From: Anonymous <remailer-admin@chaos.bsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 94 05:51:50 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <199406081247.HAA01492@chaos.bsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: Anthony Garcia <agarcia@sugar.neosoft.com>

> P.S. Larry, if you're still lurking around here:  the "Yay Sedition!" and
> "Yay Tax Evasion!" are especially for *yoooouuu*.

funny think about garcia, his first time ever post on c'punx was about
larry too......  strange times indeed when a newbie bursts on the scene
knowing all about us

Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 23:18:22 -0600
From: Anthony Garcia <agarcia@sugar.neosoft.com>
Message-Id: <199401200518.AA05127@sugar.NeoSoft.COM>
Cc: agarcia@sugar.neosoft.com
Subject: Detweiler's SQUISH broadcast: can remailers filter out addressee?

I'm not familiar with anonymous remailer internals.  Would it be cheap
in terms of hack-time to add the capability for an anonymous remailer
to maintain a list of addresses (or address regexp's) which do not
wish to receive anonymous remailed messages?

That way, if Detweiler is sending unwanted msgs to say,
"chess-fans@foo.bar.com" via an anonymous remailer, and the readers of
chess-fans complained to the (hopefully responsive) remailer operator,
the remailer operator could add the "chess-fans" address to a "don't-
remail-to-these-folks" list so that the nice readers of chess-fans can
read mail in peace.

However, if the "Don't-mail-to-these-folks" list gets too long, it
would probably degrade remailer performance... sigh.  (remailer authors:
is this a correct assumption?)

(Perhaps the "don't-mail" addresses could be tagged with amount of time
somebody last attempted them;  addresses that no one's attempted to
hit in say, a year, could be expired.)

-Anthony Garcia
agarcia@sugar.neosoft.com
NeoSoft is a commercial access provider, not my employer.  (They didn't
demand identity verification when I signed up, either.  Yay, capitalism!)

P.S. Larry:  I didn't make the "tentacle" list in your SQUISH post?  I
feel slighted!  Please correct in the next version.