Re: Remailers-in-a-box

[Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>]

    From: Greg Broiles <greg@ideath.goldenbear.com>
    Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:28:58 -0800 (PST)
    
    Tim May wrote:
    
    > I am waiting for such services to be actually, formally, solidly
    > announced, not just casual remarks that it might be possible. And of
    > course the software should be "ready to wear," port-a-potty, so that
    > the remailer account owner does nothing more than pay for the account.
    
    In this model, who deals with mailbombs/spams/requests for address blocks?

With sameer's recently announced RIAB, it seems quite reasonable that
Tim could follow the instructions that were sent out and when he gets
to this one:

 3) If you wish, you can setup a .forward file to point to mailfilters
 or to another account. 

then he could do this:

 % echo 'tcmay@netcom.com' > ~/.forward

and then he would never have to log into c2 again.

This is not quite at the level of what Tim explicitly stated:
``remailer account owner does nothing more than pay for the
account.'', but it's about as close as one could hope for while
addressing your concerns.

Of course, Tim could adopt `hands off' administation by doing any of
the following:
 - forwarding to /dev/null
 - using auto-bounce script
 - forwarding to tcmay@netcom.com, but ignoring all mail related to
   his remailer.

It might be a good idea to check that sameer thinks this is ok.  It's
bound to piss people off more than remailers with a more interactive
administrator.  It basically says that mail bombs and spams are
acceptable and requests are pointless.

			Rick