[This message has also been posted.] [I am objecting to a proposal that seeks to ban one-way anonymous remailers and other forms of unrepliable addresses such as spamblocked addresses]. In news.groups, WD Baseley <wbaseley@mindspring.com> wrote: * [my apologies to the net at large for replying sans *snecks* - I don't * know which group is read by the person to whom I'm replying.] * In article <3447bfd7.22958863@128.2.84.191>, phelix@vallnet.com * >On 14 Oct 1997 11:57:07 -0400, moz@server2.mich.com (John C. Mozena) wrote: * >>Igor Chudov @ home <ichudov@algebra.com> wrote: * >>>Vote AGAINST comp.org.cauce which wants to outlaw anonymity and * >>>use of spamblocked addresses. Go to news.groups and find the * >>>CFV for comp.org.cauce, with the ballot enclosed. * >> * >>Vote for comp.org.cauce, which protects the utility of a newsgroup and the * >>freedom of postmasters to not run anonymous posting services should they * >>not so desire. * > * >Well, I just started reading this, and I didn't really know which way to * >vote. But such an anti-anonymnity stance makes the choice clear: * > * >vote *NO*. * * Since you just started reading this, I think you need more background * before coming to a decision. I'm not trying to influence it one way * or another; I'm just trying to give you more complete information. * I'm posting and emailing, and I'm sure that if I get it wrong I'll be * jumped upon thoroughly in the newsgroups - feel free to look there and * see if that happened. By all means, as one of the opponents of the proposal and supporter of anonymity, I ask you to do so and also get your privacy-concerned friends to take a close look at the debate. For example, here's what the proponent said: Mozena>>But, what do you have against anonymity? Mozena> Mozena>Nothing. What right do you have, though, to force me and others to Mozena>inconvenience ourselves so you can post anonymously or protect yourself Mozena>from spam? * The RFD requires posters to use addresses which receive, and reply to, * email; in other words, no munged, faked, spamblocked, or other * bouncing or redirecting addresses. There is nothing that says you * must use your real name, or any other identifier, that tells who you * really are. If "the-return-of-zorro@example.com" receives and replies * to email, it can be used to post to the proposed group. "Anonymity", * the ability to post without anyone knowing your true identity, is not * really the issue. Even anonymous remailers will work if they forward * email in both directions. But mungs and spamblocks will not work. These are not anonymous remailers, they offer a much lower security, they are not very reliable by their very design, and the only *true* anonymity can come from a one-way remailer. The proposal, as it stands, seeks to outlaw the one-way anonymous remailers. * John Mozena's comment on anonymous posting services stems, I'm pretty * sure, from an alternative offered by several folks. The idea was: * posters would add an 'X-Real-Address' line to their posts; the * moderation bot would use that line for correspondence, but remove it * before making the post public. John Mozena and others at CAUCE were * unwilling to do this because of possible legal ramifications; John * likened it to running an anonymous posting service, and wondered what * the consequences would be should someone use it to post copyrighted or * sensitive information. Well, this is NOT true. John objected to it with the argument that he does not like unrepliable addresses appearing in newsgroups. Anyway, all this talk about the X-Real_Address: field is NOT related to true anonymity, by the very definition of the latter. -- - Igor. The average American spends a total of six (6) months in prison.