From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 00:07:34 -0800 (PST)
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: Re: anonymous remailers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970206225911.3853F-100000@crl4.crl.com>
Message-ID: <199702070734.BAA00348@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


[I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure]

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It
> > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal
> > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion.
> > 
> > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is
> > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had
> > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com," thus I surmise it
> > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more
> > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.)
> 
> Currently, there are three lists.  It looks as though the message
> in question appeared on the Unedited list.  This is NOT the same
> as the Flames list.  
>  
> I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I
> read it on the Unedited list.  If it went to the "wrong" list,
> my apologies to the author.  As I indicated before, I don't think

I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be
corrected.

Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in
3 seconds after arrival to toad.com.

That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human
involvement.

> a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high
> 90s under the criteria I enunciated.  Not perfection, but a 
> definite improvement over the prior condition.

I see three problems with the current state of the list: 

	1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so 
	   your 90% statement is meaningless
	2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers,
	   therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers
	3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get
	   rejected.

>From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com  Thu Feb  6 22:20:35 1997
Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors@toad.com>
Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
        id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500
Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf)
	via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST
	for cypherpunks@toad.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: anonymous remailers
From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Comments: All power to the ZOG!
Message-Id: <iJkq2D46w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST
In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604@mail-relay.internetmci.com>
Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

c.musselman@internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes:

> C'punks --
> 	When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup
> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group,
> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers?  ATF,
> FBI, DEA, that's who!"  Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid.  Does
> anyone know the answer?  Specifically, how can we choose a trusted
> remailer?

Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk"
remailers are run by people who should not be trusted.  Check out their
remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific
person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like.

---

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