Re: Recommendation: Creation of "alt.cypherpunks"

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup,
> > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different
> > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks,
> > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that.
> > >
> > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages
> > >over an alt.* newsgroup:
> > >
> > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.*
> > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars
> > >3) The propagation will be a lot better
> > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers
> > >   not carrying alt.*.
> > >
> > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup  worse than
> > >alt.* newsgroup.
> > 
> > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating
> > "alt.cypherpunks."
> > 
> > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permission
> > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever
> > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the
> > ground.
> > 
> > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the
> > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the
> > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that
> > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would skew
> > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part of
> > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.)
> > 
> (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've
> had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also, 
> I posted
> the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.)
> 
> Random thoughts:
> 
> 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of
> corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that
> soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-)
> Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporate
> newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their
> firewall lets them.)

> 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup.
> It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help
> with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet
> newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-)

Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives: 
a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process
ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups
of readers.

I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is
not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or
less flame-free zone.

It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a
prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help
them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage.

> 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this mailing
> list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious desire
> by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read
> to other people. 

It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better.

> Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the
> network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very
> handy. 
> 

It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work 
independently from list nodes.

	- Igor.

(My apologies to all the peole I like whose e-mail I haven't answered yet)

ichudov@algebra.com writes:

> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> > > At 1:20 PM -0600 2/11/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > >If the people decide for creation of a new USENET newsgroup,
> > > >we need to think very hard about actually moving it to a different
> > > >hierarchy from alt.*. I would propose comp.org.cypherpunks,
> > > >comp.cypherpunks, sci.crypt.cypherpunks or something like that.
> > > >
> > > >A comp.* or sci.* newsgroup, if created, has the following advantages
> > > >over an alt.* newsgroup:
> > > >
> > > >1) There is usually less spam in sci.* or comp.*
> > > >2) There are virtually no completely irrelevant flamewars
> > > >3) The propagation will be a lot better
> > > >4) More people will be able to read it because of the issue of providers
> > > >   not carrying alt.*.
> > > >
> > > >I see nothing that would make a sci.* or comp.* newsgroup  worse than
> > > >alt.* newsgroup.
> > >
> > > Sure, and this has come up in every past discussion of creating
> > > "alt.cypherpunks."
> > >
> > > But the creation of alt.cypherpunks is _easy_, and needs little permissio
> > > or support, whereas the creation of "soc.culture.cypherpunks" or whatever
> > > takes work, requires a vote, blah blah blah. And so it never gets off the
> > > ground.
> > >
> > > (Nor is it clear to me, and perhaps not to others, that it belongs in the
> > > the various places Igor mentioned. Comp.org.cypherpunks probably is the
> > > best fit, but then many would cite the "comp" part to try to insist that
> > > only _computer_ topics be discussed. Likewise, the "soc" domain would ske
> > > discussion...etc. "Alt" has the nice advantage of explicitly not be part
> > > sci, or comp, or soc, or even talk.)
> > >
> > (I apologize to everyone whose e-mail has gone unanswered this week - I've
> > had a bunch of other stuff to do, but I'll get to it eventually. Also,
> > I posted
> > the Anshel+Goldfield zeta function paten number - do check it out.)
> >
> > Random thoughts:
> >
> > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of
> > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that
> > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-)
> > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporat
> > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their
> > firewall lets them.)
>
> > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup.
> > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help
> > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet
> > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-)
>
> Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives:
> a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process
> ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups
> of readers.
>
> I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is
> not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or
> less flame-free zone.

I'm concerned about smart people stuck behind corporate firewalls
and able to see comp.* and sci.*. Nearly every big Wall St firm
is that way. Did I ever relate to you the story how I had to
break through the firwall at GS to accomplish mywork?

> It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a
> prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help
> them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage.

Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less
cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more
likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that
cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like,
and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins
or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea.

