hello, whoever this `detweiler' person is you really seem to hate him. i appear to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. would you like me to change my login name to something different so you don't confuse me with him? i think i heard it only costs $10 or so. yes, i do post from denver but i thought i heard detweiler was posting from somewhere else in colorado. (of course, geography is pretty meaningless in cyberspace.) yes, i am something of a newbie to this list. i heard about it out in talk.politics.crypto or something like that. i have also been reading up on your remailers from the public domain stuff out there (soda.berkeley.edu, etc.) the issues of `detweilering' do bring up some interesting questions. it seems to me that merely charging for access to remailers is not a sufficient deterrent (although it would have some effect). consider this argument: top-notch explosives can be very expensive, but that doesn't prevent terrorists from using them. in fact, it just has the effect of deterring the use of them by `casual' terrorists. wouldn't it be simpler to put limits on message propagation through a remailer? for example, limiting the volume of mail from a given source address? other interesting issues raised by `detweilering': hal finney forbids detweiler from using his remailer at any time. but (hello? is anyone home?) remailers operate on precisely the principle that names are irrelevant. how can you forbid anyone from doing something when you have no way of *identifying* them? how do you know what their mail aliases are? i wouldn't be surprised if hal finney censors *me* from his mailers just because he *suspects* that i am detweiler (ouch!). i think everyone here needs to be reminded why names were *invented*-- so that people can attribute actions to various individuals. it is `social ettiquete'. now, in some cases you may say that there is no need to attribute a name to an action (such as a posting) but then it seems you have no right to complain about `detweilers'. consider this-- suppose that i really hate t.c.may (this is just an example). i would like to screen my mailbox of everything he writes. but if he has dozens of imaginary aliases on netcom.com, each individually pretending to be a real person, how can i do this? it would be impossible. and don't say that the cost of multiple addresses would be a deterrent. what if he is a bored millionaire with nothing better to do? what if detweiler is a bored millionaire as well? apparently (from what i can determine) he seems to be endlessly entertained by harassing cypherpunks. and the criteria `that's an annoying post' is obviously not a very effective way of identifying him. so, `cypherpunks', you might consider the following problem. is it possible to have a system where there are multiple aliases allowed to a given person, and comparison between aliases (does alias1 == alias2) is permitted, but anonymity is generally preserved? one possibility is to remove screening one level from the users. that is, i tell a central server `stop sending me all posts generated by [alias1]'. if certain people suddenly disappear from my view that would be highly incriminating but not conclusive that they are all the same person. p.s. if detweiler is using the initials `tmp' (which he is judging by the FAQ piece that was reposted here) does anyone know what they stand for? p.p.s. can anyone tell me of recent press or media accounts of cypherpunk activity? thanks. p.p.p.s. try not to be so paranoid about `detweilers'. seems to me that if all he does is bang on a keyboard he is probably quite harmless. but then again, that's all that mitnick and morris did <g>