[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (fwd) "Will You Be a Terrorist?"
In article <[email protected]>, Eric Hughes <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I'd suggest that a much more productive avenue of approach would be to
> >improve the aliasing facilities of a remailer provider to allow a
> >pseudonym to look like a fully normal name.
> I'm not sure that's a good solution.
>Todd, Todd, Todd. You can run a remailer and the mailing list on the
>_same_ machine and do the aliasing in the remailer. You can even
>restrict operation of the remailer to work only with the mailing list,
>if that's what you want.
>The issue here is clean separation of abstraction.
Well *excuse me* for being clinically thick...
I shouldn't post after more than 20 hours w/out sleep. You're right,
of course. Though the remailer and the mailing list software would
probably require some hacking to make the coupling tighter, in the
process giving both limited-use remailers (probably undesirable in
the generic case, but I can think of special uses) and access-controlled
mailing list software (definitely uses for this, as some exist).
>This doesn't require AMS. I've done the same hack myself in ruleset 0
>of sendmail. Then you tweak the HReceived line to add the $u macro,
>which under sendmail v8 includes the whole address which caused
Could you send me what you've done on this? I think it's a desirable
feature to have, though requiring that people hack their sendmail.cfs
is not a big boost to the "popularity of package" indicator.
L. Todd Masco | "A man would simply have to be as mad as a hatter, to try and
[email protected] | change the world with a plastic platter." - Todd Rundgren