From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 20:32:03 PST
To: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Community standards for email anonymity
In-Reply-To: <9303141011.AA05636@cygnus.com>
Message-ID: <9303160430.AA10106@SOS>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1993 03:27-EST
   From: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU

	 Self-protection                       Protection via rules
	 ---------------                       --------------------

    Allow anonymous posting       Use software to           Forbid all
    in all newsgroups; use        allow anonymity in        anonymous posting.
    information filters.          some groups only.     


    Handle volume bombs by                Track down volume bombs
    using digital postage and             and disconnect the offender.
    information filters.                   


There's only one problem.... information filters and digital postage are
not widely available right now, and will probably not be widely used for
a long time.  And while digital postage sounds nice, as long as once
remailer site doesn't require digital postage, twits will still be able
to perform volume bombs.

So until the majority of the people reading USENET have the means of
self-protection, is it unreasonable to that people get protected via
some set of rules?  

You say that what you suggesting is a "Libertarian standard"; yet even
the most rabid Libertarians believe in having rules against murder, and
violence, instead of claiming that everyone must train themselves in
martial arts so they can defend themselves.....

						- Ted