CDR: RE: Anonymous Remailers cpunk

[Trei, Peter]

> ----------
> From: 	R. A. Hettinga[SMTP:rah at shipwright.com]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, October 03, 2000 3:59 PM
> To: 	Trei, Peter; Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	RE: Anonymous Remailers cpunk
> 
> At 10:48 AM -0400 on 10/3/00, Trei, Peter wrote:
> 
> 
> > The only bad point:
> >
> > * All recipients need to have key pairs. Thus, a crypto-only remailer
> > can't be a terminal remailer to mailing lists, newsgroups, or
> > individuals without keypairs.
> 
> Not a problem, one would think. Just need to have a key-pair for a
> list-server or mail-to-news-gateway. If it gets onerous, each mail or
> newsgroup on the server can have its own keypair as well.
> 
No, it's still a problem. The goals here are to insulate intermediaries
from responsibility for content, and make the intermediaries
unfriendly to spammers. With your suggestion, the responsibility
for content - and spamming - is dumped on the list-server or 
gateway owner, which is no better than dumping it on the
terminal remailer. I no more want to see a listserv or gateway
owner in trouble than I do a remailer operator.

Forwarding plaintext, or exploding plaintext to many recipients
is what can get you into trouble.

[...]

Peter Trei

> Cheers,
> RAH
> 
>