Re: Spam a *GOOD* thing for remailers?

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> writes:

> I know there has been much talk on how to limit the use of remailers by
> spamers. I wonder if this is the correct approach to take on this.
>
> Spam could provide the perfect "cover" for anonymous messages. If you have
> a SPAM mailer pumping out 500,000 messages a day one could hide 10-20,000
> anonymous messages without anyone ever noticing.
>
> I just don't see how SPAM is ever going to be stoped, too much $$$
> involved. I do think that we can take advantage of the SPAM. Using $$$ from
> the spamers we could set up a world wide remailer network. In addition to
> this the volume of spam going through these remailers would provide the
> perfect cover for anonymous messages. I think if properly set-up it would
> make traffic analysis next to impossible.
>
> Also by working with the spamers we could modify some of their behaviors.
> An example would be on certian remailers would allow spam. Other remailers
> would be "off-limits" to the spamers though we would syphon off a % of the
> traffic from the spam remailer and run them through the non-spam remailers
> to be used as cover for the non-spam messages. We would also put non-spam
> messages through the spam remailers.
>
> With this approach I can see us having 1,000's of remailers rather than the
> 10 or 20 that are currently running now.

I defend the spammer's freedom to spam because spam is speech.

Technology solutions to make is easier for the weak-minded to ignore spam
and not to be bothered by it would be cool.

Hopefully when I finish the spambot, it'll change the face of Usenet forever.

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps