Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

If you simply do not want to be a final hop, it is trivial to distinguish
final hops from intermediate hops in the chain. With cypherpunk remailers
you can scan for the remailer headers. With Mixmaster there is a completely
different format to the encrypted header (inside the encryption) for final
hops as opposed to intermediate hops.

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.

2) The operator can take firm action. When people complain they want you to
punish the abuser. Typically they want you to pull the offenders account.
With a remailer there is no account to pull, but with a nym server it is
easy to kill the account, making the complainer happy.

3) The nym server could have a policy of only accepting messages encrypted
to it, and logging the address the message came from. If confronted, the
nym server could point to the last remailer in the chain. But that remailer
could not have known the contents of the message since it was encrypted to
the nym server.

If all nym servers were standardized to run from the same account name
(nymserve for example) the remailers could be configured to only deliver
final hops to addresses with that username.

        -Lance

>At 12:59 PM 10/19/95 -0400, Thomas Grant Edwards wrote:
>>This would require the remailer to examine entropy of messages passing
>>through.  Anything not random enough gets tossed.
>
>
>A simple entropy measuring algorithm:
>
<SNIP>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMIp4yfPzr81BVjMVAQGjjAf+JWEiompiWc0VUnrwBPf8D6PYBi17aCFi
7h+zHiyoA2WXAT3Y/rDdBAKq4MI+Gg+7xs2YqmXKQPSd35UBL4UJAzNHtOEA2uo5
5XN83+9oZ6AJm6oVLmmm/vvv49Ts1VEOc4ANmqdQ0k5lHsNqFAte7eFk4aUlsiIi
+UUtUHc4zeXvr/T25TAEjGhB5b9DfwESYXPh1XkHBHiYCYIAsbadxGwAutVSUTWA
zPOiSRVSWZ+BY4H1FvnnDdoAMYE+AwpgR1iVinbNFcrjjEm+pYiWyS2FzMoQMv6N
2mZuuFQVGRJc6sSsdSsn35kz3sJg44s/mUnyq48uyJBOblv961SYZA==
=bo2F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

----------------------------------------------------------
Lance Cottrell   loki@obscura.com
PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server.
Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available!
http://obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra.  Suddenly
it flips over, pinning you underneath.  At night the ice
weasels come."
                        --Nietzsche
----------------------------------------------------------

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>

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

> 
> 	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?)
> 

It also sez thata maintenance fee of $10 (or so) will be imposed if the 
account has less then $250, so why not set up the account and deposit
$2500 and then withdraw $2200 leaving $300 ?

Or would that be "wrong" <g>

Regards,
 -AJ-

Lance Cottrell writes:
> If all nym servers were standardized to run from the same account name
> (nymserve for example) the remailers could be configured to only deliver
> final hops to addresses with that username.

A detail I missed before: the remailers used in pseudonym reply blocks must
somehow deliver replies to the True Name (verinymous ?) address of the holder
of the pseudonym. I suppose they could all finally be routed to the 
pseudonymizer, which would deliver the messages directly to the intended 
recipient (holder of the pseudonym). 

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>