From: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:24:47 +0800
To: cypherpunks@manifold.algebra.com
Subject: Re: CFV: moderate sci.cryonics -- CENSORING antispammers
Message-ID: <199705200217.VAA05908@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Joseph J. Strout (jstrout@ucsd.edu) wrote in 
* In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.970513130935.19729B-100000@panix.com>, Charles
* Platt <cp@panix.com> wrote:
* >> >Unacceptable messages include personal attacks, messages posted
* >> >without a valid sender address, and any message not pertaining to the
* >> >topics above.
* >
* >I would like to interpret "valid sender address" as meaning an address to 
* >which replies can be sent, without them bouncing. This would include 
* >anonymous remailers that allow an (anonymized) reply function. It would 
* >exclude anonymous remailers that don't allow such a function.
* >
* >Perhaps we could hear from the person who drafted the CFV to clarify this 
* >point. Or Keith Lynch could tell us whether he plans to use this 
* >interpretation.
* 
* Yes, I drafted the CFV, and this is exactly what I meant by "valid sender
* address".  This is clearly distinguishable from a fake address, which does
* not really exist and to which no email can be sent.  Requiring a valid
* return address applies a small amount of accountability to the poster. 
* This is the same criterion used, for example, when posting via DejaNews.

There is nothing good about this "accountability", and this is precisely
what I object to in the CFV.

There is no need for "accountability" in the moderated newsgroup.

	- Igor.