ObModeratorFodder: John Gilmore is a lying cocksucker. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Note that another important feature of STUMP that we seem to overlook was designed specifically to address the problems of preapproved lists. This feature is the presence of "bad words list".
As a person with Tourette Syndrome, I find this to be discriminatory against me. As a hockey player, I find it double-discriminatory. As a dirty-mouthed scumbag, I find it triple-discriminatory. Toto
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Note that another important feature of STUMP that we seem to overlook was designed specifically to address the problems of preapproved lists. This feature is the presence of "bad words list".
As a person with Tourette Syndrome, I find this to be discriminatory against me.
Then go baassholeck and edit your posts before you sendcuntthem.
As a hockey player, I find it double-discriminatory.
That is a personal problem. You should talk to a professional about that.
As a dirty-mouthed scumbag, I find it triple-discriminatory.
If you _can't_ say it without using words on the dirty list, then you probably use velco straps on your shoes because the laces confuse you when you start to tie them...
Greg Broiles wrote:
At 10:49 PM 1/10/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote:
I think that the human moderator solution suffers less from these problems; in general, it's a well-tested solution to the "what about off-topic assholes?" problem. It's not perfect, but it does work, more or less; it's easy to understand, easy to implement, and requires no software changes on the users' end.
Yeah, Greg, we all hate those pesky asshole-types. But what do you do, Greg, when the *moderator* is the pesky asshole-type? Bend over, huh?
Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
Greg Broiles wrote:
At 10:49 PM 1/10/97 -0800, Lucky Green wrote:
I think that the human moderator solution suffers less from these problems; in general, it's a well-tested solution to the "what about off-topic assholes?" problem. It's not perfect, but it does work, more or less; it's easy to understand, easy to implement, and requires no software changes on the users' end.
Yeah, Greg, we all hate those pesky asshole-types. But what do you do, Greg, when the *moderator* is the pesky asshole-type? Bend over, huh?
I dug up a few Sandy e-mails from my archives. Does the prospective moderator's propensity to describe his enemies' words as "logical fallacy" and "illogical claptrap" remind you of one paranoid anonymous control freak who used to spell his stupid nym in lowercase and then flamed me when I quoted it verbatim? ============================================================================ ]From sandfort@crl.com Wed Sep 18 11:09:58 1996 ]Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) ] via UUCP; Wed, 18 Sep 96 20:39:18 EDT ] for dlv ]Received: from crl14.crl.com by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA15749 ] (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>); Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:10:29 -0700 ]Received: by crl14.crl.com id AA10349 ] (5.65c/IDA-1.5); Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:04:08 -0700 ]Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 08:04:07 -0700 (PDT) ]From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> ]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> ]Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com ]Subject: Re: A Bizarre Increase in the Ad Hominems Here ]In-Reply-To: <TZ0FuD105w165w@bwalk.dm.com> ]Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960918075839.10102D-100000@crl14.crl.com> ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ] ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ] SANDY SANDFORT ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ]C'punks, ] ]Like Tim, I'm a little surprised at all the stupid name calling ]on the list lately. ] ]On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: ] ]> I don't think Timmy believes his own lies. ] ]Again, I don't believe Tim lies, the good doctor's assertions to ]the contrary not withstanding. ] ]> Is Timmy gay? ] ]You should have seen the babe Tim was with at my party. Where ]do folks come up with this nonsense? ] ]> Timmy is known as a nutcase and a liar - if he keeps up his ]> "character assassination" attacks, the only reputation he hurts ]> is his own. ] ]Yeah, that's the way reputation works, but the gun is definitely ]pointed in the other direction. ] ] ] S a n d y ] ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ] ] ] ============================================================================ ]From sandfort@crl.com Fri Sep 20 20:39:49 1996 ]Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) ] via UUCP; Fri, 20 Sep 96 21:01:24 EDT ] for dlv ]Received: from crl.crl.com (crl.com) by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA27356 ] (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>); Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:40:14 -0700 ]Received: by crl.crl.com id AA20262 ] (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>); Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:33:03 -0700 ]Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:33:02 -0700 (PDT) ]From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> ]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> ]Subject: Re: Dimitri Spams ]In-Reply-To: <VDNkuD2w165w@bwalk.dm.com> ]Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960920173112.19403E-100000@crl.crl.com> ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ] ] ] ]On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: ] ]> Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes: ]> ]> > Dimitri, get a life! We need Dimitri Spams as much as we needed ]> > Perrygrams. Which is to say, we need them not at all! ]> ]> I see you lied when you claimed to have killfiled me. ] ]Logical falacy. He could have killfiled you and then reinstated ]you. In the alternative, someone could have sent him a copy of ]your post. All in all, no proof of a lie. Grow up. ============================================================================ ]From sandfort@crl.com Sat Sep 21 22:54:46 1996 ]Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) ] via UUCP; Sun, 22 Sep 96 00:41:18 EDT ] for dlv ]Received: from crl5.crl.com by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA10214 ] (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>); Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:55:01 -0700 ]Received: by crl5.crl.com id AA05873 ] (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>); Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:42:26 -0700 ]Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:42:25 -0700 (PDT) ]From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> ]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> ]Subject: Re: Timmy May's spam (Was: Re: CIA hacked) ]In-Reply-To: <HsumuD8w165w@bwalk.dm.com> ]Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960921193900.5771C-100000@crl5.crl.com> ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ] ]Please stop spamming the list. You can air your complaints, real ]or imaginary, against Tim or others without dumping tons of spam ]into everyone's lap. I'm sure there would be much more sympathy ]to your situation if you did not exacerbate the situation. ] ]Regards, ] ] S a n d y ] ]On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: ] ]> Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: ]> > ]> > Dimitri Vulis <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> writes: ]> > > > [email reply protesting spam] ]> > > ]> > > You are confused. The above question was e-mailed to me by one of ]> > > Timmy May's friends. ]> > ]> > What you were doing was confusing... how about attributing what people ]> > have said to you, in the standard way? I was unsure what was going on ]> > until you clarified here. Instead of including all the headers in ]> > there with just a space between your headers and the quoted headers ]> > (which makes it hard to follow, and makes one wonder if someone is ]> > trying a crude forgery), use standard quoting conventions: ]> > ]> > Joe Blogss <joe@bloggs.com> writes in private email: ]> > > [quoted message body]... ]> > ]> > or similar? ]> ]> You're right - the forwarding mechanism I've been using so far just yanks in ]> the spam e-mail without any processing. I will henceforth ]> 1) Put the words 'Tim', 'May', and 'spam' in the subject line ]> 2) Put some obvious ASCII prefix in front of the quotes. ]> I apologize for any confusion. ]> ]> > > If you have any comments about Timmy May's friends not knowing ]> > > English, trying to insult people, and posting non-crypto-relevant ]> > > political rants, address them to Timmy May and his friends. ]> > ]> > It would seem to me that the first insults were thrown by yourself, ]> > and that your strange habit of bouncing all the fallout to the list is ]> > perpetuating the problem. ]> ]> No. Let me remind you the sequence of events, in chronological order: ]> ]> 1. Timmy May (who picked up a few popular PKC buzzwords, doesn't know ]> anything about crypto, and isn't interested in learning) started spamming ]> this mailing list with political rants ]> ]> 2. Most people who used to discuss crypto work on this mailing list ]> have unsubscribed. ]> ]> 3. I pointed out a few examples of Tim making factually bogus claims in ]> his rants. ]> ]> 4. Tim got very angry at me and started flaming me. I ignored him. ]> ]> 5. Tim posted a series of rants about me, attributing to me various ]> nonsense I never said. I pointed out once that I never said it and ]> then ignored him. ]> ]> 6. Recently it came to my attention that Tim's been contacting off-list ]> various people in the computer security field and "complaining" about ]> the politically incorrect things that I supposedly say on the Internet ]> - except that he made up most of the "things" he complained about. ]> ]> 7. At this point I pointed out quite publicly that he's a liar. ]> ]> 8. Since that time, several friends of Tim May (or maybe Tim himself, ]> using multiple accounts) have been sending me harrassing e-mail, often ]> by quoting my own cypherpunks articles and adding an obscenity. ]> ]> 9. Tim himself continues flaming me and telling lies about me (see his ]> recent rant with the subject "death threats"). ]> ]> And you see, Timmy May is an obsessive liar and a vindictive nutcase. ]> ]> > If reporting to the list is accurate, I hear you have a PhD with a ]> > subject related to crypto, so presumably you would have ample ]> > knowledge to contribute technical crypto related thoughts. I'm sure ]> > people would be interested in anything along those lines you cared to ]> > contribute, and your reputation would benefit, ]> ]> I still hope to be able discuss crypto on this mailing list (yes, my Ph.D. ]> thesis was about crypto), but I see two problems: ]> ]> 1. A lot of people have already left this list, unwilling to be subjected ]> to Tim May's rants, lies, and personal attacks. If I post something crypto- ]> relevant to this mailing list, they won't see it. ]> ]> 2. Here's an example of the net-abuse being perpetrated by Tim May and his ]> merry gang of mailbombers. I posted some crypto-relevant wire clippings ]> to this mailing list. Either Tim (using an alternate account) or some pal ]> of his e-mailed it back to me with an obscenity appended. ]> ]> ]From adamsc@io-online.com Thu Sep 19 00:00:57 1996 ]<large quoted mailbomb skipped> ============================================================================ ]From sandfort@crl.com Mon Sep 23 23:10:07 1996 ]Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) ] via UUCP; Mon, 23 Sep 96 23:26:32 EDT ] for dlv ]Received: from crl2.crl.com by mail.crl.com with SMTP id AA22789 ] (5.65c/IDA-1.5 for <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>); Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:10:18 -0700 ]Received: by crl2.crl.com id AA15701 ] (5.65c/IDA-1.5); Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:08:20 -0700 ]Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 20:08:19 -0700 (PDT) ]From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> ]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> ]Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com ]Subject: Re: AP [was: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet] [NOISE] ]In-Reply-To: <6XJquD10w165w@bwalk.dm.com> ]Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960923194435.15255A-100000@crl2.crl.com> ]Mime-Version: 1.0 ]Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ] ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ] SANDY SANDFORT ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ]C'punks, ] ]On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: ] ]> There is no such thing as an "ordinary citizen". When the U.S. commits ]> war crimes in Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere, ]> every American taxpayer is an accomplice and a fair game. ] ]Illogical collectivist claptrap. When a taxpayer is targeted by ]terrorists, he has been victimized twice--first by the government ]that stole his money, second by the terrorist that punished him ]for the (alleged) acts others commited with that money. If a ]mugger buys a gun with the money he took from me, am I then ]responsible for the murder he commits with it? Clearly not. ]This line of "reasoning" is nothing more than a sad variant of ]the old, "blame the victim" game. For shame. ] ]Let's bring this back to crypto for a moment. Dimitri's "logic" ]must necessarily lead one to the conclusion that Cypherpunks (at ]least those in the US) are responsible for whatever draconian ]restrictions "our" government puts on free speech, crypto or ]whatever. John Gilmore, Philip Zimmermann, Whit Diffie and ]others will be chagrined to learn this, I'm sure. ] ]Dimitri needs to learn what it means to be an adult. Everyone is ]totally responsible for what they do, but ONLY for what THEY do. ]No one is responsible for the unassisted, willful acts of others. ] ] ] S a n d y ] ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ] ] ============================================================================ --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
At 9:10 AM -0800 1/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
We should all understand that forgeries in the names of preapproved people are only a SYMPTOM of a problem, not a problem in and of itself. The true problem in such case would be that the forgers feel that they are treated unfairly by moderators. Such people may think that the purpose of moderation is to get rid of their persons altogether.
Therefore, if moderators face a problem of forgeries and perceive a need to turn this authentication option on, they should step back and this what THEY did wrong. Did they give the forgers an impression that moderators want to silence them? Do they treat everyone, including the former "problem" people, fairly and equally?
Igor, I must disagree with you in detail. I believe that some of the problem this list is experiencing is because one or more people wish to destroy it. They are attempting to fill this list with so much junk that all the people who read it will go elsewhere. In the recent past, they have subscribed it to other high-volume mailing lists, and given its address to direct marketers as a "person" interested in sales pitches. Perhaps these people already feel they are being treated unfairly by the management of the unmoderated list. These people will be perfectly happy to forge the names of preapproved posters to further their attack. While I suggest that, if we have preapproved posters, we should try it first without digital signatures, I predict that forgeries will be used to get around this policy. I note in passing that at least one person has threatened to, "KILL cypherpunks !!!". ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | in Pittsburgh, Packets in | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | Pakistan. - me | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
participants (8)
-
Bernie Doehner -
Bill Frantz -
Dale Thorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Greg Broiles -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
snow -
Toto