Are we gatewayed to Usenet?

[gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal)]

In article <199311092038.MAA06532@mail.netcom.com> tcmay@netcom.com writes:
 > I believe someone has gatewayed the list onto Netcom, which is
 > available to many thousands of subscribers, including local POPs
 > (points of presence) in Washington, D.C., Boston, Atlanta, Austin, and
 > of course all up and down the West Coast.
 > 
 > Is this such a good idea? And should it be unilaterally done? If there
 > was discussion of this, I must've missed it somehow (which I doubt).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a local redistribution of a
mailing list.  It probably isn't bidirectional, but even if it is,
so what?  What you're really saying is you don't want too many people
reading who you can't keep tabs on, isn't it?  Or are you really just
rankled that *Sternlight* can read cypherpunks and you won't know
about it?  I guess that must be it because we've *lots* of local
redistributions signed up for this list. (Anyone who wants to see
the complete direct membership list merely has to telnet to toad.com's
smtp port and EXPN the real list name)

I have a great deal of sympathy about 'private space', but if you want
to make this list in some way semi-private, then you *must* issue a
policy notice when anyone signs on the list, saying what the conditions
are, eg that it is not to be quoted in other forums or reposted to
local lists etc.  Otherwise people (unethical people, I mean) can do
what they like with our posts whether we approve or not.  I could show
you some of the warnings I've seen elsewhere, except I'd be in breach
of those lists rules by reposting them :)  [no, really, I just don't
have one handy...]

In fact, the truly paranoid would make list membership a two-stage
process where you first sent out the rules, then waited for a mail
accepting them...

I *don't* advicate this course by the way.  I'm happy with things
as they are, until DS turns up :-)

Graham