Re: Network of majordomos

[Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>]

At 02:08 PM 2/11/97 -0800, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>At 1:09 PM 2/11/1997, Greg Broiles wrote:
>>At 10:45 AM 2/11/97 -0600, Firebeard wrote:
>>> [...] I've already taken steps, along with Jim Choate, to
>>> start a network of majordomos hosting a Cypherpunks mailing list.
>>> [...] Our intention is to have a set of majordomos which
>>> are intersubscribed to a cypherpunks list on each one, with measures
>>> taken to ensure that mail loops don't develop.
>
>> I still think you're just rediscovering Usenet technology....
>
>> And, if you must, run mail-to-news gateway(s) which send the newsgroup to
>> people who want it as E-mail.
>
>> Usenet technology does exactly what you're describing:...
>
>How about this?  The people who like Usenet should race ahead and set
>it up.  The people who like networks of majordomos should race ahead
>and set those up.  Just so long as the tracks meet somewhere in Utah.

As I understand the creation process for an alt. group, someone posts a
proposal to alt.config explaining what's being proposed, waits a week or so
to see if there's a general sense of approval or disapproval or [...] and
then they send a newgroup control message. Individual systems will choose
to add the new group, or not, depending on local policy, administrator
whim, and so forth.

I sent a proposal to alt.config last night (a few hours before I got John's
message indicating that the list is going away, so I wasn't able to include
that fact in my message; it was also ~ 10 hours before I saw Tim's message
re alt.cypherpunks so I was unable to include his more useful statement of
the group's purpose) and intend to newgroup alt.cypherpunks in a week or
so, absent a clear indication from the people in alt.config that it would
be rmgroup'ed or otherwise have a poor chance of success. I don't think a
"charter" is especially necessary or useful in the alt. hierarchy.

One feature of the "alt." groups is that there's no real control over what
happens there. If someone creates a one-way or two-way gateway between one
or more mailing lists and alt.cypherpunks, there's nothing anyone else can
do about it. (modulo cancelbunny/NoCeM, both of which are optionally
honored on a site-by-site basis)

So, the tracks will meet in Utah if someone decides to hook them up.
Perhaps this will be you?

As far as I'm concerned, nobody owns the word "cypherpunks" and we're all
free to use it in any way we please - e.g., Igor can suggest
"comp.org.cypherpunks", eight people can run "cypherpunks@foo.com" mailing
lists, and so forth. Looking for one unified acceptable-to-everyone
solution is pointless on this list. Let "n" flowers bloom.


--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | 
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.