[42079] in Cypherpunks
Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sameer)
Mon Oct 23 21:27:55 1995
From: sameer <sameer@c2.org>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 17:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: nyms@sephiroth.org
In-Reply-To: <199510232235.SAA26441@opine.cs.umass.edu> from "Futplex" at Oct 23, 95 06:35:12 pm
With the release of digicash I hope that we can soon make this
stuff for-pay and much of the spam problem will be fixed. (Not all of
it, of course.)
(I am rather hesitatnt to setup an account with Mark Twain
though.. $2,500 min balance and not FDIC insured?)
>
> Lance Cottrell writes:
> > I think one solution to this problem is to encourage (require) the use of
> > pseudonym servers. Having a server like alpha as the entity on the from
> > line has several advantages.
> >
> > 1) Less Spam since it takes some effort to set up the nym and it will be
> > taken away as soon as the spam starts.
>
> I fear this will be a short-lived gain. User-friendly scripts for
> establishing pseudonymous accounts are pretty easy to write. They may be
> beyond the average Fast Money Maker, but I expect myself and others will be
> putting them out on the Net for general consumption.
>
> I can certainly imagine one of those scripts being expanded to automatically
> create salesdroid001@nymsrus.org, ..., salesdroid999@nymsrus.org and emitting
> the same spam once from each pseudonym to a different destination. You would
> want to apply a statistical spam filter (of the kind mentioned recently by
> Greg Broiles) to the entire output of each pseudonymizer in an attempt to
> nip such spams in the bud.
>
> Semi-permanent account status confers privileges to the user, IMHO. I
> believe a pseudonymous account ideally should be treated the same as a
> regular account on an ISP. For example, an admin will not unilaterally close
> an account upon receiving a single complaint about the account user.
> Certainly I don't know of an ISP that routinely blocks its users' accounts
> from sending mail to selected other accounts. Lest I seem too presumptuous,
> let me say that I realize all immediately foreseeable pseudonymizers are
> free services. Clearly these service providers can set whatever policies they
> wish, and are not directly competing with the fee-charging ISPs. Perhaps
> future fee-charging pseudonymizers will consider these criteria in offering
> enhanced services.
>
> -Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>
>
--
sameer Voice: 510-601-9777
Community ConneXion FAX: 510-601-9734
The Internet Privacy Provider Dialin: 510-658-6376
http://www.c2.org (or login as "guest") sameer@c2.org
