Re: anonymous remailers

[I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure] Sandy Sandfort wrote:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:

...

Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion.

(* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com," thus I surmise it is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.)

Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same as the Flames list.

I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list, my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think

I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be corrected. Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in 3 seconds after arrival to toad.com. That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human involvement.

a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a definite improvement over the prior condition.

I see three problems with the current state of the list: 1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so your 90% statement is meaningless 2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers, therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers 3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get rejected.

From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com Thu Feb 6 22:20:35 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600 Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP; id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500 Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf) via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST for cypherpunks@toad.com To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: Re: anonymous remailers From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) Comments: All power to the ZOG! Message-Id: Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604@mail-relay.internetmci.com> Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y. Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO

c.musselman@internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes:

C'punks -- When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group, he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF, FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted remailer?

Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk" remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps