[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Remailer Abuse


> >Why?  Why wouldn't the FV remailers use settlements?  At the end of
> >the month, everyone settles accounts in re who gets what fraction of
> >what.  No logs are needed other than counters.

> Oh, you're suggesting that I'd only actually pay the first remailer on my
> chain, and at the end of the month he'd pay some of the money I (and
> others) paid him to all of the other remailers his transacted with over the
> month? 

Way too complicated . . .

Why not establish a system where the only the first remailer is paid and
all subsequent remailers agree to accept traffic from other remailers
without compensation? Assuming that first remailer use is or would be
somewhat distributed, the net from each remailer would approach the same
figure reached by endlessly confusing cross-payments (A pays B, C, and D,
B pays A, C, and D, etc.). Only non-remailed access would be subject to
a fee.

Operators with the best net. reputations and those whose remailers are 
especially full featured or prompt will likely receive more use as
"entry" remailers; this is good capitalism which should not only increase
their number but improve the state of remailers in general. If someone
wants to establish a remailer that will join the existing mesh of remailers,
it will have to accept messages from others gratis if it wants such access
to the rest of them. Its compensation would be derived from initial traffic.

Maybe this would also encourage operators to beat the bushes for traffic,
which would also be a Good Thing.

=D.C. Williams	<[email protected]>

- ---
[This message has been signed by an auto-signing service.  A valid signature
means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the
signature and forwarded.]

Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Gratis auto-signing service