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

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Hector Santos wrote:


> > In fact, I'd go further and say that there should be better support for
> > anonymity protocols.
>
> Why can't you built a "trust" and still be anonymous?
>
> How about this.  What if I provided an email addresses such as called:
>
>              [email protected]
>             [email protected]
>
> and we used use to consolidate a "bulletin board" folder where interested
> users can included in their reading/views?  With smart filters users can
> extract certain mail that they might be interested in.
>
> Does this idea have any merit?

I don't quite get what it is you are proposing. Are the posters able to
restrict knowledge of their identity to only themselves, or not?

> We don't agree.  We need to control the abuse.  You might not be malicious,
> but by far, the industry problem is based on malicious abuse.   There is no
> dispute there.  I think we can design something that will satisfy all.  But
> you need to be traceable.  It can't be open-ended any more.

I believe that that statement to be false, and based on a flawed premise.
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.

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.

> Besides, regardless of your opinion about it, the US Federal Law called
> CAN-SPAM now says it has to be traceable and IMO, I think it will be model
> or basis for other nations to follow.  The process has already begun.

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.


--Len.