Hundreds. Stop trying to argue that Paul Graham was trying to keep a secret on a mailing list that might hit 1000 people.
The reason for all the drama about Graham's mail wasn't that it was a leaked secret. It's that dishonest tech publications cynically spun it as one. Just like they're doing on this story.
tptacek - you're acting desperate with that smear.
......
You seem to be having a hard time with the point that Graham sent his negotiating advice to a giant freaking mailing list with many tens of companies on it.
No. I understand this. These are people with whom he has a investment interest, are portfolio companies, and YC alumn executives and the like. Ie, the types of people he would be giving advice to about raising money.
So, I'm not implying anything about PG.
I wrote "NOT MARKED TOP SECRET" as a modifier for his e-mail. As a point of fact, he's not a government agency.
And the point is certainly not the issue that PG <sent> the email.
The only relevance here was that it was "leaked" to the <press>, by a party [intentionally or otherwise] he implicitly trusted enough in the first place send it too.
It clearly was not a <press release>.
PG made many comments here on HN. It did not seem that he wanted or envisioned his note to be in the press.
The point is that non-government, non-top-secret information can be "leaked." Which is true, and not really a debating point.
It was advice on sensitive negotiations for "YC Backed" companies?
or are we talking a different e-mail?