Re: Why I delete cc;s to other mailing lists

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 2:12 AM -0800 5/1/97, Adam Back wrote:

>I don't either.  My only interest in posting to these lists at all is
>that some people hang out there who don't read cypherpunks.  I got a
>reply from Ron Rivest on the hashcash stuff as it related it to his
>and Shamir's MicroMint payment system.  I presume from reading it on
>coderpunks or cryptography where I forwarded copies.

Some people want the advantages of lists like the Cypherpunks list, but not
the disadvantages of volume and noise. Well, there is no simple solution to
this, except the usual ones of local filtering, hitting the delete key, etc.

I don't subscribe to lists controlled by others, for various reasons I've
discussed over the years.

It's a lot harder to create signal than it is to suppress noise. As I like
to say, "My keyboard has a "Delete" key--it doesn't have a "Create" key."

Many "edited" lists have appeared over the years. Nick Szabo had (and still
has) his own list. Robin Hanson had one ("AltInst," or "Alternative
Institutions"...I  like Robin's thinking a lot, but I quit his last after
just a few days when he asked me to "fine tune" my posts more to his
liking), and there have been various libertarian/digital liberty mailing
lists.

(These lists typically start with a bang, having traffic of a dozen or so
messages a day....then things peter out. Some of these lists have no
traffic for months at a time.)

The Cypherpunks list, rambunctuous and uncontrolled as it is, has thrived
for four and a half years, coming up on 5 years in just a few months.

That "serious cryptographers" do not want to be subscribers is just the way
it is. I can't do anything to get David Chaum or Matt Blaze to subscribe.
Too bad. I don't worry about it. If they want to subscribe, they can. I'm
not interested in creating a "Tim's list" in hopes that they'll subscribe.
They won't.

>> I routinely delete all of the cc:s to other lists, figuring if people want
>> to read my stuff they can damn well subscribe to the Real Thing, the
>> Cypherpunks list.
>
>So what you're saying is that you boycott them in effect, you don't
>send your writings to censored lists, and if they want to read your
>writing, they've got to read The List.  Well the more quality content
>that comes to cypherpunks first, or exclusively to cypherpunks until a
>3rd party forwards it the better, as this adds to cypherpunks
>reputation, and increases the value of and interest in the list.

Exactly. I don't want my writings primarily distributed to Declan's list,
or Bob's list, or whatever. (Bob sometimes reposts my articles to his
yuckily-nnamed "e$spam" list, and I get responses from people who simply
don't understand the background to the issues....I either ignore them
completely or tell them to subscribe to the Cypherpunks list and to quit
pestering me for explanations.)

>My attitude is leaning this way also.  I post most things to
>cypherpunks first.  The others I consider in effect forwards of
>material posted to cypherpunks.

Many people seem to want to "fix" the Cypherpunks list. I try to do what I
can by writing essays. That's my form of "signal." Those who don't want to
read these articles know where the delete key is.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."