CDR: Re: -C-P- Re: would it be so much to ask..

[Anonymous]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Asymmetric wrote:

> At 10:54 09/19/2000 +0200, harald at f00.nu wrote:
> >At 17:08 2000-09-18 -0400, you wrote:
> >>That the list be changed so that unregistered email addresses cannot send
> >>messages to it?  This spam is getting ridiculous.
> >
> >I suppose you know why we don´t have that (the remailing issue). But I
> >kinda have another idea. Just start every subject line with eg -C-P- like
> >I did now, then it would be really easy to filter all the mail.
>
> Last I checked the remailers allowed return mail to be sent through them,
> to the owner of the anonymous account.. isn't that the point?  It's easy

You checked quite a long time ago. Return mail isn't possible with Type 1 or 
Type 2 remailers.

> enough to forge the email header that I can't believe they exist just to
> totally isolate anyone from the responses.. how would someone using a
> remailer even join the list (to receive messages) if that was the point?

You use a remailer to post to the list, not to read it.

> The only part where I see this being useful is if somebody has some kind of
> anonymous announcement to make, where they don't intend to join the list.

Huh?

> The benefits of having the list open to unsubscribed postings seem far
> outweighed by the cost in time spent by everyone filtering messages and
> server resources that could be better spent running dnetc if nothing else
> ;). It's just auxiliary that I've never seen an anonymous post to the list
> in the past when I subscribed, nor more recently since I
> resubscribed.  Undoubtedly some smartass will send an anonymous message to
> the list now just to say "see!" :P

Well, if you would stop using the toad.com address, you might have less spam.

> There has to be some way around this that will still preserve anonymity,
> although one doesn't seem readily apparent unless the anonymous party
> subscribes under their pseudonym.

pseudonymity != anonymity.

> What about just creating another list (closed-posting) and then just
> allowing people to choose which to subscribe to?  Obviously, the
> open-posting list would be subscribed to the closed posting list, but not
> the other way around.. so at the risk of missing the massively important
> anonymous message that has yet to be sent, I could eliminate some of this spam?

Been there, tried that. There is nothing wrong with the current setup.

-S.R.