At 12:43 PM -0800 1/4/97, Peter Hendrickson wrote:

If the point of these schemes is to filter content (*), there is no reason why they have to be implemented for the entire list. They can always be converted to a tag on the message which readers can use, but are not required to.

I'm sure Tim would not object to any scheme implemented in this way. (So sure, in fact, that I will give him a dollar if he does object. ;-)

(* If the point is to stop spam attacks, then they do have to affect the entire list.)

Oh, I would hardly have any objection to any system which is "transparent" to me, i.e., where I can ignore the whole issue. I forgot to mention in my article that one of the serious problems with the various Extropians experiments--and likely to be in any of the new experiments--is that each required learning, with many people never quite getting the hang of how the systems worked. Thus, various FAQs were written--but ignored by those most in need of them. And people asked questions on the list about the process, etc. Ultimately, all of the brainpower which went into how figuring out how "thornes" were traded, how the killfiles worked, etc., were wasted. This is why I favor learning killfiles on my _home_ machine...the comment someone made about how "inefficient" such home-based killfiles are, compared to some hypothetical list-based killfile, ignores this issue that N different mailing list or forums will likely have almost N different systems, syntaxes, etc. Not a timesave in the final analyis to have to learn N killfile approaches! Should "majordomo" be modified in a powerful way, and gain wide distribution, e.g, as "killfiledomo," :-}, then this might establish a kind of standard for such killfile-oriented lists...but I see no likelihood of this happening soon. Again, I think these clever schemes are a waste of time. Except for the one of using the versions of majordomo (which exist, as I understand things) which only allow posts by subscribed members. This may nuke anonymous posts, but so what? The _possibility_ of anonymity, which we mostly all support, does not mean that people have to listen to such posts. And since the junk from anonymous posts is getting to be a serious problem.... Another possibility is that anonymous posts get kicked into a file for later approval or nonapproval by someone. Nothing fancy (that is, no "tokens" and complicated accounting systems, such as have been proposed), just a manual "moderation" by someone, or some set of volunteers, etc. Enough moderation to let the "Red Rackham" sorts of good posts through while blocking the "Make Money Fast" and barnyard insults from making it. If a system is complicated, many or even most people won't use it. Whether PGP or procmail. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Peter Hendrickson wrote:

At 11:02 AM 1/4/1997, Timothy C. May wrote:

...

All of these schemes--some of them pretty clever--for posting tokens, reputation-based killfiles, buying and selling reputation futures, etc., are almost certainly far too complicated to deploy on a list like ours.

...

...[Interesting Extropian history deleted.]...

...

So, rather than do similar tinkering with the Cypherpunks list--not that either Hugh Daniel or John Gilmore have given any hint they are willing to do such tinkering--I suggest those who want to try token-based posting, or information markets in reputation capital, or herd-consensus killfiles, etc., set up a separate mailing list and implement whatever they wish.

If the point of these schemes is to filter content (*), there is no reason why they have to be implemented for the entire list. They can always be converted to a tag on the message which readers can use, but are not required to.

I think this filtering/censorship stuff is getting way too complicated to be practical. It is in my opinion inappropriate to moderate or automatically filter the list itself, because that is a form of censorship. Expecting people to install and use new software is asking too much. The way I see it, you have several simple options: 1) read everything, and hit d when you decide a post is noise 2) filter at your own machine - there's lots of software. Presumably those requesting list server user controlled filtering are saying that they find it too much hassle to install or learn how to use such software, or that they don't want to pay for downloading garbage 3) start up a mailing list mirror, subscribe the mirror to cypherpunks@toad.com, and implement user controlled filtering in majordomo on the mirror. This frees up some of toad.com's current load, and puts all filtering load on the mirror. If there's a demand for such a service, someone can do it. 4) subscribe to a filtered version of cypherpunks, and run the risk that the owner filters material which would be interesting to you. 5) setup a filtered version of cypherpunks which explicitly filters just commercial spam, and mail loop errors. Currently I use method 1. A couple of people lately have so consistently posted garbage that I am considering it may be worth the effort of switching to method 2. If someone did 5 and the delay was reasonably short, I would probably subscribe to it. The only thing I would be happy to see happen in the way of list based filtering, is anything to cut out pure commercial, non crypto related spam. Spammers seem to have discovered mailing lists as efficient distribution methods in addition to direct mass mailing lately. Unfortunately this is difficult to filter automatically, and no one has the time to do it in close to real time, and time lags hinder discussion. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`