I noticed that in several postings, people have made the jump that revealing the real person (or the previous hop in a remailer chain) from an anonymous remailer is tantamount to censorship. I'd like to call into question that assumption. In many ways, I have a lot of sympathy with the Libertarian position --- whether or not I think it would realistically work as a system of governement is another question. In any case, I don't like censorship in any form. But disclosing who sent a particular piece of anonymous mail is not the same as censorship. I believe in free speach, but today, if someone violates the responsibility that goes along with free speach --- by yelling at the top of his/her lungs at 4am in the morning, when I am trying to sleep, or by libelling or slandering me ---- I have legal recourse; I can call the police and have him/her arrested for disturbing the peace, or I can sue him/her for libel or slander. But by making anonymous remailers airtight, you are removing the possibility for recourse, and thus removing the burden of personal responsibility from the sender of these messages. Perhaps there are people who believe Free Speech should be so much of an absolute that you should be allowed to scream at the top of their lungs at 5am in the morning in a residential area, and that libel and slander laws shouldn't exist. But it's not fair to call that a mainstream position. And it is unreasonable to assume that as an axiom. - Ted P.S. It is true that by revealing the identity of an user of a remailer, you are breaching their privacy --- however, most people also don't believe that the right to privacy is absolute. It certainly isn't explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution. While, I also believe very strongly in a right to privacy, there are certainly times --- for example when someone is operating under a false name to commit fraudulent acts --- that a person's privacy should be breached. While it is much simpler to say "the right of privacy is always supreme over all other considerations", or "the right of free speech is supreme over all other considerations," that is a very simplistic view which I don't believe is very realistic. In any case, it is certainly not widely held.