Re: the principle of least astonishment

[Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>]

> From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells)
> For my service, given what it is for, the presumption should be
> anonymity. For the personals groups, perhaps the presumption
> should be the other way around. There is, almost certainly, no
> one right answer.

What are your thoughts on solutions which do not do either of these
alternatives?  For example, several people have discussed systems
involving two sets of addresses.  These avoid both problems
(unexpectedly failing to anonymize / unexpectedly anonymizing a
message with a sig), at the cost of some complexity.

> Either the perpetrators are so intellectually lacking that they
> do not see what they are doing or they are so intellectually
> dishonest that they do. In either case, I am utterly disgusted.

Aren't you detweiling a bit here?  I don't think the situation really
warrants "utter disgust"...

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu