NODE a3d4f4a8Re: Hardening lists against spam attacks
ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:26:06 -0800 (PST)
At 7:04 AM 12/31/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> There is a simple solution to keeping anonymous posters anonymous
> under this or any similar scheme. Volunteers could act as
> "gateways" for anonymous posts. Self-selected list members could
> announce that they would forward anonymous posts using one of
> their own tokens for the purpose. (In the alternative, the
> gateway volunteers could be given extra tokens solely for that
> purpose.)
Would this expose the posters to liability? Unlike an anonymous
remailer, they are deciding what to post.
In the case of software, criminal liability result.
Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com
NODE c9016b1eRe: Hardening lists against spam attacks
Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:31:08 -0800 (PST)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDY SANDFORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'punks,
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
> At 7:04 AM 12/31/1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > There is a simple solution to keeping anonymous posters anonymous
> > under this or any similar scheme. Volunteers could act as
> > "gateways" for anonymous posts. Self-selected list members could
> > announce that they would forward anonymous posts using one of
> > their own tokens for the purpose. (In the alternative, the
> > gateway volunteers could be given extra tokens solely for that
> > purpose.)
>
> Would this expose the posters to liability? Unlike an anonymous
> remailer, they are deciding what to post.
Probably yes. This is where the gateway volunteer's discretion
would come into play.
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~