(I'm not worried about being called a communists or a pedophile for commenting on this issue. Nor am I worried about being called a communist _by_ a pedophile. Or vice versa.) At 12:29 PM -0500 5/5/00, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Eric is correct that the list was created that way, and operated >that way, for historic reasons. But now it seems like the costs may >exceed the benefits. I suggest losing the old email addresses >(toad.com, cyberpass.net, ssz.com) and having those messages routed >to a web site or info dump that can be publicly perused. > >The "new" or "active" cypherpunks list would consist of the same >subscriber list and have the same distributed setup; it would simply >have different email "entry points." So to send mail, you'd need to >know to send to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That at least might >reduce spam. > I support periodic name changes. This is one reason people sometimes change their usernames and/or ISPs: they've gotten on too many spam lists. Or their phone numbers. Or in extreme cases, their countries. A fresh start is sometimes needed. This has happened to the Cypherpunks list. Not only are list harvesters finding the various Cypherpunks list names (algebra, toad, cyberpass, ssz, etc.), but the "union of all posts" strategy of the CDR ensures spam to any of the addresses reaches us all. Harvesters have literally had years to find various Cypherpunks list addresses. The repugnance toward content filtering, except when voluntarily arranged for, is laudable. We saw in years past that nominally benign "moderation" can easily degenerate into partisan filtering of opposing views. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the root CDR nodes filter messages by body text content. However, there's nothing that says the Cypherpunks list has to have a persistent address, with a time constant of years. A name change every quarter or so, with existing subscribers carried over to the new name, would help with advertising spam. What about people who discover the Cypherpunks list from some old "Wired" article which gives the subscription info? This is usually going to be the "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" old address, and the majordomo variants. Those who use that address can be bounced a message telling them the latest list addresses. (This is some work by someone...I'm not volunteering John or Hugh or anyone else to do this. However, at some point the use of the ancient toad.com address was supposed to go away anyway...right now it's adding a lot of noise to our system. Perhaps it is time for the other CDR nodes to pull the plug on accepting posts sent to the toad.com address.) A second possibility is to do what many lists do: only allow posts by subscribers. What about remailers and other anonymous posts? The addresses of all known CP/Mixmaster/Freedom services could be added to the list of allowed posts. This means a devious spammer could still get through, but so much the better (at least he's using good technology!). This would screen out Hotmail, My-Deja, and similar "weak tech" pseudo-anonmyizers, but this is also so much the better. I'm generally inclined toward letting those who want filtering of any sort to subscribe to filtering services. However, spam and posts from those with absolutely no links to the CP community are now the bulk of messages (at least it seems this way to me when I delete a dozen such messages and only read a handful that are left). At some point it makes some sense to use _non-content_ filtering. Changing the names periodically will cut out a lot of past-harvested addresses. Only allowing posts by subscribers and via strong remailers will do the same. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
