On  Wed,  6 Jan  1993  23:02:00  EST  "Peter  Graham, Rutgers  U.,  (908)
932-2741" <[log in to unmask]> said:
 
>Again, there is  a confusion between policy and  implementation. If (and
>this is  if) an  agreement were  reached on  policy that  said anonymous
>postings were not allowed in some  form, then the question of preventing
>would come up.
 
I am not interested  in lawyer talk. I believe I and  others have made it
quite  clear  that there  are  legitimate  uses for  anonymous  postings.
Therefore anonymous postings as a  whole are not disallowed. A particular
list owner  may decide he doesn't  want to see anonymous  postings on his
list and  he may be quite  right in doing so,  but that is no  ground for
requesting that the anonymous servers be shut down.
 
>For preventing or constraining anonymou  alias servers: I don't see this
>becoming a difficulty at some point in  the future, for I do not believe
>that the present relatively  anarchic network-connection mode will exist
>for more than a few more years.
 
Yeah, sure. And  you expect me to spend time  making changes based purely
on your predictions, too?
 
>tthe point remains: what do we want?
 
The point remains: like  it or not, there are many  list owners who think
anonymous posts may be  legitimate on their lists. So you  will not get a
consensus  statement from  this list  saying that  we must  ban anonymous
posts. Why do you insist on talking about this issue?
 
  Eric