From: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
To: llurch@networking.stanford.edu
Message Hash: 07eec9b7266fd9f9865481412271efbea6646325347816e0a10a5c8cb019a1f7
Message ID: <01I4ZLEKOSPG8Y5IL9@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-22 08:59:30 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:59:30 +0800
From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:59:30 +0800
To: llurch@networking.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
Message-ID: <01I4ZLEKOSPG8Y5IL9@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: IN%"llurch@networking.stanford.edu" "Rich Graves" 21-MAY-1996 03:48:35.01
>I certainly think that limiting newsgroup posting would be prudent. It's
>inexcusable that it's possible to use anonymous remailers to post
>*forgeries* (see the smoking flames cross-posted to alt.syntax.tactical).
Hmm? Aside from the very basic "forgery" of adding someone else's name
to a post (which only the veriest idiot will pay attention to, especially if
the remailer operator adds adequate warning labels outside the headers), what
forgeries are possible?
-Allen
Return to May 1996
Return to ““E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>”
1996-05-22 (Wed, 22 May 1996 16:59:30 +0800) - Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns - “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>