As an intellectual exercise touching on the dynamic of remailer users as
petty criminals vs their victims, and the need for responsibility on the
part of remailer operators vs how many hours in the day that currently
exist (24), let us consider the following thought experiment:

a user sends an email to the remailer with a subject of
Group-Block: alt.privacy

The body of the message contains words that the user wants as triggers to
stop messages from going to alt.privacy. For example:

republican
democrat
bush cheney

The last one would be translated into a simple regex: bush*cheney.


The user receives a message asking him to reply to it in order to confirm
his request.

He replies, and messages containing the offending words are blocked from
being sent to alt.privacy for 30 days.

The good thing about this is that a victim can completely stop the
products of a criminal who is harassing him from being published, without
the remop having to bother putting in the block manually.

The bad things are, offhand:
Somebody can silence somebody else's legitimate anonymous posts.
A sociopath can send multiple requests, perhaps using a throwaway address,
and cause the remailer to block newsgroups that don't need it.

Some ways that misuse might be handled could:
1. letting messages go through if the sender included a whoppingly
high-bit hashcash.

2. requiring x requests before the block goes in.


This suggestion may sound absurd on the face of it, but think it over; it
might have some value.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown.  Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 19 Feb 2006, anonymous@remailer.hastio.org wrote:
>As an intellectual exercise touching on the dynamic of remailer users as
>petty criminals vs their victims,

Eeltrash once again demonstrates how he thinks about remailers and their
users.

>and the need for responsibility on the
>part of remailer operators vs how many hours in the day that currently
>exist (24), let us consider the following thought experiment:
>
>a user sends an email to the remailer with a subject of
>Group-Block: alt.privacy
>
>The body of the message contains words that the user wants as triggers to
>stop messages from going to alt.privacy. For example:
>
>republican
>democrat
>bush cheney
>
>The last one would be translated into a simple regex: bush*cheney.

No responsible remop is going to block a stupid partisan fight, eel.

>This suggestion may sound absurd on the face of it, but think it over; it
>might have some value.

I've thought about it, and all I could come up with was:

SHUT UP, EELTRASH!!

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <A7KHWV9O38767.6547800926@anonymous.poster>
anonymous@remailer.hastio.org wrote:
>
> As an intellectual exercise touching on the dynamic of remailer users as
> petty criminals vs their victims, and the need for responsibility on the
> part of remailer operators vs how many hours in the day that currently
> exist (24), let us consider the following thought experiment:

Let's not.
Eelbash, why do you run a remailer at all when you constantly refer to us
users as children, criminals and psychos? Why do you try to defeat
everything that a remailer should do?
It's not a thought experiment. It's what you believe! You are the criminal.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown.  Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <A7KHWV9O38767.6547800926@anonymous.poster>,
anonymous@remailer.hastio.org says...
> As an intellectual exercise touching on the dynamic of remailer users as
> petty criminals vs their victims, and the need for responsibility on the
> part of remailer operators vs how many hours in the day that currently
> exist (24), let us consider the following thought experiment:
>
> a user sends an email to the remailer with a subject of
> Group-Block: alt.privacy
>
> The body of the message contains words that the user wants as triggers to
> stop messages from going to alt.privacy. For example:
>
> republican
> democrat
> bush cheney
>
> The last one would be translated into a simple regex: bush*cheney.
>
>
> The user receives a message asking him to reply to it in order to confirm
> his request.
>
> He replies, and messages containing the offending words are blocked from
> being sent to alt.privacy for 30 days.
>
> The good thing about this is that a victim can completely stop the
> products of a criminal who is harassing him from being published, without
> the remop having to bother putting in the block manually.
>
> The bad things are, offhand:
> Somebody can silence somebody else's legitimate anonymous posts.
> A sociopath can send multiple requests, perhaps using a throwaway address,
> and cause the remailer to block newsgroups that don't need it.
>
> Some ways that misuse might be handled could:
> 1. letting messages go through if the sender included a whoppingly
> high-bit hashcash.
>
> 2. requiring x requests before the block goes in.
>
>
> This suggestion may sound absurd on the face of it, but think it over; it
> might have some value.