What's going to happen when (not if) someone posts something in
alt.cypherpunks that Chris Lewis (spit) judges to be "spam"
and forges a cancel? Or someone posts a binary and Richard
"little dick" Depew forges a cancel?

> > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this maili
> > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious des
> > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read
> > to other people.
>
> It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better.

There's a bunch of net.cops in e.g. comp.lang.eiffel that complain to
sysadmins of anyone posting to that newsgroup who's in a member of the
"in" crowd". It may or may not cut down on the crap, but is it worth it?

> > Most people don't have nocem-enabled newareaders yet... Which is where the
> > network of cypherpunks majordomos Igor's been busy creating comes in very
> > handy.
> >
>
> It is a very good idea to let NoCeM issuers and filterers work
> independently from list nodes.


Yes - from the legal liability point of view (since it bothers the lying
cocksucker Gilmore (spit, fart, belch) so  much): suppose someone
anonymously posts  skipjack source code to alt.cypherpunks. Under the
present systen, say, the arachelian asshole might decide not to forward
it to his mailing list feaing the NSA. NoCeM's can separate the function
of highlighting interesting articles from the function of forwarding
these articles to subscribers who only want to see the highlighted
articles.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> ichudov@algebra.com writes:
> > > 1. A newsgroup like comp.privacy.cypherpunks will be carried on a lot of
> > > corprate news servers that don't carry alt.* (or even soc.*). Note that
> > > soc.org.cypherpunks is inappropriate since cp is *not* an organization. :-)
> > > Another possibility is sci.crypto.cypherpunks. (True, people whose corporat
> > > newsservers don't carry soc.* and talk.* can use dejanews - provided their
> > > firewall lets them.)
> >
> > > 2. It takes more work to create a comp.* newsgroup than an alt newsgroup.
> > > It takes a vote. I'm willing to be one of the proponents and generally help
> > > with the process. (Both I and Igor have been co-proponents of major Usenet
> > > newsgroups - don't know about other people onthis list. :-)
> >
> > Not only it takes a vote. What is more important is what a vote gives:
> > a good discussion of the newsgroup and the formal RFD/RFD/CFV process
> > ensures that, on average, a good balance is found between various groups
> > of readers.
> >
> > I am not concerned as to what the name of the group will be, it is
> > not important. What is important is that it should be in a more or
> > less flame-free zone.
> 
> I'm concerned about smart people stuck behind corporate firewalls
> and able to see comp.* and sci.*. Nearly every big Wall St firm
> is that way. Did I ever relate to you the story how I had to
> break through the firwall at GS to accomplish mywork?

Would be interesting.

> > It is too late to stop alt.cypherpunks, but if I had to make a
> > prediction again, I would predict that soon posters will BEG to help
> > them create comp.*.cypherpunks, because of spam and alt.flamage.
> 
> Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less
> cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more
> likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. Having a charter state that
> cypherpunks have technical means to ignore traffic they don't like,
> and don't need anyone forging cancels or complaining to sysadmins
> or otherwise getting silenced, is a good idea.

It is not only because of that. There are two categories of people
who simply do not visit com.* groups: sex spammers and trollers
(who post articles like I RAPED A NIGGER CHILD to tens of newsgroups).

If the group is created in a space that is isolated from them, that is
already good.

As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++

> What's going to happen when (not if) someone posts something in
> alt.cypherpunks that Chris Lewis (spit) judges to be "spam"
> and forges a cancel? Or someone posts a binary and Richard
> "little dick" Depew forges a cancel?

Chris Lewis can exclude newsgroups from his spam watch. I think that
if cypherpunks put something forbidding third party cancels into the
charter, he will not cancel stuff posted there.

> > > 3. An unmoderated Usenet newsgroup would have even ore crap than this maili
> > > list. I've been thinking of how to deal with crap, and with the obvious des
> > > by some people to delegate their decision what to read and what not to read
> > > to other people.
> >
> > It is alt.* and soc.* that has most crap, sci and comp are way better.
> 
> There's a bunch of net.cops in e.g. comp.lang.eiffel that complain to
> sysadmins of anyone posting to that newsgroup who's in a member of the
> "in" crowd". It may or may not cut down on the crap, but is it worth it?

