Re: Suggest splitting things up

At  1:22 PM 12/2/92 -0800, John Draper wrote:

>To Cypherpunks:
>
>Greetings,  Back on-line again,  after wading through about 225 messages
>that has accumulated in the last 4 days.   The volume of messages
>is really getting high,  and perhaps we might want to try and break
>them up into the following proposed lists.

Sounds like a fine idea.

john noerenberg
jwn2@qualcomm.com
noerenberg.j (Applelink)
===========================================================
Do not uselessly lament your luck that is giving way, your work that has
failed, your life's plans that have all ended in despair.  Like a man long
prepared, like a man of courage, bid her farewell, the Alexandria that
leaves you.
-- "The God Abandons Anthony", Constantine Peter Cavafy [1911]
===========================================================

>At  1:22 PM 12/2/92 -0800, John Draper wrote:
>
>>To Cypherpunks:
>>
>>Greetings,  Back on-line again,  after wading through about 225 messages
>>that has accumulated in the last 4 days.   The volume of messages
>>is really getting high,  and perhaps we might want to try and break
>>them up into the following proposed lists.
>
>Sounds like a fine idea.
>

I aggree.

I suggest to groups be split as suggested  but I will like to add
that it be donw 

cypherpunks-pgp:	pgp development
cypherpunks-digi-cash:	digital cash

cypherpunks:	cypherpunks-digi-cash cypherpunks-pgp (all of the above)


		-Pete

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQA9AirUzbUAAAEBfjC3p5COEUMJ3xzrq4sJCTaU5MgvzC94tp8yxxBJeKUGo7xx
gMShBCnIZp+xlFiyxQAFE7QYUGV0ZXIgTSBTaGlwbGV5IChjYXN1YWwptAZjYXN1
YWy0JlBldGVyIE0gU2hpcGxleSA8c2hpcGxleUBiZXJrZWxleS5lZHU+
=OR9u
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Peter Shipley is one of several people suggesting this list be split
into parts. His specific idea is:

> I suggest to groups be split as suggested  but I will like to add
> that it be donw 
> 
> cypherpunks-pgp:	pgp development
> cypherpunks-digi-cash:	digital cash
> 
> cypherpunks:	cypherpunks-digi-cash cypherpunks-pgp (all of the above)

Splitting the list into "pgp development" and "digital cash" would
take care of the topics being discussed in the _last few days_, but
would do little for the various other "threads du jour" that have
occupied us: one-time pads, dongles, legal issues, key registration,
special purpose chips, etc.

Are we to form a new list each time something fails to fit into one
of the groups suggested?

I think there's a simpler split, should one be needed:

* cypherpunks-technical...writing software, details of dongles, math,
PERL, details of algorithms, PGP development, etc.

*cypherpunks-political...laws, debate, public policy, ethics of
encryption, spread of digital cash, etc.

*cypherpunks-announce....just the announcements of meetings, upcoming
events, important developments, etc.

Now splitting the list means more duplicate messages for those who
subscribe to both (when messages are cross-posted, as some will be),
more "missed" messages when one of the groups is not subscribed to
(resulting in "Can you send me the article....?" thrashing), and some
amount of additional work by the list administrator (Eric Hughes).

Given that a list bifurcation will only buy a savings of 2x in volume
for most people (and many will automatically take both lists), and
given that we all know factors of 2 don't count (:-}), I recommend
against splitting the list.

Besides, you never know what useful stuff will get posted in the group
you don't get. Anybody who chooses to stay ignorant of what the other
group is doing probably won't be able to contribute much to the group
he subscribes to.

--Tim



-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^756839 | PGP Public Key: by arrangement.

> From: Peter Shipley <shipley@tfs.COM>

> I suggest to groups be split as suggested  but I will like to add
> that it be donw 

[ a different way ]

Before we consider splitting the list, we should ask whether there are
a significant number of people who would take less than all of the
sublists.  I really don't know.  If the purpose is just to provide a
way to know what "kind" of message you're about to read, we could use
a "tag" the way sci.v-w does, if we find this necessary.  I personally
don't object to this kind of list volume.

> 		-Pete

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu