[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)
On Sun, Aug 03, 1997 at 12:29:37PM +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> Here's the sequence of events as I see it:
> 1. spammer spams you with adverisement for phone sex line
> 2. you try to sue phone sex line company
> 3. phone sex company denies all knowledge
> 4. government says all email must be authenticated
> 5. government issues internet drivers license
> 6. anonymous remailers work around authentication requirement
> 7. government outlaws remailers
> See any flaws in that logical and undesirable sequence of events?
The flaws become apparent if you try to attach a *realistic*
probability to each step.
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
[email protected] the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55