[80376] in Cypherpunks
Re: CFV: moderate sci.cryonics -- CENSORING antispammers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Igor Chudov @ home)
Mon May 19 22:49:03 1997
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 21:04:30 -0500
From: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com>
To: mail2news@manifold.algebra.com, cypherpunks@manifold.algebra.com
Cc: ichudov@manifold.algebra.com
Reply-To: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com>
Jay Denebeim (denebeim@deepthot.cary.nc.us) wrote
* Igor Chudov @ home <ichudov@algebra.com> wrote:
*
* > Charles, sci.cryonics may well be in need of moderation. The
* > proponent may also be a great person. I also have deep respect for
* > you personally. But the provision in the charter that does not
* > allow postings without a replyable sender address is rather
* > unfortunate. I would certainly vote yes if that particular provision
* > was removed. Otherwise, I find it unacceptable for myself to vote
* > YES.
*
* Why is that Igor? There's been very little, if any, spam generated to
* rastb5m users, and that provision has been in place since before
* anti-spam forgeries were in vogue. If spammers arn't mining a TV
* group, they certainly wouldn't be mining a sci group.
I see your point, Jay. What you are suggesting, probably not without
reason, is that the spam volume is not expected to be huge.
I may agree to that. The problem with this argument is that
1) No matter how much spam they get, posters have a legitimate
reason to protect themselves
2) Typically, altering the reply address is done before
the newsreader is even started, changing it for only one censorous
newsgroup is a royal pain in the back
3) People should have freedom to post anonymously, especially on
such sensitive topic as cryonics
4) Anonymity is NOT a threat to moderated newsgroups
Considering all that, I do not consider the proposed charter to be
acceptable.
(see http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=5944883&server=db97p2x&CONTEXT=864091788.16601&hitnum=11
