From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 1997 20:33:31 +0800
To: jf_avon@citenet.net
Subject: Re: bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)
In-Reply-To: <199708030302.XAA08565@cti06.citenet.net>
Message-ID: <199708031129.MAA00973@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




jf_avon@citenet.net writes:
> On  3 Aug 97 at 2:34, Adam Back wrote:
> > Eg. Say I spam you via an anonymous remailer.  So now who are you
> > going to sue?
> >
> > Spammers use remailers already.
> > 
> > So your suggest has dire consequences for remailers.
> 
> What you would sue is the entity that is advertized in the 
> message, not the ISP (or remailer)  of course.  If you get harassing 
> mail through the paper mail, would you sue the postal service?

Here's the sequence of events as I see it:

 1. spammer spams you with adverisement for phone sex line
 2. you try to sue phone sex line company
 3. phone sex company denies all knowledge
 4. government says all email must be authenticated 
 5. government issues internet drivers license
 6. anonymous remailers work around authentication requirement
 7. government outlaws remailers

See any flaws in that logical and undesirable sequence of events?

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`