Yes, there is a notorious net.cop The Right Reverend Colin James III (spit).

A sample of his stukachestvo is attached at the bottom of this letter.


>From ares.csd.net!cjames  Fri Dec  8 00:00:29 1995
Return-Path: <cjames@ares.csd.net>
Received: from ares.csd.net by espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu.stat.ncsu.edu with smtp
        (Smail3.1.29.1 #5) id m0tNxjG-000EDPC; Fri, 8 Dec 95 00:00 PST
Received: by ares.csd.net (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3)
        id AA08055; Thu, 7 Dec 1995 22:02:44 -0700
Message-Id: <9512080502.AA08055@ares.csd.net>
From: cjames@ares.csd.net (Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd))
To: ichudov@espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu (Igor Chudov),
        postmaster@espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu, postmaster@stat.ncsu.edu,
        postmaster@ncsu.edu
Subject: Re: Nauseating typedefs -- pros and cons
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 1995 03:13:53 GMT
Organization: CEC Services
Reply-To: cjames@ares.csd.net
References: <461dph$ske@saba.info.ucla.edu> <48np3j$1b4@solutions.solon.com> <4a
7rpv$fj@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent .99b.112
Status: RO

On 7 Dec 1995 23:02:23 GMT, ichudov@espcbw.stat.ncsu.edu (Igor Chudov)
wrote with possible deletions:

| Douglas Evan Cook (cookd@bert.cs.byu.edu) wrote:
| *                     The real question comes down to: when do you need to 
| * use INT32 or INT16?  Usually, you only need it when you are saving info 
| * to a disk or when you need to make sure that your numbers won't 
| * overflow.  A little bit of hardware control is also given.  But when you 
| * don't get those advantages, a plain int is just great.
| 
| It is NOT great at all. Each variable is associated with a range of
| values. This range of values comes from the requirements of external world. 
| Say, some program _must_ be required by business rules to store
| $$ amount as an integer value, and it may be specified in the
| requirements that $$amount cannot be more than $1,000,000. If I,
| as a careless programmer, program variable dollar_amount as int
| just because my RS6000 has 32-bit ints, this program will NOT be
| portable to 16-bit computers.
| 
| You can invent an untold amount of such situations. If I defined
| DollarAmount_t as UINT32, I would effectively avoid this trouble.
| 
| * So for your scanf 
| * vars, just use ints.  Then do range checking and then assign them into 
| * the UINT16 type or whatever only if you need to.
| 
| The solution is very simple and cool (IMHO). 
| 
| In the same file where you define INT16, UINT32, etc, add the following: 
| 
| #ifdef AIX
|   typedef long INT32;
|   #define F_INT32 "ld"
| 
|   typedef unsigned short UINT16;
|   #define F_UINT16 "u"
| #endif
| 
| #ifdef YOUR_FAVORITE_MACHINE
|   typedef short INT32; // Maybe for 64-bit machines, never worked with them
|   #define F_INT32 "d"
| ... etc etc ...
| 
| Then you define your user types: 
| 
|   typedef INT32 DollarAmount_t;
|   #define DollarAmount_f INT32_F // You make it a rule to define
|                                  // formats right along with types
| 
| Usually, in scanf (and printf) people write things like this: 
| 
|       printf( "%ld is the dollar amount for customer %4.4d\n", 
|               amount, cust );
| 
| Instead, you write
| 
|       printf( "%" DollarAmount_f " is the dollar amount for customer "
|               "%4.4" Cust_f,
|               amount, cust );
| 
| It is a totally portable code. All you need to port primitive types 
| is to recompile it.
| 
| -- 
|    - Igor. (My opinions only) http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/index.html
|    For public PGP key, finger me or send email with Subject "send pgp key"
| 
| You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing 
| more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.
|                           - Antoine de Saint Exupery.

