2. there is no good way to deal with spams or other so-called "abuse"
Nor should there be. What's one person's abuse is another person's free speech. Internet traffic should not be censored based on contents.
pardon me, but a rather shallow response. you simply cannot ignore the spam problem by saying, "censorship is not acceptable". this is not a solution. there is definitely a spam problem in cyberspace, and it definitely has not been solved. (by "solve" I mean, a solution that is acceptable to most while at the same time preserving "freedom of speech") when you say, "internet traffic should not be censored based on contents" you have something that sounds like Jefferson wrote, but in fact in practice sounds like someone who has never designed a serious technological device that resists negative uses by design and not by dreamy assumption. what is the actual application of your insistence? this reminds me of the vagueness of marx saying, "if people would only do it my way, we would have a utopian government". apparently either people never figured out what he was really talking about, or he was wrong. perhaps after someone continues to send you a recurrent mailbomb of 100 MB per day do your site for 1 year, you will still insist that "internet traffic should not be censored"... whoever creates/funds the infrastructure can use it any way they so choose. a usenet adminstrator has absolutely no obligation to dedicate vast amount of his costly computer resources in cpu time or space to material he does not wish to even spit on. the fact that he is forced to in many situations shows how little choice the software gives its users. the spam problem will only be solved once people begin to realize what kind of a problem it is. the same problem that allows spam to explode all over Usenet is the principle that gives you chain letters and unsolicited junk email to your mailbox. it is the same problem. a solution might be possible if people put their minds to it instead of wallowing in irrational emotionalism about censorship. the spam problem is critical to anonymity. it would seem if you can't even solve the spam problem with identified communication, you are surely not going to solve it with anonymous communication. hence my comments from here from time to time that the technological problems of anonymity are not the true obstacle to widespread use. there are deeper problems that cpunks skirt around but fail to grasp because of numerous prejudices.