Anonymous Posting

[Anonymous]

Tim May wrote:
> I find it lower. Maybe it's just me. A lot of gibbering, ranting,
> and insults-without-traceability. Doesn't mean I don't "support" the
> legality and technology of remailers, just a comment on what traffic
> I see from them. Not surprising, of course.

It may depend on your window.  Remailer traffic's been pretty good for
the last six months.  No spam, for example.

Yes, one would expect all sorts of trash, but for some reason that's
not happening right now.

> The technology won't get there by a particular person using
> remailers, inasmuch as the actions of that person don't cause others
> to change.

Setting a good example is an effective technique.  I'm using remailers
because of somebody else's example.

> This is also known as the "but what if everyone did what you're
> doing?"  fallacy. I've grokked this since around 1966. Why isn't
> this obvious?

Fewer people doing it just means the process is slower.  It's really a
question of whether one wants to participate.

> 2) I used the earlier Cypherpunks remailers in their first month of
> operation, in 1992. More to the point, I architected the basic
> features remailers should have at the first Cypherpunks
> meeting. Check the archives if you doubt this.

Actually, I consider the Great Timothy May to be beyond my judgment.
(No irony intended.)

In general, however, it's hard to understand why people who claim to
be cypherpunks won't use remailers or even encrypted mail.  The "I
only use these tools when I'm committing felonies" model is flawed.

If people were saying they are not interested in these tools or
technologies, then there's no issue.  But what I don't understand is
people claiming this stuff is interesting but then not even using it.
Even worse, many actually disparage those using encryption or
remailers and yet remain subscribed to this list.  Strange.

Using something is the first step to extending and improving it.  Even
non-coder users are helpful because they can encourage the coders to
make things better, as well as sending in bug reports, suggestions for
improvement, etc. etc.

No technology is developed solely at the drafting board.  People need
to hammer on it, kick it around, and play with it, before it gets to
be solid.

> 5) Signing an article is giving away something of value. (For
> example, it might be used against the signer.) Absent some reason to
> sign, some "consideration," why sign a post?

You got me there, pal.

(If there was more noise coming from remailers I'd probably sign posts
so filtering would be feasible.  Hopefully, I'd be filtered in!)

> Fuck that. Cypherpunks care about both code _and_ ideology, else why
> bother? If Rijndael C code is all that matters, why not just drop
> Cypherpunks and join Perrypunks?

> Oh wait, it seems most nitwits _have_. Never mind.

Many of these people are potentially useful.  It is unfortunate that
they fled instead of seeking technical solutions.  I consider this a
serious mistake.