From tcmay@got.net Fri Feb 2 19:10:21 1996 I'm not despairing ... It seems to me that all the things you pointed out are just symptoms of the Internet growing up. You mentioned on the one hand that you don't like the trend that you see culminating in having all USENET posts be signed, but on the other hand that you'd like to see a 'sealed package' approach to your packets. The problem is clear: USENET *isn't* 'sealed packages' -- it's practically an outdoor billboard. And I think it's logical to expect some concensus-based rules for behavior there. This whole uproar about 'porno on the net' has to do with how children can 'stumble' upon it, as opposed to, say, renting it from Blockbuster[*]. I'm a little more upbeat than Tim, I guess. I see the trend toward 'socialization' on the 'public' part of the Internet as ultimately just fine, and the trend toward finding private means ('sealed packages') to transmit 'private' goods continuing. Soon I hope that there will be as much chance of children 'stumbling upon' X-rated JPEGs as they can today image satellite-delivered porno in their heads without a dish. I think the trend will continue so that people will eventually feel that their e-mail is about as safe from 'the public' as a phone call is. Absolute privacy will be resisted from the top because being 'in power' means always having a final veto; but what is the real risk of this? And don't forget: if you have privacy, you don't need anonymity. Swiss banks provide the ultimate example. /jordan [*] I think community standards are important. Whether it's speed bumps on side streets or calls for silence in a jazz club, the participants in a group should get to decide what is acceptable behavior within their group. That being said, I also believe it is one of the few roles that a national government to provide is guidance about a small number of issues (so before you hit that 'R' key, I don't believe that small towns can assert racism in their town charter ...).