-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anonymous <anon@anon.efga.org> wrote:
My point being that a remailer operator has no way of knowing what the ultimate effect of *any* filtering/blocking will be. (Unless you read all of the email, like I do as the 'Bad Remailer' operator.)
If you are going to run a remailer, you had better expect that some of the people who use it aren't going to be your friends.
It has been my experience that the 'Fear of Spam/Abuse' is beginning to be the controlling factor in the usefulness, or lack thereof, of an increasing number of remailers.
And this has to be the lowest pressure attack on remailers that there can be. God forbid anybody should try for real to shut down the remailer network. This is understandable - running a remailer offers little tangible reward. On the other hand, if somebody were making $500,000 a year running a remailer, they might defend it a little more vigorously. And, if they didn't, somebody in the Carribbean might be happy to snap up the business.
I cannot help but feel that there has to be some simple ways of addressing the spam/abuse issue without making the remailers a hit and miss proposition for the average computer user.
Here are two simple solutions: 1. charge hashcash 2. charge ecash. This eliminates the spam problem. It would probably reduce the harrassment problem as well.
e.g. - A stated policy of allowing only 'X' number of emails from the same address/ISP per day--UCE spammers *could* work around this, but they make money by speed and volume, not by farting around with this-and-that.
This is not a good idea. I like being able to pump a few megabytes a day through the remailer network to create cover traffic. Right now this would be an act of bad citizenship. But, if we were paying for remailer usage it would be a good thing. Good for me, good for the businesses I patronize. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNGk5K5aWtjSmRH/5AQGFOgf9ELMabax8dmxbyV6DKfcLcr4U2MP/fS+E xHPXpxbf05Tr36opYZCwhNDtZEcrzggaBTiJPSk2leOwz1RvancqnrwrArnh/90R /EyikfLiwKgp7KRc4xVUAdYkqnJMYR+dz7K6DGfkLNgTKE3iExDJJcZcMgxn+VI9 2YbM6X8dtdBcMptC2CNxZC5FS2md+bCsyw2GP3bt25tTyuv786X4rVkD/MyH2w4l JOk/WkjReler06OwHLWj0OMgypMPTdGjB8QMnkIxVinyd+E4+bJHh7UNdvf3GyF6 Did9Fj28aVmi8N1NTeW6GZQNoAMeE1QpCTW/+9fJRepy/LWy6QEE+g== =PjCz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----