On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Devin Reade <gdr@gno.org> wrote:
At the risk of stating the obvious, going to an anonymized list is not without its own problems. One big part of the usability of many mailing lists involves the reputation of the poster. Take this list for example: I am not a cryptographer (I'm a software architect and developer). I've found the conversations on this list interesting and it gives me things to think about in the design and implementations of my own systems (and those of my clients).
So what's the difference between this list and some arbitrary list full of crackpots? Here, if there is an argument that I can't quite follow in sufficient detail to satisfy myself, one option is to examine other sources with respect to the posters and the topics at hand, and how they are considered by other publicly-known cryptographers. It's not the the best, but it helps.
Some people have a desperate need for the State to validate other people's names and faces and lives before they feel comfy. Other people are just fine with knowing them (and by whatever moniker) in the context in which they know them. A list full of crackpots running on the hidden undernets is just as easily validated as one in the real world... it's a question of content and how well developed in whichever world (or both) the context is.
As an aside, on a public list or bulletin board (anonymous or not) I would be surprised if there is not software in existence that could correlate poster's mannerisms against publicly available non-anonymized postings to in effect de-anonymize the supposedly anonymous postings with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Don't post in both worlds. Or do. Or post your face or name or whatever else, or not. It's your choice. In a hidden medium others can make their own choices. Confusing?, not feeling comfy? ... then stay Stateside.