The Joy of Pseudospoofing Thank you sincerely for your interest in the subject of pseudospoofing. In addition to my essay below, `The Joy of Pseudospoofing' (which has gone through many revisions), additional references related to the subject are: The Anonymity FAQ, The Privacy and Anonymity FAQ: rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/net-anonymity rtfm.mit.edu:/pub/usenet/news.answers/net-privacy Medusa's Snakes in Cyberspace, Further Inquiries, Medusa's Snakes Hiss: crvax.sri.com:/RISKS:/RISKS-15.25 crvax.sri.com:/RISKS:/RISKS-15.27 crvax.sri.com:/RISKS:/RISKS-15.28x Anarchy Gone Awry (Current Underground Digest) ===cut=here=== the Joy of Pseudospoofing Copyright (c) 1993 L. Detweiler ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu Contents: - How to lose your virginity to a rapist - How to die of blood poisoning from parasites - How to be sucked dry by a vampire - On ghosts, phantoms, demons, possessions, and exorcisms - On deception, hypocrisy, treachery, and high treason - On voyerism, onanism, incest, and molestation - On stalking, torture, murder, and cannibalism - On secret criminal conspiracies and the new international mafia * * * I've been talking about `pseudospoofing' as if what it connotes is obvious, but let me be absolutely thorough. Suppose a person created an entire fake identity. Jim Riverman, a software engineer, working in CA. Subscriber to the cypherpunks. Expert in number theory and NSA arcania. Posts very authoritatively to the list, and when he does its short and sweet, and a keeper. Even has a phone number. Has a nice signature complete with a cute quote: `death is the ultimate form of censorship' along with his phone number (work). Signed up on a public access Internet system that requires no authentication of identity. Address jr@netcom.com. Perhaps he has even described his troublesome toils in software development projects with a large company. Cultivated personal relationships with people in email. But JR does not exist. He is the figment of somebody's imagination, let's call her Medusa. The phone number reaches her. When she gets a call on the `JR' phone she speaks in a deep voice and talks about software development. It's rather rare that anyone calls anyway, and she rather loathes it when it happens and does not encourage anyone to do so. She's very guarded in phone conversations, and often takes the offensive stance by asking questions. `What are you calling about?' `Why should this be important?' etc. She never volunteers personal information under the JR voice for obvious reasons. She uses the jr@netcom.com account in a very systematic way. When she has interesting information she is very careful about presenting it in a way that maximizes her posting reputation under the JR pseudonym. If the information is related to his personality, she posts it under his identity in a characteristic way, perhaps even with consistent mispellings and a certain style. She never posts uncharacteristically under JR, such as talking about some other arbitrary subject she's knowledgable on but would be a bit surprising if JR said anything about it. Okay, let's stop and take note of this. Is any `deception' going on here? Absolutely. Should this be permitted? I don't think so, but perhaps others do. (Certainly many have contacted me to say so.) Many are saying `you can't prevent this' etc. `it's harmless and her cyberspatial right to build up her reputation under a digital pseudonym.' So, let's go further and explore this. Suppose Medusa also has an account snake@netcom.com. She cultivates another personality and reputation from that address, as an authority on mail forgery, guerilla warfare, and sabotage. Again, she is careful to never post on `uncharacteristic' subjects, *particularly* those that would overlap with JR, because that would cast suspicion on the uniqueness of the two identities. Is all this still OK with everyone? * * * But let's now look at the interplay of postings on a mailing list. The whole point is that a *dialogue* is in action, right? That's the draw. The mailing list is not just a endless series of contextless messages existing independently (quite contrary to what a lot of `pseudothinkers' have been telling me lately). People respond to each other, carry on conversations, quote each other, flame, criticize, comment, contradict, rebut, reject, congratulate, even lauch private email conversations from public postings. (And these private dialogues can be highly rewarding, in many ways more than reading the list itself, which tends to be `noisy'.) And, in fact, all this feedback is actually the *basis* of the best reputations. When someone posts something that is extremely relevant to the conversation at hand, their reputation in the eyes of their colleagues increases. When they rebut an argument with a stellar comeback, their own esteem is raised in the eyes of the group just as the victim's is lowered. When they post something that is authoritative on a given subject, again they are admired. `posting is reputation'. Finally, there can even be an interplay *behind the scenes* of the mailing list. People might organize meetings or go to parties with people they have met on the list. For some, this is sort of the holy grail of online interaction, and gives it true meaning. The interplay of reputations between this and a mailing list is complex. Someone's reputation might be raised or lowered because of their `realspace' vs. `cyberspace' personas. And the possibilities of outside project development can be extremely important, especially if a mailing list is designated to discuss some endeavor, say PEM