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:
for-spammers-only(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com
bulletinboard(_at_)winserver(_dot_)com
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.