Tim,
I support Hal's proposal that as many remailer operators as possible attempt to filter Detweiler's postings. All it will take for Detweiler to get through is one who doesn't filter, and who supports encryption, but this will still make it harder for folks like Detweiler to abuse the system.
I disagree. While I can honestly say that I don't like most Detweiler posts, I feel that he is showing us the possibility of how remailers can (and are) being abused. I think censorship is the wrong answer. I think there needs to be some accountability, even if it is anonymous accountability. "How do we acount for something that's anonymous?" I hear you ask me. Well, I don't have the answer to that. Maybe our idea of anonymity is slightly in error. Maybe we need something like penet, where you actually get a return ID, to have some sort of anonymity. I don't know 100% for sure that Detweiler is an12070, although I do believe it is his address. Although I don't agree with his means, I do feel that once in a while Detweiler does post something useful. He does have something to say, although he has a real backwards way of saying it. (So backwards that he causes people to stop listening before he makes his point). But I feel censorship is *always* the wrong solution, unless it is done at the end-point. I.e., I can *choose* not to read posts from detweiler, or an12070, but that is my choice. I do not think anyone has the right to say to me that I *cannot* read his posts. It should be my perogative. Maybe we should change our systems to allow for anonymous accountability? Just a thought (or series thereof ;-) -derek