Re: encrypted anonymous traffic

[Marc Horowitz <marc@Athena.MIT.EDU>]

I have to disagree with Lance here.

>> No one can send any `bomb' through mere text, and to compare harassing
>> mail (which is definitely not to be condoned) to it is to expose your
>> naive and self-serving view of the matter.

I know people who would probably rather receive an explosive in the
mail than receive email from certain individuals, or about certain
subjects.  Physical damage can be easier to heal.  Your requirements
are not everyone's.

Although I believe myself that encryption and anonymity go
hand-in-hand, I can understand that some members of the community Mr.
Wells serves might not quite agree with me.  As long as he makes the
fact that he audits posts absolutely clear, beforehand, to his users,
I have no problem with what he does.  I am free to find a remailer
operator with less restrictive policies, and will do so.  

Cypherpunks have been talking about a free market where users choose
the anonymity services they like best.  I see no reason to berate Mr.
Wells about his policies.  Make sure he discloses his policies, and
let the users vote with their packets.  Enforcing a standard, any
standard, is a Very Bad Thing.

		Marc