>Better, that the headers must accurately identify all service
>agents handling the message. That separates the question of the
>origin of the message from questions about multiple email
>addresses and underlying technical aspects. There still remains
>the difficulty of connecting the technical sender to an actual
>person -- establishing responsibility.
I would suggest that the headers properly should identify one thing:
the address to which to write to receive no more such email. Anything else
makes anonymization - protected by the First Amendment, as I pointed out -
essentially impossible to do in an adequate manner.
>I suppose this thread has wandered far from FAQ maintainence, and
>I'll try to restrain myself from further responses -- though not
>retroactively to this one. The important point is that we have
>fairly widespread agreement that the problem is "unsolicited
>bulk email" -- I certainly did not originate the phrase.
Actually, there are FAQ questions that come up in this. For instance,
if you're putting together a FAQ on, say, a company that makes a habit of suing
for libel to suppress speech against it, you may very much want to do it
via an anonymous remailer... or at least those who contribute to your FAQ
may wish to do so, to avoid being named as codefendants. There's also the
issue of FAQs on controversial subjects, such as illegal drugs; avoiding
governments finding out who is making information available (e.g., from
experiments done using governmental licenses) on such subjects can be quite
healthy.
-Allen
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved