From: Greg Broiles <greg@ideath.goldenbear.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:28:58 -0800 (PST) Tim May wrote: > I am waiting for such services to be actually, formally, solidly > announced, not just casual remarks that it might be possible. And of > course the software should be "ready to wear," port-a-potty, so that > the remailer account owner does nothing more than pay for the account. In this model, who deals with mailbombs/spams/requests for address blocks? With sameer's recently announced RIAB, it seems quite reasonable that Tim could follow the instructions that were sent out and when he gets to this one: 3) If you wish, you can setup a .forward file to point to mailfilters or to another account. then he could do this: % echo 'tcmay@netcom.com' > ~/.forward and then he would never have to log into c2 again. This is not quite at the level of what Tim explicitly stated: ``remailer account owner does nothing more than pay for the account.'', but it's about as close as one could hope for while addressing your concerns. Of course, Tim could adopt `hands off' administation by doing any of the following: - forwarding to /dev/null - using auto-bounce script - forwarding to tcmay@netcom.com, but ignoring all mail related to his remailer. It might be a good idea to check that sameer thinks this is ok. It's bound to piss people off more than remailers with a more interactive administrator. It basically says that mail bombs and spams are acceptable and requests are pointless. Rick