Kindly remove comp.lang.eiffel from distribution of this thread.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Colin James III, Principal Scientist           cjames@csd.net
CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO  80215-1502   USA
Voice: 303.231.9437;  Facsimile: .231.9438;  Data:  .231.9434  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


	- Igor.

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> [...] 
> Given that _political_ discussions of crypto are now encouraged in
> _talk_.politics.crypto (emphasis added) rather than sci.crypt, do you think
> political and social essays dealing with crypto anarchy, offshore
> databases, undermining governments, etc., will be welcome in the "comp"
> hierarchy?
> 
> I rather doubt it. And I would bet that if comp.org.cypherpunks is ever
> approved, those who dislike crypto anarchy and sociopolitical chatter will
> use the "comp" name to try to suppress such discussions.
> [...]

I think that the statement of our desire to create a new group
should clearly indicate that the discussion
group is of a special nature due to the tight integration of
technical and political discussions. Cypherpunks are trying to achieve 
political goals through technological means, so it is difficult, and
not regarded as desirable to produce a false dichotomy for discussions. 
As an example, we could cite the Linux newsgroups like comp.os.linux.misc. 
Linux is a piece of software written
to help achieve a political goal, and, thus, in the Linux groups
it is not considered off-topic to philosophize about
these goals or the future as and after Linux knocks Microsoft out of
the market. :)

talk.politics.crypto and sci.crypt can, then, easily be argued 
against since the discussions there are much more 
restricted than what we desire.

> [...] You really think whoever is spamming the list with ASCII art and
> broke into Paul's account to post hundreds of "John Gilmore is a
> cocksucker" posts will back off because of the "dedication" of some? To the
> perverse personality, this is merely a greater challenge and temptation.
> [...] 
 
Given that you have been on the list a great deal longer than
I, I do respect that you may have deeper insights into the
mind of the "perverse personality" than I do. I, however, am
not aware of evidence that the person or persons behind the
disruptions since the middle of last year would try to interrupt
a democratic USENET creation vote. My recollection of the
history is that the initial attacks were directed at you personally.
Dr. Vulis was blamed for them and thus, apparently, became
the target of nasty e-mailings to his site. He responded to
this by spamming the list with rather large articles
on Armenian war crimes and forwardings of the messages. At that point 
Gilmore booted Vulis.
Gilmore then became a target of attack and, it seems
that many (presumably) innocent bystanders were unwittingly
subscribed to the list in an effort to cause more
work, and, hence, annoyance to Gilmore when they complained
about the unwanted mail. At this point many new personalities
seemed to materialize out of nowhere bent on doing
nothing more than fueling flame wars. Then the "moderation 
experiment" (fiasco)... I do not see in this evidence, however, that
any of the disruptors would target the process of the
creating a new group USENET group. At first, the
the disruptor could easily have rationalized that anonymous, personal
attacks were fair play, since anarachists favour no explicit rules
with regards to speech. After Vulis was removed by Gilmore
the disruptor could then rationalize that "anything goes" since
list had then passed from a state of anarchy to one with
Gilmore trying to decide who could or not be on the list.
(I do not think that these conjectued rationalizations are valid
myself, but am just trying to give an my thoughts on the
psychology of the "perverse personality".)

USENET nesgroup creation is whole new ball game, however.
There are explicitly defined rules and the process
is intended to be democratic. If my guess as to the identity of the 
person masterminding the  attacks is correct, that person seems to have
democratic sympathies or, at least, be strongly opposed to even
hints of censorship, so I do not think he would attempt
to disrupt the process of deciding if a new group
is created or not since that would both be inferring
in a democratic process and an attempt to prevent
a group of people from creating a discussion group, and thus, himself,
becoming a censor.  (This makes me think that given that the process is 
intended to be democratic, it may be more fitting that
a more anarchisticly method is used to create
an "alt.*" group for cyphepunks than the democratic one
used to create a "comp.*" one.)

