1993-03-01 - Re: Handling Abuses of Remailers

Header Data

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
To: “Timothy C. May” <tcmay@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 7dedcdb78c06a4be7b06e6ad4ad396dc35754b0972104804a527b554e9c88226
Message ID: <9303011229.aa06385@penet.penet.FI>
Reply To: <9303010536.AA10591@netcom.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-01 11:27:25 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 03:27:25 PST

Raw message

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 03:27:25 PST
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Handling Abuses of Remailers
In-Reply-To: <9303010536.AA10591@netcom.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9303011229.aa06385@penet.penet.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> * To handle _abusive volumes_ through remailers, charge for remailing.
> Short term, this may be a problem, but this is the long term market
> solution.
> * To handle _abusive messages_ through remailers, ignore them. "Sticks and
> stones" and all that. Put positive reputation filters in place. Accept
> e-mail only through those you know or have reason to trust.
> As Sandy Sandfort so cogently put it, punish the perps, not the words of
> the perps. This is the basis of our society, and a good basis, too. 

All this is very well for a cypherpunks-type remailer, used by a small
number of experienced users. But it doesn't apply very well to anonymous
posting/mailing services for a large number of "simple" users (services like
anon.penet.fi), nor to alt.whistleblower. Do we need to split up the
list to handle the rather diferent threads?