>From E. Allen Smith:
> want to receive anonymous email, _legitimate_ remailer services will block
> you from receiving it through them. The proposal that I'm disagreeing with is
> for requiring that all email of a given type be non-anonymous... not AOL's,
> or anyone else's, right to not receive mail the person or organization does
> not want. Currently, neither the U.S. government nor other governments pay
> for email; therefore, they have no juristiction under the idea in question.
There's a difference between anonymous (meaning, I don't know the
true identity of the sender) and bogus (meaning, the sender takes
steps to prevent me from sending a reply by email). I don't care
to know the true identity of the person I'm sending to, if they
receive my "take my name off your list" communication and act on
it appropriately. If the address is at anon.penet.fi or its
replacement, it's likely to be quite anonymous, and also deliverable.
I think we should define the act of sending huge amounts of mail
with a purposely disabled or concealed reply address as "fraud",
as should masquerading as someone else. Sending commercial,
off-subject mail to my list (so my machine has to do the work of
distributing it, and my subscribers have to pay to receive it)
without my permission should be labeled as "theft", as should
using my copyrighted material without my permission.
org or MERRILL COOK on Ecunet/PresbyNet