1993-02-28 - Re: dispatches from the front lines of anonymity

Header Data

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
To: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message Hash: 11d923dc905972a78ac270553e971256ae508f2b00c61fe5925fcf1a6f84b1f8
Message ID: <9302281154.aa16279@penet.penet.FI>
Reply To: <9302272115.AA08914@soda.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-28 10:53:34 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 02:53:34 PST

Raw message

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 02:53:34 PST
To: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: dispatches from the front lines of anonymity
In-Reply-To: <9302272115.AA08914@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <9302281154.aa16279@penet.penet.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Please advise.  alt.whistleblower, in addition to being a public good,
> is a great way to raise hell.

True. Actually, I want to ask for some help/advice. I am about to
implement alt.whistleblower on anon.penet.fi. But one thing I think I
would like some input on is the description text of the newsgroup for
the newsgroups file.

A more important matter is the way the group should be implemented.
Moderated or unmoderated doesn`t matter, as the server already knows how
to send messages to moderated groups to the moderator. But how should it
differ from other groups on anon.penet.fi? All groups will be able to
accept PGP-encrypted messages, but I was thinking of making a.w a
special case where id's aren't allocated at all, and every message would
just come from "an000000" or something. Is this a good idea? Pros are
that it would make it very hard to track down the real poster, cons that
it would be impossible to tell the different posters from each other,
thus not enabling informers to earn good or bad reputations, unless they
include key signatures or something.