Re: [RePol] Bill Stewart kills babies after he molests them. Honest! / Re: Pasting in From:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
TruthMonger
So what's the problem? Has everyone forgotten how to use their delete key? Does nobody have anything better to do with their time
and resources than to waste them being offended by people who are trying to offend them?
Well TruthMonger (if that is your real name,) I think you are missing the point. For purposes of the discussion, no one cares about the content of the messages, who or why they are being sent, nor is anyone bothered by anything concerning the message itself. What's being discussed is scarce resources of remailer operators.
I was responding to Bill and Lance's comments in regard to forgery victims being set up as targets of retribution. I think references to "deplorable content" indicate some measure of judgement in regard to defining what is considered 'abuse' of a remailer.
You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for material posted.
However, you are right about the thread basically dealing with the reprecussions to the remailer operators and their resources as an end result of the particular modes of remailer use. At the risk of actually being on-topic in a thread, I should point out that I have always been of the opinion that it is up to the individual remailer operators to judge what level and types of use they are able to provide as a service with their given time and resources.
Agreed. My main concern is that those policies should be explicitly disclosed in advance. If certain keywords are forbidden in the Subject: line or body of a message, or if it is forbidden to post to certain NGs or to cross-post to certain combinations of NGs, those restrictions should be explained in the remailer's help file. I don't know whether remailers are currently engaging in content-based filtering or not (none are currently flying the "filter" flag in Raph's remailer list), but there seems to be a strong suspicion among certain posters to the alt.privacy.anon-server NG (probably from newbies) that this is indeed occuring. The usual scenario is that the person tries to make a bunch of posts, none of them show up, and it is assumed that they were blocked by the remailer operator based on their content. My guess is that in most cases the person screwed something up, like sending a message to a mail2news gateway with a malformed or missing Newsgroups: line, but it's rather rare that the poster is reassured by someone in a position to know what might have happened. It would be great if these people were told "we have no restrictions on content other than the length of the message" or at least, "it has become necessary to block certain types of posts, but those cases are spelled out in our help file".
Most remailers are operated with donated time and resources. Problems with the remailer, especially artificially generated ones, are just simply not desired.
True, but I doubt that the artificially generated attacks on a remailer are possible to fully deter, no matter what convolutions one puts themselves through in order to stop it.
It's important that such attacks not succeed, lest they encourage even more
such attacks. They succeed, or course, when they convince the remailer
operator to do what the attacker wishes done. Often what is required is a
bit of creative damage control. For example, when an attacker starts making
posts with pasted From: headers in an attempt to get remailer operators to
disable this feature, offering him source blocking instead.
- ---
Finger
At 02:20 PM 12/03/1997 -0000, Charlie Comsec wrote:
You start to tread on dangerous ground when you concern yourself with the content (body) of a post. If, for example, you start to filter on content, then you're implicitly approving anything that you do allow to pass through. That sets a precedent that's hard to contain and exercising editorial control over the contents increases the remailer operator's legal liability for material posted.
If some victim of forged hatemail to Usenet requests that your remailer block all email containing her name and address, is that legitimate? Or if somebody's forging death threats with her name at the bottom? I think yes, assuming the forgee is not a sufficiently public figure like Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno that would lead to obvious disbelief. (If Gary Burnore makes the same request, you've got a tradeoff between doing the safe thing, and blocking, or doing what he deserves and also reposting copies run through some jive filter. :-) I agree that blocking postings based on content that isn't specifically targeting someone who's requested in advance is probably not a good idea. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
participants (2)
-
Charlie Comsec -
stewarts＠ix.netcom.com