X-Message-Number: 30600
Date: Sun,  9 Mar 2008 07:03:45 -0700
Subject: False name defined as "abuse" (was Re: [CN] CryoNet #30590 - ...
References:  <>
From:  (Tim Freeman)

From: Steve Jackson <>
>This would be a more useful forum if the use of a false name were
>defined as "abuse" that would quickly lead to blocking.

I agree.  Excluding obviously-false names would be easy.  Excluding
the false names that are meant to look like real names is harder.

The best scheme I can think of involves using PGP's web of trust, or
retreating to mailing around notarized email addresses and
(optionally) public key fingerprints in the case of subscribers who
are not sufficiently validated by the PGP web of trust.  This step
would only have to be done once per subscriber.

With this model, the practice of emailing unsigned messages to the
mailing list could continue.  This would leave it to subscribers to
recognize and complain about any forgeries posted in their name, and
signing messages would not be necessary unless people start
complaining about forged messages.

Unfortunately I'm not willing to implement this any time soon
regardless of how many people are interested.  So the missing parts
are:

* Indication of enough interest to motivate someone to do it.
* Someone to implement it.
* The implementation, which could be done by manually checking the PGP
  web of trust or checking notarized pieces of paper recieved by paper
  mail.
* Getting people to take the trouble to validate themselves with PGP
  or notaries, and putting them on the new list.

-- 
Tim Freeman               http://www.fungible.com           

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30600