From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 19:18:21 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Making Remailers Widespread [REMAILERS]
In-Reply-To: <199609300728.AAA17384@netcomsv.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <ua97uD15w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> >One other suggestion: instead of storing one bit of information (the
> >address is on the list or not), why not have several flag bits.
> >E.g., the blocking list could contain records similar to:
> >hash - e.g. 160-bit SHA
> >flags - e.g. reserve 32 bits
...
> Any suggestions for flags besides block/allow one-way, block/allow two-way,
> and max-size?

Here are two more ideas:

1. A bit to indicate that the recipient doesn't want to receive anonymous
e-mail if it contains the strings "fuck", "piss", "shit", "cunt", etc. Of
course, this can be circumvented with "f*ck u c*nt", but it shows good faith.

2. Limit the maximum number of e-mails that one remailer can send to
this address in a 24-hour period. I'd suggest using 2 bits:

00 - unlimited
01 - 10 / day
10 - 100 / day
11 - 1000 / day

with the default being 10 / day for addresses not in the database and also
for addresses added to the preferences database w/o specifying otherwise.

Thus, if you do expect to receive more than 10 anonymous e-mails / day via
one remailer, you must add your address to the database, not necessarily
blocking anythihg, but specifing that you want 100, 1000, or an unlimited
number of messages in a day.

When the count goes over the limit, a single e-mail is sent to the recipient
saying that there may be an attempt to mailbomb him, that some of his e-mail
was being junked, and that he can change the settings if he wants to.

This should prevent the kind of abuse you've described.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps