1996-05-19 - Re: The Crisis with Remailers

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 926b480a6d24af866449cf18db0b5b8ff6d83370f76e494fe20f6af6cecedab1
Message ID: <qu65ND20w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <199605182006.NAA13449@netcom12.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-19 03:55:00 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 11:55:00 +0800

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 11:55:00 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Crisis with Remailers
In-Reply-To: <199605182006.NAA13449@netcom12.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <qu65ND20w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Having exchanged e-mail in the past with Lance Deitweller, I have to conclude
that Vladimir Z. Nuri is NOT Lance, since Lance is actually pretty sharp.

"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> writes:
> >> 2. there is no good way to deal with spams or other so-called "abuse"
> >
> > Nor should there be.  What's one person's abuse is another person's
> >free speech.  Internet traffic should not be censored based on contents.
> pardon me, but a rather shallow response.

One of the reasons why I don't like Sovoks is that when they're at loss for
words, they resort to name-calling. Your rants hardly deserve any response
other than *plonk*, and you have the gall to bitch that it's "shallow"?

> you simply cannot ignore the spam problem

Just watch me ignore it, just as my site ignores all cancels.

>                                             there is definitely
> a spam problem in cyberspace,

Not for me.  Not for most sysadmins or readers who have better things to
do than worry that someone posted something inappropriate to Usenet.

Read Dave Hayes's FAQ.

> perhaps after someone continues to send you a recurrent mailbomb of
> 100 MB per day do your site for 1 year, you will still insist that
> "internet traffic should not be censored"...

I said: "Internet traffic should not be censored BASED ON CONTENTS." If the
above actually casued my site problems based on the volume, it would result
in reprecussions for the perpetrator, irrespective of contents.

All of the so-called "spam" combined is a miniscule percentage of Usenet
traffic, less than almost any single alt.binaries. newsgroup.  It can
be easily ignored using a newsreader that processes NoCeM's.

> the spam problem will only be solved once people begin to realize what
> kind of a problem it is.

I.e., not a problem, except for some anal-retentive control freaks longing
for their beloved Soviet Union, and their ilk on news.admin.net-abuse.*.

I'm a news admin.  You're not and you don't know what you're talking about.

> there are deeper problems that cpunks skirt around but fail to grasp
> because of numerous prejudices.

You have a problem with other people saying something that you can't
control.  With this attitude, I suggest you limit your reading to


Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps