NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/news/groups/24939

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-28 | 3.7 KB

Xref: sparky news.groups:24939 sci.crypt:6233
Path: sparky!uunet!seismo!darwin.sura.net!wupost!usc!enterpoop.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!aun.uninett.no!nuug!nntp.nta.no!hal.nta.no!styri
From: [e-mail] (Haakon Styri)
Newsgroups: news.groups,sci.crypt
Subject: Re: sci.crypt.research
Summary: Rather sci.crypt.theory than sci.crypt.research
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Dec 92 15:21:55 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (YuNoHoo)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Norwegian Telecom Research
Lines: 70
Nntp-Posting-Host: balder.nta.no

[note followup-to header, change newsgroups line if apropriate.
 personally I think the thread should be crossposted until a
 formal RFD is posted.]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alain Simon) writes:
>    I would much rather create a talk group dedicated to political
>    aspects, philosophical issues, and subversive proposals
>    than move an existing group with a strong mandate and a very
>    clearly identifiable hierarchy (sci).
>
>    NO     to sci.crypt.research
>    YES    to talk.crypt
>    YES    to keeping sci.crypt as is
>    NO    to moderating either

Ah, here we are again. Back in the "hard" and "soft" group hierarchies. In
a way I like the idea. But, I'd rather have related groups close and in the
same tree. It's a fact of life that many branches of science have a political
sides. Gene research is one example, cryptology (or was that cryptography).

And, more important: If there were two groups `talk.crypt' and `sci.crypt',
which group do you think would receive the "Is DES in the public domain"
and "Can someone post a C implementation of RSA real fast" traffic?

A minor point is that it may satisfy some of the political posters to
have their flame-fast in a sci.crypt backyard rather than in some
faraway talk-group.  :-)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Robert Lenoil) writes:
>
> I started up rn today with the intention of unsubscribing to sci.crypt
> because of the transmogrification of the newsgroup into a legal/political
> forum instead of an academic one. I'm very glad therefore to see this RFD for
> a new group. As for whether the practitioners should move to a new group
> (sci.crypt.research) or the lawyers/politicians should get a new group
> (talk.crypt), I don't have a strong preference.

I guess the best thing to do is to make the smallest part of the group
make the move. The "get out of this group, we just created another one
for you guys" may not work. However, this is a rather pessimistic view.

> However, I would point out
> that having the word "research" in the group name would be a stronger hint
> as to the group's purpose than trying to infer the respective group agendas
> based solely on the prefixes "sci" and "talk."

To some people, the strongest hint should be the "sci" and "talk". I'm
not one of them. The word "research" may not be the best name however.
Maybe `sci.crypt.theory' is better. And, it should probably be a moderated
group. If moderator doesn't approve you can post in an unmoderated `sci.crypt'.

Finally, the name `talk.crypt' may be misleading. What's the purpose. A group
for posting encrypted articles???

> But then again, USENET has
> a large readership of UNIX users that are quite at home with terse word
> fragments. Wdnt u agre? :)

Yup, but the same users usually can be really obsessed with strict
newsgroup charters and will interpret official guidelines as a court
order.

Anyway...
    NO     to sci.crypt.research
    NO     to talk.crypt
    YES    to sci.crypt.theory  moderated

---
Haakon Styri
Norwegian Telecom Research