From: Patrick_May@dtv.sel.sony.com (Patrick May)
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:56:57 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: SQUISH IDIOCY
In-Reply-To: <199401202214.PAA13868@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <9401211846.AA18828@hugehub>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Ken McGlothlen writes:
 > [DetCrap deleted]
 >
 > For this reason, I'm going to start rejecting any mail coming from an anonymous
 > remailer.  I've just gotten to the point where any potential usefulness is
 > totally outweighed by their inconvenience and the inability to filter the
 > ani-for-brains who persist in abusing them.  Unless someone can come up with a
 > way to make them useful again, I just can't see any reason to read 'em.

     I've considered this option as well, but that is precisely what
Detweiler wants people to do: stop using anonymous remailers.  I
advocate the following alternatives:

          - Cypherpunks should use software such as is used by the
            extropians list.  This allows each subscriber to ignore
            specific people or threads more easily than by using a
            local filter.  I believe it also requires that each
            address used by a subscriber be registered.  This could
            be modified to allow messages to be posted anonymously
            by the server but also allow exclusion of such posts
            by users.

          - People who value anonymity and want to prevent SQUISH-
            like abuses could run modified remailers that allow the
            rejection of messages from particular sites.  If enough
            such remailers were available, they could also agree to
            reject messages from remailers without anti-abuse
            policies.  If enough people think this is worth the
            effort it could result in several different sets of
            remailers, each with different policies -- emergent law.

          - If you feel that a posting is out of line and you're
            reasonably certain of its origin, send email to the
            responsible party, his/her postmaster, and anyone else
            who might have an impact on the problem.  Enough people
            doing this will at least waste some of the offender's
            time and slow down the abuses.  While I respect the
            postmaster's support of free speech, I suggest that
            those affected by the exercise of that right are
            justified in exercising that right in return.  A
            working anarchy depends on such feedback.

     If anyone running the services mentioned above is interested in
making the modifications suggested but lacks the time, drop me a line.
I'll be happy to donate some coding time to this issue.

     If any of this doesn't make sense, I blame my cold medicine.

Regards,

Patrick May