Re: Why are we here? What are our goals?

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004, Hector Santos wrote:

> > Are the posters able to restrict knowledge of their identity to only
> themselves, or not?
>
> No.   They can not post mail without accountablity or tracability or some
> kind.

That that's not anonymity. That's identity escrow.

> > I believe that that statement to be false, and based on a flawed premise.
>
> Which is?

That it is acceptable to build a protocol which must resort to legal
action in order to be sustainable.

> > What you are suggesting here is a protocol which deals with abuse by
> > resorting to lawsuits or prosecution. From a technical standpoint, that's
> > a pretty inadequate protocol.
>
> I don't agree. Incorrect description of that you deem is my premise.
>
> I can not support or endorse any concept of complete 100% untracable
> posting.  And it does have ramifications that are legal and both technical.
> See CAN-SPAM.

CAN-SPAM is not relevant.

> > A good message protocol will not require "traceability" as a necessary
> > component for its security. It will handle network abuse gracefully and
> > through innate protections.
>
> How so?  That seems to be a contradiction.   To "Handle Abuse" implies there
> is some trackable or "access" concept involved.

You appear to want to deal with abuse through accountability and
punishment. A protocol designed for use on a global network should be able
to proactively resist attack, instead of relying on reactive out-of-band
action as a deterrent.

> > It's my understanding that CAN-SPAM bans the forging of network headers.
> > That does not prohibit strong anonymity, and does not affect anonymous
> > remailers.
>
> If you don't forge your transaction then you are no longer anonymous!

That is a false statement. I suggest you read a bit of the large body of
academic research on anonymity protocols for background.

For instance, Mixmaster forges nothing. Mail delivered to a recipient
from a Mixmaster remailer bears the legitimate headers and information of
the remailer's MTA.

> CAN-SPAM clearly says that TRACABILITY IS A MUST!  It is the only way it can
> be enforced.   And that includes direct and indirect senders.  Please read
> it thoroughly.   It is quite clear.

Are you an attorney?

> Anyway.  This is EXACTLY why we need to get this straight.   You are
> advocating the concept that I must accept your entire message first to
> decide if its acceptable or not.  No consideration for who is delivering the
> message or protocol level controls.  Sounds familar?

I am advocating no such thing. What the recipient must accept, how the
message is delivered, and whether the sender's identity must be verifiable
are all orthogonal concepts.

> Sorry, both concepts are unacceptable by me for any new design.  If you want
> to have a primitive protocol with one command "DATA" or break it into two,
> HEAD and BODY commands,  great! Propose it!   I have less of a problem with
> that. But that HEAD must all the TRUSTED relationship and network tracing
> concepts we must deal with.

Why must you dictate a global recipient policy? It is wiser to build in
optional 'trust' relationship opportunities, and permit the recipients to
define their own threshold for what messages they will accept.