[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
On Tue, 21 May 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
> An alternative I am considering would reduce the utility of the remailer
> while still allowing these "consensual" uses to continue. Presently the
> remailers deal with abuse via "block lists", sets of addresses that mail
> can't be sent to. Generally these are created when someone complains
> about some mail they have received. By setting up blocking, at least
> they will not get harrassing anonymous mail once they have complained.
> But in some cases, as in the case that is causing me headaches now, even
> one message is too much.
>
> My thought is to turn the block list concept on its head, and make it a
> "permit list". Simply, the remailer will only send mail to people who
> have voluntarily indicated their willingness to receive it.
How would you know that the message you received is actually from them? I
don't see how this would really help.
I like the "knock-knock" approach, though it would of necessity impose
load. If someone has an anonymous message waiting, send them a simple note
with instructions on how to retrieve it.
From: Anonymous Remailer <[email protected]>
To: random person <[email protected]>
An anonymous message is waiting for you. If you wish to receive this
message, simply send an email message with [some unique string, maybe an
MD5 hash of the actual message] in the body of a message to
[email protected]. The simplest way to do this is to reply to this
message, quoting this text.
I certainly think that limiting newsgroup posting would be prudent. It's
inexcusable that it's possible to use anonymous remailers to post
*forgeries* (see the smoking flames cross-posted to alt.syntax.tactical).
-rich