From: VACCINIA@UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 93 18:42:05 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re:Problems of anonymous posts
Message-ID: <01H48FNTQPJM0012K1@UNCVX1.OIT.UNC.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Continueing in the discussion that Hal recently posted:
>We need to support Karl, work to bring his innovations into other remailers
>and other mail agents, if we want to gain benefits from what we have done so 
>far.

Having received from Karl (using my own identity) some digicash strings to use 
as postage for his remailer, I know that my reputation, while using his 
remailer, is on the line (if he knows that I have these particular strings, I 
assume he does). This innovation suggests a method for implimenting a postive 
reputation scheme. One may apply to the operators of remailers for an initial
allotment of digicash to use as postage using a digital psuedonym and 
signature. The initial allotment would be a small number of strings. If the 
strings are used responsibly, then the person could reapply and receive more 
strings. Irresponsible use would result in refusal to grant postage and thus 
limit access to the remailer system. 

There does seem to be a problem with the concept of pseudoanonymous positive 
reputations; that is, how to prevent someone from establishing an endless 
string of digital identities to use irresponsibly? This problem is limited by 
granting a small number of postage strings at first, thus forcing the person 
to frequently discard and establish identities as he trashed them, but this 
nuisance may be only partially inhibitory.

The digital signature of a pseudonym would be required to be displayed at 
posts. Complaints about irresponsible use could then be attributed to a 
pseudonym, enough complaints would result in revocation of postage and denial 
of reapplication for postage.

Unfortunately, this places quite a burden on those who run remailers as they
would have to be the ones who decide what posts are acceptable and 
unacceptable (as well as hearing about an awful lot of stupid crap). But, it 
does have the effect of: 
1) limiting unacceptable use of remailers 
2) establishing a positive reputation (which could be used at other remailers)
3) maintaining anonymity
4) inhibiting endless strings of pseudonyns to be used bogusly (although not 
   eliminating the possibility)

The major problem in my mind is the undue burden placed on remailer operators.
However, there must be some clever folks out there who can figure out a way to
help out in this regard.

Also, could someone point me to some information about the IP bouncers Hal 
mentioned? Thanks.

Scott G. Morham              ! The First, 
Vaccinia@uncvx1.oit.unc.edu  !           Second
                             !                  and Third
                             !                            Levels of
                             !               Information Storage and Retrieval
                             ! DNA,                       
                             !     Biological Neural Nets,
                             !                            Cyberspace