[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 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 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.
