From: stig@transam.ece.cmu.edu (Jonathan Stigelman)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2f6e090aeaacc355210a837fc320831ad7e3669319d2fd345e2e3ed6f6715f31
Message ID: <223@x15remote.stigmobile.usa>
Reply To: _N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-27 04:55:04 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 20:55:04 PST
From: stig@transam.ece.cmu.edu (Jonathan Stigelman)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 20:55:04 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Availability of filtering scripts
Message-ID: <223@x15_remote.stigmobile.usa>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
In message <9303260732.AA23550@soda.berkeley.edu> you write:
>Were such a utility posted to alt.sources, and if all a user had to do
>was ftp it from an archive, unpack it, and run it once, we would be in
>a much better position politically, (even if the utility received very
>little use).
>
>It is difficult to install mail filters. Our argument for user
>filtering would be much stronger if installation were simple.
>
>A similar argument holds for anonymous posting filters in a global
>KILL file.
>
two points:
1. An even more convienient way to distribute this filter would be
by having it available from the anonymizing server itself. Mail to
filter-request@anon.foonet.bar to get a copy. This is better for
sites that do not have ftp available.
1.5 A variant on this approach would be for the server itself to do
the blocking of mail. Mail to block-my-mail@anon.foonet.bar. Would
prevent that server from sending anonymous mail to you. (the server
would, of course, send a receipt for the transaction to the user
who's mail is blocked...just in case of request forgery.)
2. This would be a political win, but it would really be just a step
in the right direction since many people don't read their mail from
UNIX boxes.... PCs, Macs, Fidonet boards, VMS, etc.
Stig
Return to March 1993
Return to “stig@transam.ece.cmu.edu (Jonathan Stigelman)”
1993-03-27 (Fri, 26 Mar 93 20:55:04 PST) - Availability of filtering scripts - stig@transam.ece.cmu.edu (Jonathan Stigelman)