At 11:11 AM +0000 7/13/00, matthew gream wrote: >Perhaps the solution to the problem is to destroy the mailing list >because it is an archaic way to construct a digital forum in an >increasingly noisy internet. > >Something like Slash is possibly more appropriate to the current >state of the internet, as it has the concepts of >reputations/credentials built into its fabric, and therefore helps >weed out the junk. Although its model does perhaps have some flaws. > >Another alternative is to construct a new form of mailing list, with >similar features - I am sure that this has been discussed in the >past. Something of the form : all incoming messages to the mailing >list by default have a status of 0, and all messages with a status >of 0 are posted out in one single daily digest that can be filtered >if desired; however, if messages are deemed somewhat valid, existing >members with status > 0 can click on the associated hyperlink and >automatically increase the new members status to 1, after which >their messages are forwarded as per normal. The status of members >can be increased to a maximum level of 9, and also individual >messages can be promoted. > >... blah blah blah (few people listen to me, don't start now) ... I'm listening. How to do reputations is an interesting topic. However, what others think of a person is not necessarily what I think. So simple scalar measurements of popularity are not terribly interesting. And if it's only a popularity contest, such filters are easy to implement with Eudora, procmail, whatever. (Just make a list of the N most popular Cypherpunk authors, filter them in to a "To Be Read" folder, put everyone else in a "Read if Bored" folder.) A more interesting (to me) approach is the "belief" web of trust, a la Dempster-Shafer metrics. However, this has not even been implemented for trust in key signings, so doing it for mailing lists would seem to be further off. As for Web-based fora, I despise them. I read several of them (FAL list, Silicon Investor, Squeak list, etc.) and their interfaces suck. Long to load, weird message composition windows, etc. I much favor my own tools in Eudora Pro. Silicon Investor is considered a big success, and posts are often quoted on the daytime financial t.v. shows. However, the interface is terrible. Thread tools are primitive. The "Intel" thread--and I mean a singular form of thread--was started in 1995 and there are now 105,000 or more posts to that single thread!! See this at http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/searchresults.gsp?s=intc&domain=Titles (Won't be able to post without paying $$ to join; may have to log in even to read.) While it is possible to create new threads, with more interesting names than just "Intel," the tools for doing this favor people simply adding their junk to the existing thread. This is a system which is far inferior to the Cypherpunks list. The advantage, though, is that thousands of fora exist o the same servers, and are browsable. Web-based chat rooms and discussion fora are much like Usenet. Making the Cypherpunks list a Usenet group has been discussed many, many times. In fact, search Usenet for "cypherpunks" and one should find one or more newsgroups, ready for use. (IIRC, Adam Back created several groups.) --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.
