Re: Declan pro-cencorship (sorta) (fwd)

[Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>]

Unlike the rest of this discussion, Jim is mostly right here,
and in a way that neither censors anyone nor discourages them
from providing filtering services for people who want it.
However, Wabe is reinventing NoCeMs - which support multiple 
NoCeM issuers, and you can pick any one or more that you like
to kill off spam for you before you read it.  I'm not sure
how widely available implementations of NoCeM mailreaders are;
probably they're mostly Emacs macros.

On the other hand, while the Cypherpunks list gets lots of noise,
it doesn't get much spam (except when somebody's targeting it),
Filters that pick out the most interesting 10% are much more useful
than filters that discard the bottom 10%.
Attacking the list, while less suicidal than spamming alt.2600,
is still not very bright, given the potential risks :-)



>> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:40:39 +0000
>> From: wabe <wabe@smart.net>
>> Any reason Cyperpunks couldn't set up a distributed "spam innoculator?"
>> 
>> If I get spam, I'd send it to "spam@cypherpunks.com" and then spam would
>> send a fingerprint to all of our modified netscape messengers, which have been
>> programmed to erase any messages which match that fingerprint.
>> 
>> Then, if one person sees a spam message and declares it spam, no one
>> else has to see it. (If they get the message from spam@cypherpunks in time.)

At 12:02 PM 2/15/98 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>What makes you think you are suitable to decide what others want to see?
>How is this any different than any other form of censorship? This exact
>issue is why the CDR was setup with multiple nodes.


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639