[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: anonymous remailers
[I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure]
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> SANDY SANDFORT
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> C'punks,
>
> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
> > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It
> > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal
> > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion.
> >
> > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is
> > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had
> > the header "Sender: [email protected]," thus I surmise it
> > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more
> > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.)
>
> Currently, there are three lists. It looks as though the message
> in question appeared on the Unedited list. This is NOT the same
> as the Flames list.
>
> I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I
> read it on the Unedited list. If it went to the "wrong" list,
> my apologies to the author. As I indicated before, I don't think
I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be
corrected.
Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in
3 seconds after arrival to toad.com.
That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human
involvement.
> a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high
> 90s under the criteria I enunciated. Not perfection, but a
> definite improvement over the prior condition.
I see three problems with the current state of the list:
1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so
your 90% statement is meaningless
2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers,
therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers
3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get
rejected.
>From [email protected] Thu Feb 6 22:20:35 1997
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500
Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf)
via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST
for [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: anonymous remailers
From: [email protected] (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Comments: All power to the ZOG!
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.
Sender: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
[email protected] (Charley Musselman) writes:
> C'punks --
> When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup
> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group,
> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers? ATF,
> FBI, DEA, that's who!" Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid. Does
> anyone know the answer? Specifically, how can we choose a trusted
> remailer?
Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk"
remailers are run by people who should not be trusted. Check out their
remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific
person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like.
---
<a href="mailto:[email protected]">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps