[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
Forwarded message:
> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:46:04 -0800
> From: Greg Broiles <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s)
> Is this the policy of the majordomo network, that individual list operators
> can make their own policies for their subscribers, but may not/cannot
> impose them on other list operators or the other lists' members? It sounds
> very reasonable, but it would be nice to be clear about whether or not this
> is the case.
There is no policy at this point. We have not even agreed to a means to
institute the network or its basic architecture. The only point of mandatory
agreement is between any two individual list operators and the mechanism
they use to transfer between those two nodes.
This sort of policy distribution won't work, as to reasonable I think not.
If everyone does their own thing with no compromise then nothing will
get done.
> Are there any rules (other than "no rules") which apply to all lists/list
> operators/list subscribers? Can there ever be any? Who would write the
> rules, and who must agree to them in order for them to take effect?
There are no explicit rules at this point. Yes there can be all sorts of
rules, both implicit (eg copyrights) and explicit. Anyone can write rules.
Nobody must agree to anything other than implicit agreements, course
the concept of 'agreement' sorta goes out the window with implicits.
> Can individual list operators be forced to or forbidden to "peer" with
> other machines, or are these "peer" relationships up to each list operator?
Don't see how anyone can force the remailer to do anything.
Can't speak for anyone else but can say with some degree of certainty that
no participant in cpunks can stop me from subscribing whoever I want. There
is certainly no mechanism envisioned to authenticate subscriptions with
the remailer operators.
Jim Choate
CyberTects
[email protected]