In any case, if you have deeper insights than mine into the mind of
the disruptor, or evidence that he or she or them would
try to disrupt a comp.* newsgroup creation proces, I
would be eager to hear them.

Leonard

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:

> 
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > [...] 
> > Timmy has a valid point: the reason why a comp.* newsgroup might have less
> > cross-posted and "off-topic" crap is because net.cops would be more
> > likely to complain to posters' sysadmins. [...]
> 
> As for net.cops, check out what Scott Nudds does in comp.lang.c++
> [...]

Yes, Scott Nudds is a good example of how dedicated flamers
(or maybe he is just a flamee trying to defend himself, I came
too late to say for sure), and those who fuel them on, can cause even 
a comp.* newsgroup to be as noisy as this list. (Btw, if you think
comp.lang.c++ is bad, check out comp.lang.asm.x86, sometime!).

I think it is, thus, important to distinguish between
noise from "outsiders", and noise caused by "insiders" who 
actually read the newsgroup but disrupt it for fun or
grudges, or what not. A comp.* newsgroup will help reduce the
former noise, for the reasons Dr. Vulis cites, but not so much the 
latter, since many insider trouble-makers  are often their own 
adminstraters or providers, or who have found providers or who
now have admins who will not cut them off.

That being said, I fully support the idea of a comp.* newgroup, 
over an alt.* group. The important advantages are the greater
propogation many have described, and the reduction in "outsider"
noise. I also think that people interested in computing
in general might be more likely to stumble onto the newsgroup,
since the comp.* hierachy is so much smaller than the alt.*
hierachy.

I do worry, however, that some of the more mischevious people 
around this list might try to disrupt the voting process with forged e-mail,
or turn the discussion over creation into a less than civil debate. 
In this unlinkely worst case scenario, however, not much would be lost
since we could still fall back to alt.cypherpunks, and it
would, later, make for good net.legends. :)

To be fair, though, I doubt that anyone would seriously try to
disrupt the creation, given the dedication I am seeing people putting 
into finding a new home (or homes!) for the list, and that there does not 
seem to be anyone dedicated to distrupting that process as John Gilmore 
worried there would be. (And I am on the unedited list, too!) 

Let's give it a shot!

Leonard

At 2:17 PM -0800 2/13/97, Leonard Janke wrote:

>That being said, I fully support the idea of a comp.* newgroup,
>over an alt.* group. The important advantages are the greater
>propogation many have described, and the reduction in "outsider"
>noise. I also think that people interested in computing
>in general might be more likely to stumble onto the newsgroup,
>since the comp.* hierachy is so much smaller than the alt.*
>hierachy.

Given that _political_ discussions of crypto are now encouraged in
_talk_.politics.crypto (emphasis added) rather than sci.crypt, do you think
political and social essays dealing with crypto anarchy, offshore
databases, undermining governments, etc., will be welcome in the "comp"
hierarchy?

I rather doubt it. And I would bet that if comp.org.cypherpunks is ever
approved, those who dislike crypto anarchy and sociopolitical chatter will
use the "comp" name to try to suppress such discussions.

And thus comp.org.cypherpunks will be mostly a duplicate of sci.crypt and
other such groups.

>To be fair, though, I doubt that anyone would seriously try to
>disrupt the creation, given the dedication I am seeing people putting
>into finding a new home (or homes!) for the list, and that there does not
>seem to be anyone dedicated to distrupting that process as John Gilmore
>worried there would be. (And I am on the unedited list, too!)

Sorry, Leonard, but this is one of the most naive statements I've ever
heard. You really think whoever is spamming the list with ASCII art and
broke into Paul's account to post hundreds of "John Gilmore is a
cocksucker" posts will back off because of the "dedication" of some? To the
perverse personality, this is merely a greater challenge and temptation.

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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."