Geert K. Marien answered my questions on usefulness of anonymous posting, but I
don't think too helpfully.  Let me try briefly to respond:
 
1.  He doesn't see how one could construct code to prevent anonymous postings.
I won't argue that.  I'm talking at the policy lvel.  what people then do to
evade conventions and constraints is a diferent issue.  I'm suggesting that
consensus is first necessary (if reachable) on the desirability of  it.  If
it is concluded that it is not desirable, we go on to talk about how to
prevent them.
 
Clearly smart people can construct mail messages that are fictitious; we all
\know about port 25.  In the future authenticated mail may help here.
 
2.   he says, >First, there  are  MANY uses  for
anonymous postings.  Almost *ANY* discussion of a sensitive nature, with
HIV being just one case, could rightfully be included.   HIV is only one
matter  ...   how  about  Sexual   Abuse?   What  about  anyone  with  a
non-religious fundamentalist approved life style?  Get the point?
<
Well, no, i don't.  GKM is begging the question, which is precisely:  why
should anonymous postings be allowed in a group that is not specifically for
anonymous postings?  GKM goes on to use the analogy of AA; I find this a good
analogy for the all-anonymous group (that we need, and an AA-like discussion
is exactly the right case); but not for a general discussion in which there is
no reason for people not to announce their views and, as in most public
situations, be held accountable for them (in the sense of having them asnwered,
be voted against, etc.; not in a legal sanction sense).
 
========
 
For the record:  I'm talking at the moment in sociocultural terms, not in terms
of "what we ought to do on the net".  I think it is a valid concern that we
will all eventually have to confront, but for the moment I'm trying to discuss
this at the cultural level:  the internet has provided us with a new means of
communication which allows anonymous contributions to a discussion.  To what
extent does this change discourse?  Do we want it to?  Why or why not?  Is the
change "good"?
 
--Peter Graham, Rutgers University Libraries