Re: Are cypher punks capable?

[Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>]

Secret Squirrel <nobody@squirrel.owl.de> writes:

> Against Moderation wrote:
> > In general, unsubscribing and resubscribing to a mailing list is not
> > completely trivial.
> 
> Do you think that a cypher punk is not able to solve these problems?

Read the rest of my message.  I never said it wasn't pussible, it's
just a question of how much effort I want to put in (which at this
point, being roughly proportionaly to the quality of articles on
cypherpunks, is close to zero).

Whatever the difficulty or ease of fixing my mail filter, however, the
fact that I haven't done it yet should not be counted as a vote in
favor of moderation.  This is what I am objecting to in John's
article.

John, if you are seriously interested in input from list members, then
I have a proposal that I think is only fair.

Why don't you create a new mailing list called cypherpunks-edited,
which receives exactly the same filtered content as the current
"cypherpunks@toad.com" list.  Then encourage people to move from
cypherpunks to either the -edited or -unedited lists to express their
desires for the future of the list.

In a another month, compare the subsription lists of the 3 lists.  If
there are considerably more subscribers to cypherpunks-edited than
cypherpunks-unedited, then you can reasonably claim that a lot of list
members want to see the list filtered.  However, if, as I suspect, the
number of people subscribing to the -edited and -unedited lists is
statistically insignificant next to the people on the main cypherpunks
list, then subscription counts are not a valid metric for judging the
desires of list members.

Of course, in the mean time I would like to see cypherpunks revert to
an unmoderated list, but I'm not going to push my luck.  I'd already
be happe just to see the creation of a cypherpunks-edited list.