CNN.com on Remailers

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Trei, Peter wrote:

> Yes, I have read the letter - they need to treat input from known remailers
> differently due to worries over spam and flooding attacks, so they treat 
> other known remailers as priviliged sources of high volume traffic.
> 
> This does not invalidate my point - that such special treatment could lead
> a remop into legal problems. We have two different problems, with mutually
> undesirable solutions.

If the sending node doesn't know about the destination node, how does it
konw where to send the traffic (even if the sender provides the address)?
The reality is that the remailers must 'know' of each other one way or
another. Simply being part of a 'remailer network' (anonymous or not)
tends to already put one in a 'conspiratorial' situation.

Truly robust remailers MUST be located in domains that protect speech and
association with something similar to 'innocent until proven innocent'.
That's the only defence against 'conspiracy'.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

             Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.

                                             Bumper Sticker

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------