Re: Banning any subscriber

[Jim choate <ravage@wixer.bga.com>]

>
> On Sat, 27 Nov 1993, Jim choate wrote:
>
> > If this is truly a private list then you need to put more effort into being

> > clear that this is a indivudualy supported mail-list and is not officialy
> > associated w/ CypherPunks. I would offer the following protocol:
>
> "Officially" associated with Cypherpunks? I don't know about where you
> are but in most places in this country there is no "Official Cypherpunks
> Organization." This LIST is the original basis of the Cypherpunks. From
> there, some people who have other interested parties in their locales
> have gone on to form local groups. This isn't like the Extropians who
> have the Extropy Institute officially behind them.
>
> > 1. User sends mail w/ 'subscribe' in the body.
> >
> > 2. The mailer responds w/ a numbered header.
> >
> > 3. The user is requied to copy the message from #2 completely and to append

> >    'agree'.
> >
> > 4. The user is then added to the list.
>
> Why bother?
>
> > While it is true that some of you may see this as trivial but if you really

> > want to keep CypherPunks an open forum and this list private (ensuring that

> > they are seen as seperate entities) it is critical that this is made at eve
ry
> > oppportunity.
>
> What is the "CypherPunks" you are refering to if not this list? All
> mailing lists are, by the very nature, semi-private forums. You have to
> ask to get on them. If someone is disruptive, I see no reason they should
> not be asked to leave. Of course, the idiot in question isn't even on the
> list anymore. If you aren't the list, the list shouldn't accept your
> postings and mail them to members. I see no reason why non-members of the
> list should be able to mailbomb us all by sending to the list address.
>
>
> (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*
)
> | Al Billings aka Grendel Grettisson        | "You are, each one, a priest,
|
> |                 mimir@u.washington.edu    |      Just for yourself."
|
> | Sysop of The Sacred Grove (206)322-5450   |
|
> | Admin for Troth-L, The Asatru E-Mail List |             -Noble Drew Ali-
|
> (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*
)
>
>

So what you are saying is that the group which recently formed here in Austin
as the Austin chapter of the CypherPunks is in actuallity a fraud?

If this is so then I would agree w/ you that there is no 'official'
CypherPunks organization (course the existance of this list and the various
user groups make a very strong oppositional argument to this position). But,
if the local CypherPunk group is to be considered a serious entity w/ any kid
of change in effecting legislation and public sentiment (closely related
wouldn't you agree?) then some form of officialdom better be created quickly.
Even if the individual groups are to have any effect on local politics then
they have to band together and choose some commen forums and planks of
discussion.

Then again, perhaps I am mis-informed about the nature of the CypherPunks. It
was my understanding they were here to help protect and guide users of
cyberspace and provide some sense of security on an individual level. The
presentation of the group in the electronic and print media has been one
which fostered a sense of uniformity and cohesion among the various groups
and individuals. I am shure I am not the only follower of the crypto scene
who is new to c-punks and a little confused (a very bad thing for newbies to
any kind of movement to be) about what is going on and why.

You seem to miss the entire point that I am making. It is not that what you
are doing is wrong or incorrect, it is simply that the reality is different
from the actuality and I am simply saying that there has been very little
effort to fix that.

The reason to bother w/ a procedure (not necessarily the one I offered) is to
make shure that eveyone is informed and knows what to expect as well as what
is expected of them. To be taken seriously this has to be done as a primary
goal. If you have no intention of 'doing' anything (writing code, writing
letters to politicians, etc.) then by all means the structure(less) you have
now is sufficient. However, there are people interested in this topic that
both expect more and want to give more. These people will be put off by such
handling.

I agree with your position on the list PROVIDED that the subscriber is told
that UP FRONT (which is not the case now). All I am saying is whatever method
you choose to handle the list is fine as long as ALL NEW SUBSCRIBERS are
advised of the situation. You can not assume that a user knows what is going
on simply because they can manage to subscribe to it. Just be fair is what I
am saying.