> Automated filtering is censorship.
> We don't want censorship.
This is nonsense. Censorship is performed by government entities.
Last I checked, there's no state action here. Don't like it? Start
your own list. But don't whine.
-Declan
PS: Even your "predictable permutation" of the list address is
automated filtering, just of a different sort. Get a clue.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 02:54:28PM -0400, Francis Litterio wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > just get the nodes to filter mails that don't have CPUNK in
> > the subject
>
> Hashed and rehashed. Some anonymous remailers strip subject lines. If
> the keyword is at the end of the subject, some mailers truncate long
> subject lines. If the keyword is at the front, then we risk subjects
> mutating into "Re: CPUNK Re: CPUNK Re: CPUNK ...".
>
> Let me state the only (vague) consensus I've ever seen over the years on
> this list:
>
> Automated filtering is censorship.
> We don't want censorship.
>
> BUT ... does a predicable permuting of the list address constitute
> automated filtering? I think not. It's no more automated filtering than
> is the trivial intelligence test that the list currently requires of all
> posters (i.e., knowing how to spell "cypherpunks" and how to pick a CDR
> entry point).
>
> A time-changing list address is akin to Adam Back's hashcash email
> postage scheme. It's proof that a sufficient amount cycles were devoted
> to the sending of the message. It's sufficent to block messages from the
> unthinking depths (apologies to Vernor Vinge) but nothing else.
> --
> Francis Litterio
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PGP public keys available on keyservers.
>
