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
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?
Julf
Return to March 1993
Return to “tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)”