Back in 1999 I ran a public interface that mailed directly to mail2news
gates.  It was a quick and dirty way to post speudo-anonymously to
usenet.  I'll bet you can guess the abuse it took, I learned a lot about
coding in anti-flood methods and such from that.  Anyway, I also had a
cgi "voting" interface.  This interface used all kinds of methods to
ensure one could only vote once.  If enough members of the group voted
to block, it would get a temp block placed on the newsgroup.

Total chaos.  That best describes the result.  There are many people and
cliques at usenet "war" with each other.  And usually one side also
makes use of remailers or easy ways to sock.  If you provide it, someone
will abuse it and that goes for giving any control of blocking as well.
I found out that not only was I spending time tweaking the code itself
to block flooding, but also the blocking methods.  It was an exercise in
futility.

For what it's worth on this subject in general, the proper check point
isn't the remailers, it's the mail2news gateways.  But content filtering
is prone to false positives, plus it turns into a whack-a-mole game when
the filters need to be public.  Twisty has seen that from trying to stop
that spammer via filters.  You end up chasing your tail.  The best tools
currently available are rate limiting, dupe checking, hash cash, and
such.

/steve
--
The Missing Amendment
The Right To Privacy
http://www.themissingamendment.org

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

It's merely a thought-experiment.

What does an exit remailer want for his users and himself?

I'd say he wants to offer the greatest number of options, while keeping a
lid on the ill-intentioned, and doing it while being as little-involved as
possible.

The ideal would be to have the remailer run itself.

An example of something that has helped exit remailers toward that goal is
Panta's additions to Reliable, especially the dest-block facility.

You fellows should be thinking about this kind of thing, especially if you
are technically literate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown.  Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 19 Feb 2006, anonymous@remailer.hastio.org wrote:
>It's merely a thought-experiment.
>
>What does an exit remailer want for his users and himself?
>
>I'd say he wants to offer the greatest number of options, while keeping a
>lid on the ill-intentioned, and doing it while being as little-involved as
>possible.
>
>The ideal would be to have the remailer run itself.
>
>An example of something that has helped exit remailers toward that goal is
>Panta's additions to Reliable, especially the dest-block facility.
>
>You fellows should be thinking about this kind of thing, especially if you
>are technically literate.

Eeltrash, you are such a pompous, self-important little turd.

Why should any self-respecting remop have the slightest interest in what
you believe he should be thinking about? I mean, really.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:16:42 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

>
> Why should any self-respecting remop have the slightest interest in what
> you believe he should be thinking about? I mean, really.

I don't know why anybody should pay attention to the suggestions of
anybody else unless he thinks the suggestions have merit.

If you prefer a different formulation of the request to think about
whatever it was, let's hear it.

Maybe we can all make use of it.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 22:16:42 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
> 
>
>I don't know why anybody should pay attention to the suggestions of
>anybody else unless he thinks the suggestions have merit.
>
>If you prefer a different formulation of the request to think about
>whatever it was, let's hear it.
>
>Maybe we can all make use of it.

The point is: If it is suggested, mentioned, promulgated, endorsed, or
approved of by Eeltrash, it is bad for users, remops, and the remailer
network in general. Ipso facto, prima facie.

Even if eeltrash's "ideas" have merit on the surface, all you have to do is
think them through just a little bit to realize he, once again, really has
no idea what the f**k he's talking about.  -->AGAIN<--

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <MPG.1e6298a6b265c872989cd8@news.newsreader.com>
Stephen K. Gielda <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote:
>
> In article <A7KHWV9O38767.6547800926@anonymous.poster>,
> anonymous@remailer.hastio.org says... 
>
> Back in 1999 I ran a public interface that mailed directly to mail2news
> gates.  It was a quick and dirty way to post speudo-anonymously to
> usenet...

Yet you decide _now_ that an equally quick and dirty way to post
anonymously should be implemented. Thanks for nothing but abuse.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Nomen Nescio" <nobody@dizum.com> wrote in message
 news:51304ea83d8f3b7b955a464f11f27f41@di
zum.com...
> In article <MPG.1e6298a6b265c872989cd8@news.newsreader.com>
> Stephen K. Gielda <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote: 
>
> Yet you decide _now_ that an equally quick and dirty way to post
> anonymously should be implemented. Thanks for nothing but abuse.

Speak for yourself, Jackass.  I have plans to use it to save the world.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]