Re: pseudospoofing survey

["L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>]

You justify all your arguments in favor of pseudospoofing by pointing
at existing criminal behavior. Interesting point of view, eh?

>  Bogus. You just went off the deep-end. If you're so concerned about this
>capability, why don't you go liberate the net.universe and tell them this
>amazing fact: you can forge identities on the net. Postings, mail, accounts,
>even whole domains.

I just did.

>NEWSFLASH: Great Cypherpunk Conspiracy Revealed! A california based group
>of cryptography fans conspire to cover up pseudoanonymous capabilities so
>they can continue their reign of abuse, exploitation, psychological combat,
>and the sapping of precious bodily fluids from net.novices.

yep. hope you don't mind.

>p.s. all this reminds me of the great mud gender identity debates. Many
>young males were extremely disturbed that the female MUD users they were
>practicing cybersex with were actually other males. As a result, most
>mud users are no longer as gullible. Evolution and natural selection at its
>best.

MUDs are games. Mailing lists, Usenet, and the Internet are not.

>p.p.s you will find that many of us aren't trying to cover pseudoanonymous
>capability up -- It is just that _we don't care_ I certainly don't care, and
>I don't think of myself of "the great protector of the ignorant" as you 
>seem to do either. 

so?

>The facts are, short of demanding digital signatures or
>passwords for posting to this list, there is nothing you can do to prevent
>me from forging "From" lines, I could probably forge Received: lines too
>if I had a well-positioned machine.

you are mistaking the form of the present internet with future cyberspace.

>One feature of my Extropian's list
>software is that it only allows people who are on the list to post to it, and
>a user can turn on a "password" feature that only allows his address to post
>if a password is supplied.

it's a start.

ltr.