- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0

None
by Asymmetric 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

> I do understand how both types work, however, the opportunity for > subterfuge is always present. I was making a point that the assumed > security of a remailer should not factor in if you intend to put yourself > at risk. Assumptions are dangerous all over the place, and if your > assumption could get you into trouble, it's better to verify it or not > instead of just proceeding blindly, if at all possible. Even if you trust each remailer to "do the right thing" only 10% of the time, by chaining 10 such remailers the probability of having your identity revealed is only 1 in 10^10 - assuming that the remailers are independent. [That secondary assumption can be improved by chosing remailers in different countries.] > What is the outrageous claim? That someone could purposely set up an > insecure remailer, claim that it's secure, and that people could then > unwittingly use it to incriminate themselves? No - that by using an open-relay mailer you get the same anonymity as using a Type 1 / Type 2 remailer. > and honestly my comment about faking > the return addresses was in no way to say that this method could replace > remailers Funny, that's how it looked for everyone. Admit it - you said something stupid. [Even I admit I'm wrong sometimes. <g>] > I'm going to stop myself here.. The original email I sent was simply a > question about what could be done to possibly quell the flow of spam > generated by this list, followed by a few suggestions. It's gotten utterly > out of hand because somebody apparently took it as a personal attack, and > responded with a series of attacks of his own. Most of the regular subscribers are tired of the complaints (which are usually worse - as in more and bigger - than the spam). > As I said before, if [you] (the reader on the list) don't want to hear > these questions, then what's good for the goose is good for the > gander. Filter my emails if you like; It'll be a lot easier for you to > filter them automatically than it will be to filter the spam messages in > any event. I don't use any (deleting) filters; I read about 500 messages each day, and it only takes me 2-3 hours. A friend of mine reads around 2,000 messages each day. It's not such a big deal. > Instead, I received another nasty letter, and then a few days later a call > from my upstream provider. They denied her request to deliver up my name > and address, but told me that if I didn't take the information down that it > would be a violation of the service agreement, and that they would > disconnect the frame relay. I explained to their (the ISPs) lawyer the > situation, and that they did not actually own the copyrights in > question. He responded with "I know, but considering their history, they > are very willing to take us to court over this, and honestly we don't want > to deal with that. Take it down or we shut you down, we don't care who's > right, we just don't want a lawsuit." Yep. Same thing - the fear of lawsuits - is why we were warned, when we came to the US, to not even look at our female colleagues: even a hint of a lawsuit would make our employer send us back to our country in a heartbeat - whether we're guilty or not. [They wouldn't care.] US sucks a lot. Too bad this is where the money is :) > Needless to say, faced with the entire site being removed, I removed the > materials. One word: Freenet. See http://freenet.sourceforge.net > I see. But trying to find a way to save even more time and bandwidth by > even attempting to figure out a solution to this problem is not as valuable? No. There already is a solution: the client filters everything. Wait, there's also a second one: build your own cypherpunks node. [The second one is even better.] > It comes down to a simple bit of confusion on my part. I cannot understand > the mentality of someone who has the time and resources to effectively > combat the spam on this list, and yet who does not have the time or > resource to either respond in a somewhat civil fashion, or to just delete > the message along with the rest of the refuse. Spam takes <1 second to identify and delete. > You seemed to be a bit more level headed, so while I still totally disagree > that it's a waste of time to try and figure a way around this problem, I > haven't utterly lost respect for you as I have with Tim. "Pillar of the > community" or not, the guy is an utter asshole. Here I agree with you :) Mark

1 0