At 1:22 PM 12/2/92 -0800, John Draper wrote:
To Cypherpunks:
Greetings, Back on-line again, after wading through about 225 messages that has accumulated in the last 4 days. The volume of messages is really getting high, and perhaps we might want to try and break them up into the following proposed lists.
Sounds like a fine idea. john noerenberg jwn2@qualcomm.com noerenberg.j (Applelink) =========================================================== Do not uselessly lament your luck that is giving way, your work that has failed, your life's plans that have all ended in despair. Like a man long prepared, like a man of courage, bid her farewell, the Alexandria that leaves you. -- "The God Abandons Anthony", Constantine Peter Cavafy [1911] ===========================================================
At 1:22 PM 12/2/92 -0800, John Draper wrote:
To Cypherpunks:
Greetings, Back on-line again, after wading through about 225 messages that has accumulated in the last 4 days. The volume of messages is really getting high, and perhaps we might want to try and break them up into the following proposed lists.
Sounds like a fine idea.
I aggree.
I suggest to groups be split as suggested but I will like to add that it be donw cypherpunks-pgp: pgp development cypherpunks-digi-cash: digital cash cypherpunks: cypherpunks-digi-cash cypherpunks-pgp (all of the above) -Pete -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.0 mQA9AirUzbUAAAEBfjC3p5COEUMJ3xzrq4sJCTaU5MgvzC94tp8yxxBJeKUGo7xx gMShBCnIZp+xlFiyxQAFE7QYUGV0ZXIgTSBTaGlwbGV5IChjYXN1YWwptAZjYXN1 YWy0JlBldGVyIE0gU2hpcGxleSA8c2hpcGxleUBiZXJrZWxleS5lZHU+ =OR9u -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Peter Shipley is one of several people suggesting this list be split into parts. His specific idea is:
I suggest to groups be split as suggested but I will like to add that it be donw
cypherpunks-pgp: pgp development cypherpunks-digi-cash: digital cash
cypherpunks: cypherpunks-digi-cash cypherpunks-pgp (all of the above)
Splitting the list into "pgp development" and "digital cash" would take care of the topics being discussed in the _last few days_, but would do little for the various other "threads du jour" that have occupied us: one-time pads, dongles, legal issues, key registration, special purpose chips, etc. Are we to form a new list each time something fails to fit into one of the groups suggested? I think there's a simpler split, should one be needed: * cypherpunks-technical...writing software, details of dongles, math, PERL, details of algorithms, PGP development, etc. *cypherpunks-political...laws, debate, public policy, ethics of encryption, spread of digital cash, etc. *cypherpunks-announce....just the announcements of meetings, upcoming events, important developments, etc. Now splitting the list means more duplicate messages for those who subscribe to both (when messages are cross-posted, as some will be), more "missed" messages when one of the groups is not subscribed to (resulting in "Can you send me the article....?" thrashing), and some amount of additional work by the list administrator (Eric Hughes). Given that a list bifurcation will only buy a savings of 2x in volume for most people (and many will automatically take both lists), and given that we all know factors of 2 don't count (:-}), I recommend against splitting the list. Besides, you never know what useful stuff will get posted in the group you don't get. Anybody who chooses to stay ignorant of what the other group is doing probably won't be able to contribute much to the group he subscribes to. --Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | PGP Public Key: by arrangement.
From: Peter Shipley <shipley@tfs.COM>
I suggest to groups be split as suggested but I will like to add that it be donw
[ a different way ] Before we consider splitting the list, we should ask whether there are a significant number of people who would take less than all of the sublists. I really don't know. If the purpose is just to provide a way to know what "kind" of message you're about to read, we could use a "tag" the way sci.v-w does, if we find this necessary. I personally don't object to this kind of list volume.
-Pete
Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu
participants (4)
-
Eli Brandt -
John W Noerenberg -
Peter Shipley -
tcmay＠netcom.com