Re: anonymous remailers

c.musselman@internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes:

> C'punks --
> 	When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup
> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group,
> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers?  ATF,
> FBI, DEA, that's who!"  Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid.  Does
> anyone know the answer?  Specifically, how can we choose a trusted
> remailer?

Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk"
remailers are run by people who should not be trusted.  Check out their
remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific
person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It
contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal
identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion.

(* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is
being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had
the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com," thus I surmise it
is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more
clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.)

While I don't believe this assertion about collusion by the remailer
operators is true, generally, this claim is clearly:

1. Not a flame, but an assertion of opinion.

2. Possibly not true, but it is not the job of the Moderator to decide on
truth.

3. Dealing with an important issue, to wit, the willingness (putatively) of
some remailer operators to talk amongst themselves to deal with "problems."

(If this is not a meaningful and important topic for the Cypherpunks list
to discuss, then what is?)

Here's the message:


At 10:22 PM -0500 2/6/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>c.musselman@internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes:
>
>> C'punks --
>> 	When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup
>> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group,
>> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers?  ATF,
>> FBI, DEA, that's who!"  Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid.  Does
>> anyone know the answer?  Specifically, how can we choose a trusted
>> remailer?
>
>Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk"
>remailers are run by people who should not be trusted.  Check out their
>remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific
>person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like.
>
>---
>
>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
>Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It
> contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal
> identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion.
> 
> (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is
> being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had
> the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com," thus I surmise it
> is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more
> clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.)

Currently, there are three lists.  It looks as though the message
in question appeared on the Unedited list.  This is NOT the same
as the Flames list.  
 
I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I
read it on the Unedited list.  If it went to the "wrong" list,
my apologies to the author.  As I indicated before, I don't think
a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high
90s under the criteria I enunciated.  Not perfection, but a 
definite improvement over the prior condition.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[I am sending a copy of my article to Tim just to make sure]

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> > Why was this message (attached below) sent to the "Flames" list? (*) It
> > contains an assertion that the remailer operators are colluding to reveal
> > identities, and this is surely a fit topic for discussion.
> > 
> > (* I have temporarily subscribed to the Flames list to see just what it is
> > being filtered or censored by Sandy. I received this message, and it had
> > the header "Sender: owner-cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com," thus I surmise it
> > is a "Flames" message. It would help, by the way, if messages were more
> > clearly labelled by the Moderator as to which bucket he placed them in.)
> 
> Currently, there are three lists.  It looks as though the message
> in question appeared on the Unedited list.  This is NOT the same
> as the Flames list.  
>  
> I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I
> read it on the Unedited list.  If it went to the "wrong" list,
> my apologies to the author.  As I indicated before, I don't think

I am attaching Vulis's posting below, so that the mistake could be
corrected.

Judging by the dates in the headers, it went to flames list in
3 seconds after arrival to toad.com.

That makes me think that somehow it got routed there without human
involvement.

> a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high
> 90s under the criteria I enunciated.  Not perfection, but a 
> definite improvement over the prior condition.

I see three problems with the current state of the list: 

	1) There is no charter and no criteria that I am aware of, so 
	   your 90% statement is meaningless
	2) Moderation policy has not been set (or voted upon) by the readers,
	   therefore it was not optimised to serve the readers
	3) Crypto-relevant posts, not containing any flames, get
	   rejected.

>From cypherpunks-errors@toad.com  Thu Feb  6 22:20:35 1997
Return-Path: <cypherpunks-errors@toad.com>
Received: (from root@localhost) by manifold.algebra.com (8.8.3/8.8.2) with UUCP id WAA12996; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 22:20:29 -0600
Received: from toad.com (toad.com [140.174.2.1]) by www.video-collage.com (8.8.5/8.8.0) with ESMTP id XAA01326; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 23:14:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id UAA08550; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uu.psi.com (uu.psi.com [38.9.86.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08545; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 20:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uu.psi.com (5.65b/4.0.061193-PSI/PSINet) via UUCP;
        id AA07700 for ; Thu, 6 Feb 97 23:07:09 -0500
Received: by bwalk.dm.com (1.65/waf)
	via UUCP; Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:24:48 EST
	for cypherpunks@toad.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: anonymous remailers
From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Comments: All power to the ZOG!
Message-Id: <iJkq2D46w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 97 22:22:05 EST
In-Reply-To: <32fa39d8.16371604@mail-relay.internetmci.com>
Organization: Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.
Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO

c.musselman@internetmci.com (Charley Musselman) writes:

> C'punks --
> 	When I told a friend about the alt.drugs.pot cultivation newsgroup
> and suggested that he use an anonymous remailer to post to the group,
> he laughed and said, "Who do you suppose runs the remailers?  ATF,
> FBI, DEA, that's who!"  Gee, it makes sense to this paranoid.  Does
> anyone know the answer?  Specifically, how can we choose a trusted
> remailer?

Even if the feds are not directtly involved, the so-called "cypher punk"
remailers are run by people who should not be trusted.  Check out their
remailer-operators list: it's full of announcements that some specific
person posted something via the remailer that the operator didn't like.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 11:06 PM -0800 2/6/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>Currently, there are three lists.  It looks as though the message
>in question appeared on the Unedited list.  This is NOT the same
>as the Flames list.

Well, I only subscribe to the Flames list--there is no doubt about this.

In any case, what is the meaning of a message going only to the "Unedited"
list?  A message that goes to the Unedited list but _not_ to the Flames
list must surely go to the Main list, right?

That is,

MAIN list + FLAMES list = UNEDITED list

Isn't this the way it works, that the Unedited list is the union of the
MAIN and FLAMES lists, which are disjoint?

So, since the Vulis message on anonymous remailers did not appear on the
MAIN list, it must have appeared on the FLAMES list.


>I don't recall where I sorted that particular post to after I
>read it on the Unedited list.  If it went to the "wrong" list,
>my apologies to the author.  As I indicated before, I don't think
>a 100% solution is possible, but I think I'm running in the high
>90s under the criteria I enunciated.  Not perfection, but a
>definite improvement over the prior condition.

You keep saying this ("the list is better, the list is better, the list is
better"). Repeating it enough may make it true, for you.

In any case, my point is that there were no "flame" triggers in either of
the messages you sent to the Flames list. Unless you are rejecting based on
your opinion of the views expressed, these messages belong on the main list.

Sandy, you are a sloppy moderator. An incompetent, in fact. Get better fast
or knock off the pretense that you know better than we do what Cypherpunks
are ready to read.

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."