On Fri, Jun 02, 2000 at 09:22:13AM -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > Reese wrote: > > > > At 03:35 PM 01/06/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > >Anonymous users must use a single address which weakens their anonymity. > > > > Further, many of the suggestions I've seen floated would seem to prohibit > > anonymous posts via Ty I or II remailers, hence, I'm against them. For 'closing' the list (i.e. allowing only subscribers to post) you simply add the remailers to the allowed posters list. > > Yes, I know, I'm on record as opposing anonymous flames. > > > > anonymous flames |= anonymous posts. > > > > Anyone needs me to break that down further should first clean the wax out > > of their ears. It's a responsibility argument. > > My proposal contains NOTHING that would limit ANY anonymous users of > ANY remailers. > > An anonymous user, via whatever remailer, can easily register himself. Or you could do it for them. There's only what, 7 or 10 remailers? > All registration does is basically confirms that this address understands > what cypherpunks is and that this address wants to be able to send mail > to the list. It proves that it is not some stupid website trying to send > a newsletter to cypherpunks. My registration proposal does NOT require > any address confirmation. While your suggestion should work on regular spam sent to the list, what's to prevent a determined attacker from registering [EMAIL PROTECTED] as a poster and then subscribing the cpunks list to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? -- Eric Murray www.lne.com/~ericm ericm at the site lne.com PGP keyid:E03F65E5
