From: "Mullen Patrick" <Mullen.Patrick@mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 15:46:09 -0800 (PST)
To: "Peter Hendrickson" <ph@netcom.com>
Subject: RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
Message-ID: <n1364127665.90445@mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Peter Hendrickson switched the transistors to say:
>> While I hope this plan won't ever be necessary, at least not on such a
>> global scale, the application of such techniques toward a mailing list
>> sounds decent.

>This may sound like a quibble, but it really isn't: I am not talking about
>a global scale at all.  A very small group of people can make use of
>this technology successfully.  It doesn't matter whether everybody in
>the world uses it or just people who are tired of spam - it still works.

Yeah, I knew I used a bad choice of words.  I meant global as in "all-
encompassing" rather than the geographical definition.

>However, if you restrict postings to an approved group of people, perhaps
>everybody on the mailing list, you can eliminate spam.  How, then, do we
>allow anonymous postings to come through?  Individual people on the list
>can receive the proposed post and forward it to the list if it is
>appropriate.  They could even charge a fee for doing it.  That's easy to
>do if there is a "paying" remailer which will handle the money for them.

>> Which brings up another topic:  How would an anonymous remailer operate?
>> It's hard to eliminate an audit trail when there is some monetary tie back
>> to you, whether it be credit card, ecash (assuming they never quite figure
>> out anonymizing it), ...

>I assumed untraceable cash transactions for small amounts were available.

>E-cash, the product licensed by Digicash, offers full payee anonymity and
>would be an ideal candidate.

Oops.  I forgot.  :-)  I guess this idea would work.  But, there would be a
very large price for anonymity - two mailers holding their hands out for a 
piece of the pie.

Well, I must admit you seem to have this idea pretty well thought out, and 
it just may work.  The hardest part of the plan would probably be gaining
acceptance.  True, everyone loves getting a check, especially if all they
had to do was open and close email to have it register as being read, but
the hard part is getting people to accept having to pay to send someone a
message.  Of course, there's the argument that currently we pay for stamps...
:-)

PM

>Peter Hendrickson
>ph@netcom.com



------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;14 Nov 1996 17:46:22 -0400
Received: from netcom18.netcom.com by delphi.ndhm.gtegsc.com with SMTP;
          Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:42:05 GMT
Received: from [192.0.2.1] (ph@netcom3.netcom.com [192.100.81.103]) by
netcom18.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom)
	id OAA05098; Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:40:19 -0800
X-Sender: ph@netcom15.netcom.com
Message-Id: <v02140b05aeb13a70acf4@[192.0.2.1]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:40:29 -0800
To: "Mullen Patrick" <Mullen.Patrick@mail.ndhm.gtegsc.com>
From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Subject: RE: Remailer Abuse Solutions
Cc: "Cypherpunks" <cypherpunks@toad.com>