🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec26.130926.8025@infodev.cam.ac.uk> rja14@cl.cam.ac.uk (Ross Anderson) writes:
>In <Bzru3E.1I4@chinet.chi.il.us> schneier@chinet.chi.il.us (Bruce Schneier) 
>writes:
> 
>>Anyone besides me sick of all the political discussions?  How about splitting
>>this into sci.crypt.science and sci.crypt.politics?  Or booting all of the
>>political talk to alt.security--and having someone moderate this newsgroup to
>>ensure compliance?
>
>I agree.
>
>However, in the interests of naming consistency, we should probably keep 
>sci.crypt for the hobbyists and create a new group called sci.crypt.research 
>for academic researchers. 
>
>Look at sci.math and sci.math.research; the partition works pretty well.

I think sci.crypt.research would be a good idea. It would probably have
to be moderated to keep the political posts away, but I think the
moderation policy shouldn't be too strict (i.e. posts shouldn't be
rejected because they aren't up to academic standards, but only
if they don't agree with the charter of the group, or if they
only restate what's been said earlier).

Does anybody feel like posting a formal RFD (Request For Discussion)
to news.announce.newgroups? 

BTW, I most emphatically think that it would be a bad idea to moderate
(i.e. censor) sci.crypt - the right way to go is to create a new,
moderated, low-noise group.

And sci.crypt.politics would be a good idea if it'd work, but I'm
afraid it wouldn't keep the politics out of sci.crypt. Look at all the
political posts that are crossposted between sci.space and
talk.politics.space, for example.

              Magnus Olsson                | \e+      /_
    Department of Theoretical Physics      |  \  Z   / q
        University of Lund, Sweden         |   >----<           
 magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@seldc52.bitnet  |  /      \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e-      \q