| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Anonymous e-mail?Anonymous e-mail?Posted Dec 18, 2003 14:53 UTC (Thu) by tonnesen (guest, #3589)In reply to: Anonymous e-mail? by lovelace Parent article: Spam-proofing the mail system Any of these proposals would limit the possibility of sending anonymous e-mails. What would we lose if, say, the domain keys proposal was limited? A whistle blower couldn't send an e-mail to a newspaper without worrying that he could be identified later? I'm sure there are many other instances where anonymous e-mail is desirable. How is anonymous e-mailing done now? You can't just forge the sender. The originating IP address will still show in the headers and be traceable. Should anonymous e-mailing be a pay-as-you-go system? You can send mail from your account at wekeepyouhidden.com which you pay $20/month for. What about the "free" e-mail systems like hotmail, yahoomail, etc. They'll presumably get domain keys, and continue allowing spamers to send spam through them. What percentage of current spam is sent through these systems now? They wouldn't solve the anonymity problem because, as far as I know, they all attach the originating IP address to the messages they send. Should anonymous e-mailing be a pay-as-you-go system? You can send mail from your account at wekeepyouhidden.com which you pay $20/month for. My gut tells me this is the only way to get true anonymity now (short of cracking computers and sending from there, but I can't exactly endorse breaking the law as a solution). My feeling is that blacklists like SpamCop et al would be significantly more effective under the domain keys proposal. Blacklist systems could easily link all messages from one domain together and aggregate the complaints they receive about that domain.
(Log in to post comments)
Anonymous e-mail? Posted Dec 18, 2003 18:06 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Anonymous email would still be possible under the SPF system, at least,by simply permitting mail from hosts that don't claim to be anyone in particular. Such email wouldn't be verified at all, since it didn't claim to be anything in particular. Most people would just throw it away, but anonymous tip lines wouldn't (since they wouldn't get anything else, obviously), and spammers wouldn't tend to spam such addresses anyway (do spammers really want to reach investigative reporters at their work?). Furthermore, if people are actually using an anonymizing network, the email will come out with a perfectly valid and legitimate address which simply can't be tracked back to the sender, and is authenticated as being an anonymous message from this remailer. These systems are generally pseudonymous, in any case, so that the original sender can send additional messages authentically, and these systems would merely authenticate the pseudonym. Again, this mail would be filtered by most people, but would get through to people who intend to pick up anonymous tips.
|
|
||||||||||||