From: TruthMonger <tm@dev.null>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 04:46:22 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: MatchPseudonym Technology / Re: encouraging digital pseudonyms
In-Reply-To: <v03102805b04c51cb80d0@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <3426D660.6874@dev.null>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim May wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA2
> 
> At 3:16 AM -0700 9/22/97, Wei Dai wrote:
> >One of Tim's suggested cypherpunk projects is to encourage the use of
> >digital pseudonyms (i.e. cryptographically persistent entities not linked
> >with True Names).

  Like TruthMonger!

> >When I see a piece of email sent to the cypherpunks list
> >from an anonymous remailer, I typically delete it without reading, because
> >there is no easy way to tell between anynoymous email (which are typically
> >junk) and pseudonymous email, and there is no easy way to filter by
> >pseudonym.

  I was wondering why you never did anything about the child abuse
taking place in your family. I guess you deleted my anonymous email
to you about the situation.
 
> I'm planning to make more serious use of pseudonyms, digitally signed.
> Despite what LD used to claim about my use of "tentacles," it was simply
> too much trouble to do the elaborate cut-and-paste of using PGP 1.9, 2.7.
> 2.85, etc. for my Amiga.

  Well, if Mr. Cryptography himself finds it too much trouble to
use cryptography, then I guess it shows how lame the efforts are
of the CypherPunks who complain that Joe Sheeple doesn't use it,
either.

> But I now am using PGP 5.6, which is well-integrated with my mailer
> (Eudora), and I plan to spend some effort creating some persistent, forged
> personnas. (I won't say when, so don't assume any new "nyms" you see here
> are mine, except for TruthMonger.)
> 
> To this end, this message is being signed. With my new PGP 5.6 key. Signed
> by my old (really, really, old) 1989 key.

  This ought to ensure that you won't be the target of forgeries in
your name, or scum who misquote and/or twist your words.
 
> >Of course the long-term solution is to get native pseudonym support on the
> >client software, but in the mean time there is a fairly simple workaround
> >if someone wants to volunteer a modest amount of resources. That person
> >should set up a mailing list that simply resends cypherpunk traffic that
> >are signed by pseudonyms. To help filtering, the pseudonym's key hash
> >should be prepended to the subject.

  This would take care of that pesky problem of being bothered with
anonymous messages informing you about your children being molested
by their teachers, etc.
   
> >When this is done, those of us who want to can filter out everything sent
> >by remailers to the cypherpunks mailing list and subscribe to the proposed
> >service. If enough of us do this, it should motivate anonymous senders to
> >set up persistent identities. If the trouble of generating new pseudonyms
> >is not enough to discourage the anonymous junk, the proposed service can
> >charge ecash or hashcash either per pseudonym or per email.

  This surely ought to help in removing the scourge of remailers
currently plaguing the Internet, or at least force remailer users
to get their Cypherpunk approved pseudo-identity numbers.
  It is certainly important to get the message out to others on the
Internet that people who use anonymous remailers don't have anything
of worth to say.
  Cypherpunk identity numbers will help us to cull out the misfits
and wrong-thinkers from the Internet. It's about time.

TruthMonger
"Just say no to Anonymous inside."