From: IN%"mcook @
org" "Merrill Cook" 12-SEP-1996 21:13:37.71
>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.
While this is definitely a viewpoint more respecting of free speech,
I would point out that being able to reply isn't actually necessary to get
oneself taken off of a list, so long as it's going through remailer services
that accept block requests. Most reply methods make a system more vulnerable
to tracebacks, whether by law enforcement or the "Church" of Scientology;
therefore, they tend to be avoided by those interested in reducing such
>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.
With the above caveats, agreed.