From: qwerty@netcom.com (Xenon)
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 12:15:13 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Misc replies
Message-ID: <199402162014.MAA14953@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I'll try this again; Netcom has this nasty habit of just dying for
10 minutes at a time right in the middle of my pasting e-mail.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Greg Broiles wrote,

>I second Hal's suggestion to route Detweiler's traffic through Xenon's
>remailer.

>(Xenon - the point isn't to keep Detweiler off the net. We all know
>that's impossible. The point is to keep Detweiler from getting remailers
>shut down by abusing them. That's why this is particularly unlike
>censorship; Detweiler's goal is to keep all people from using remailers.)

Sure, send me YOUR garbage. Why isn't Larry abusing MY remailer? This
peer pressure is childish. I no longer really need qwerty as a remailer,
and will happily shut it down as soon as YOU people start abusing it.

I admit I created a lot of negative feelings out there with my statement
that I didn't want to block Larry's addresses. However, say I retract
that statement, and say I do not want to block him, but that I AM
willing to give into such peer pressure and try TO block him? I now
ask you to, with compassion, educate me about how the arguments I
express against the MEANS you tell me to use, are not valid.

I don't mind blocking the address of some undergrad who is sending silly
stuff to Usenet, but must I always have to demonstrate to you things
that I cannot seem to convey in words? OK. I shall write a script to
telnet to port 25 of a given remailer, and forge mail from various
non-existent addresses at Netcom. They will include names like
"S.Boxx@netcom.com", "Executioner@netcom.com", and
"Fuckyou@netcom.com". What will you do then, block incoming from
netcom.com? Yeah right ;-) ! I sent myself mail this way via Hal's
remailer. It WORKED.

Larry knew how to do this when I was still trying to work my
newsreader. Again, as I have said before, it is my feeling that
all of our trying to block Larry's current known addresses will
only fuel the fire, and next time he will REALLY cause problems.
He isn't a stupid guy. And he IS the type of person who if you
fight him, he will fight back with more energy than before. So far
I am not impressed with the level of sophistication in the words
I hear coming from the remailer operators and other interested
parties out here. We need an ABUSE filter, not a Detweiler filter,
for with current sendmail, we CANNOT block a determined
person from abusing the remailers. And it is my belief that trying
to do so will renew their fanaticism and dedication to upsetting
the remailers. He already seems to have a new anon.penet.fi
address. He can have as many more as he wants, brand spanking
new, by telnetting to anon.penet.fi 25 and faking his address. I
have tried this and it too WORKS.

Give me a real solution, one that will not make the problem
WORSE. Many of you out here remind me of government
bureaucrats, in how you want to try quick very short term
fixes, which in the end only backfire and make the problems 
worse. You think Larry isn't willing to fork over $20 to get a
Netcom account and then spend another $50 to buy e-postage,
then send out much MORE damning abuses (since you made it
harder for him to do damage by quantity alone), this time
with real religious zeal, since now he has gotten you guys to
finally fight back, and as you must realize, he takes this all
VERY seriously.

And after all, isn't our installing ABUSE filters what Larry
is trying to tell us to do in the first place? I do not find this
an unreasonable request. It is a wonderful solution that avoids
accountability problems, after the fact, upon someone posting
an abusive message to Usenet, since they are unable to post
such an abuse in the first place. Why don't we appease Larry?

How? The answer is painful and obvious: Moderated remailers.
You already have to trust the remailer operator with your
privacy. E-postage is a fun idea especially for ME ;-), but the
logistics and loss of traffic are real problems. Besides, I can't
charge as much for a Netcom remailer, as it is not as secure
as some others. Is it not unfortunate that an AI program
cannot ever hope to accomplish what the human eye and brain
can do in a millisecond? Hit a 'd' key in responses to abusive
mail. Send me such a script!

Until Usenet is fully moderated, and realize that MOST people
on Usenet do NOT feel like pandering to "those cowards and
irresponsible people afraid to use their real names". THAT is
the attitude out there. There must be moderation, if only for
remailing to Usenet. Since such moderation is unlikely in the
next year, for all of Usenet, the moderation must lie within
the remailers. Yes, anon.penet.fi has survived without this,
but Julf keeps people's REAL addresses on his hard disk,
and keeps FULL logs (not content though). Still, it is possible
for Larry to send out a hundred Usenet posts, by forging
e-mail to anon.penet.fi. Fortunately for Julf, he is busy
enough upsetting us.

If full moderation not be practical, then fairly smart scripts
for detecting abuse could do SOME good. Certainly a barrage
of posts to Usenet could be detected and blocked. But that only
causes someone to post more damaging posts in fewer numbers.

"I am afraid of knowing the truth, for when you offer it to
people, they call you mad."

 -=Xenon=-



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3

iQCVAgUBLWI1bASzG6zrQn1RAQHPEwP/Wf/jCuEV6sE9vs89NvC25T1ejBrr6nxq
+65zorNvaSpaTYJraH5kD7NHSerXX5XlNKllG10RoqwnpjwQ56FCsVQzqDrkYH+9
DXk5VP2ay0B0DFIRxgTGXhl4fXi6K6bjiS4dRi4AxvnOeZaGlzTQMu1CGJJZ1pNk
Cv+P0X/rYcw=
=tO7R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----