Re: Message Havens, Pools, and Usenet

[gtoal@an-teallach.com (Graham Toal)]

:> I think this is the way to go, and I don't think we need special
:> groups for it either.  Tim, just as an experiment, post a message
:> to any group you like (except netcom ones!) with 'gtoal' in it
:> somewhere (innocuously, like in a .sig), and I'll show you how easy
:> it is to find stuff that's addressed to you.

:Mass kibozing is certainly an option for the receiver, but I think
:this scheme is going to provoke loud complaints from most sysadmins
:if it ever gets off the ground.  I agree with Karl's comments re

Heh.  I'd never contemplate such a thing.  In practice if I were
using such a scheme I'd probably stick to *.test - I was just
pointing out that Tim doesn't need to create an alt.w.a.s.t.e group
specifically for the traffic.  In fact, we *can't* create any such
group specifically for the traffic because it wouldn't be carried,
and you could trace recipients easily because all the people who
talked to each other this way would have to arrange for their own
feeds to take the group and get it from each other.

(Actually I *had* been giving serious thought to such a scheme for
an anonymous fax service I've been thinking about, but thought better
of it, because, as you say, the net would want my head for posting
100's of K's of encrypted binaries in alt.test :-) )

G