--
On 4 Sep 2004 at 21:50, Nomen Nescio wrote:
The ratio of remailer use to abuse is painfully low because
there's no way to actually communicate. You can broadcast but
not recieve, because no system exists to receive mail
psuedononymously. This is not communication.
Remailer use is
Tyler Durden wrote:
The hascash idea is OK, and obviously will work (as of now...the
dividing line between human and machine is clearly not static, and
smarter spam operations will start doing some segmentation analysis and
then find it worthwhile to pay up). But the kind of person that may
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at mercurio.mixmaster.it. If you do not want to receive
anonymous messages, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext
Nomen Nescio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
Tyler Durden wrote:
The hascash idea is OK, and obviously will work (as of now...the
dividing line between human and machine is clearly not static, and
smarter spam operations will start doing some segmentation analysis and
then find it worthwhile to pay up). But the kind of person that may
This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at mercurio.mixmaster.it. If you do not want to receive
anonymous messages, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-
Message-type: plaintext
Nomen Nescio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The
We want to be able to provide the means for whistleblowers and
others to communicate in a secure and anonymous fashion. Yet we need
to make sure we're not abused too much since sooner or later laws
will catch up with the remailers should abuse sky-rocket.
The ratio of remailer use to
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:50:14PM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's take our shining example of truth and freedom, the whistle-blower.
When they send out mail to the media or whomever, one of two things happens:
they see the story published or they don't. If not, there's no idea why: was
it
We want to be able to provide the means for whistleblowers and
others to communicate in a secure and anonymous fashion. Yet we need
to make sure we're not abused too much since sooner or later laws
will catch up with the remailers should abuse sky-rocket.
The ratio of remailer use to
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 09:50:14PM +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's take our shining example of truth and freedom, the whistle-blower.
When they send out mail to the media or whomever, one of two things happens:
they see the story published or they don't. If not, there's no idea why: was
it
Spam is the least of the problems for remailers when it comes to
abuse. You should be more concerned about possible liability for
illegal messages.
In a way, spam has actually made the remailer operator's life easier
as people today are used to receiving annoying and obscene email.
Ten years
At 01:30 PM 9/1/04 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Yet we need
to make sure we're not abused too much since sooner or later laws
will catch up with the remailers should abuse sky-rocket.
You need a Bill of Rights that specifies freedom of expression,
and judges that understand it. Since you appear
What are the possible solutions for the remailers? Make all
remailers middleman only and adding the ability to opt-in for
Open wireless access points.
No one said you are entitled to mail anonymously from the comfort of your
home/office. Stop whining.
=
end
(of original message)
Variola wrote...
Making sure we have robust remailing services in one shape or
another and at the same time have some kind of at least indirect
acceptance from legislators and also a low degree of spam flowing
through are essential goals.
Any legislator seeking to control how people use a
Remailers remain effective when you run your own as the
first hop and accept no incoming remail.
To be sure, if everyone did that no remailer would accept
remails. Shhh.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Are remailers an unsolveable paradox?
We want to be able to provide the means for whistleblowers and
others to communicate in a secure and anonymous fashion. Yet we need
to make sure we're not abused too much since sooner or later laws
will catch
, but I agree with your essential
point that it needs looking into.
-TD
From: Nomen Nescio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Remailers an unsolveable paradox?
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:30:01 +0200 (CEST)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Are remailers an unsolveable paradox
Nomen Nescio wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Are remailers an unsolveable paradox?
Yes.
Adios, Lemuria. Hate to see you go, but I understand completely.
--
Roy M. Silvernail is [EMAIL PROTECTED], and you're not
It's just this little chromium switch, here. - TFS
At 01:30 PM 9/1/04 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Yet we need
to make sure we're not abused too much since sooner or later laws
will catch up with the remailers should abuse sky-rocket.
You need a Bill of Rights that specifies freedom of expression,
and judges that understand it. Since you appear
What are the possible solutions for the remailers? Make all
remailers middleman only and adding the ability to opt-in for
Open wireless access points.
No one said you are entitled to mail anonymously from the comfort of your
home/office. Stop whining.
=
end
(of original message)
Variola wrote...
Making sure we have robust remailing services in one shape or
another and at the same time have some kind of at least indirect
acceptance from legislators and also a low degree of spam flowing
through are essential goals.
Any legislator seeking to control how people use a
Spam is the least of the problems for remailers when it comes to
abuse. You should be more concerned about possible liability for
illegal messages.
In a way, spam has actually made the remailer operator's life easier
as people today are used to receiving annoying and obscene email.
Ten years
21 matches
Mail list logo
