Re: Experiments on Mailing Lists

["Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>]

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."