software standards or whatever. * * * But the problem with all this is that in a regular social setting, there are some very ancient, venerable, and sophisticated rules involving propriety and courtesy of communication that break down dangerously on any online `forum' when a single person has multiple pseudonyms, and these `subversive uses' are what I will expand on. For example, many people become annoyed when someone talks too much, roughly analogous in cyberspace to postings that are too long or too frequent. In fact, this repulsion may be so strong as to cause people to reject messages simply because of it and irrespective of content (which might nevertheless have consistently high or at least above-average quality). Moreover, many people are highly annoyed by others who are constantly stroking their own fragile egos. `I am great because I did this.' It's quite nauseating at times with some! People often tune out or reject comments like this with something like `mental filters'. Reputations can be affected in extreme cases. `Oh, that JR is so noisy.' `Oh, that Medusa is so vain.' Also, some people turn out to be control freaks, and various degrees of clever euphemisms can be used to hide their inherent dominative or autocratic tendencies. `You do this because I say so.' `That is the wrong way to do what you want to do.' `*work* with me!' `you are being uncooperative'. `we tried that and in my opinion it didn't work.' `we will not discuss this further.' The final and most important aspect of group communication psychology is that of *consensus* and *peer pressure*. This can be an extraordinarily powerful force. Many people are `lurkers' and are most influenced by what they perceive to be other's opinion on various subjects, or the general group feelings as gauged through multiple postings. They are unlikely to question what they read. * * * Now let's look at how some of these proprieties can be thwarted to the detriment of community by use of pseudospoofing, in the case of Medusa and JR. First, notice that a single person could get away with far more postings if they all successfully matched the online personas. In fact, this could become quite a problem with traffic on the list at very high levels with everyone actually trying to *break apart* their posts into different identities to maximize the reputations associated with each -- a rather bizarre disincentive. A sort of anti-respect might develop for people who take the time to write long postings. They would look atypical in the forum. They might even be perceived as being egotistical and simply trying to assuage their own reputation through a lot of concerted effort under a single identity. Have you ever met anyone who hated you the more you accomplished and the more successful you were? This translates very directly into the cyberspatial realm. This leads directly into the ego case. What about people who are simply out to assuage their own ego? Suppose Medusa wishes to do this. She could `stage' very clever situations where jr@netcom.com says `I heard that Medusa knows a lot about industrial sabotage, and am always fascinated by her posts.' Medusa pops up a few messages later under snake@netcom.com and says `Thanks Jim, I really respect your knowledge of number theory too, and I hope you can provide some more updates on it' and launches into an amazingly relevant post, considering what Jim asked about. So, cypherpunks, what do you think of that? This strikes me as rather perverted. In reality, if Jim and Medusa were different entities, this would generate significant respect for both. But if they were the same entity, this would just be a twisted deception. And anyone who found out about it might feel very misled and disillusioned. Someone had created the false impression of reputation that was nothing but a sham. Of course, this all seems very implausible. Why would anyone go through *so much trouble* to do this? the problem is that we can ask this problem about a lot of `criminal' behaviors, and the situation is that every perversion known to man has been practiced at some time or another, *especially* when circumstances permit it. If there are certain people who are so consumed by reverence for online reputation, multiple personality fantasies from e.g. fiction, and getting away with clever deceptions, they would be *drawn* to an environment where this is possible. A person with a very fragile ego would be drawn into defending all of `its' identities with the different online personas. If someone attacked snake@netcom.com, a message from jr@netcom.com might pop up saying that `Medusa is my best friend, and you're a paranoid ranter.' This is like having `someone else' do the dirty work for you, and with great irony that `someone else' is yourself. In very extreme cases, suppose that Medusa has a cherished belief, for example, in the basic propriety of multiple personality disorder. If that was ever questioned on the list by anyone, perhaps she would be so upset as to engage *both* jr@netcom.com and snake@netcom.com. Let's now look at the penultimate case, where someone is a control freak. Suppose they wished to create support for a project or inhibit others working on a project not within their agenda. Whenever someone pops up, they are flamed. `Medusa knows what she is talking about. I heard that she has done all these things. Don't do anything until you have talked to her.' `Thank you! That's quite correct! Anyone involved with this should contact me personally, or wait until we are finished. It's definitely in the works.' Finally, let's look at how peer pressure can be influenced by these pseudonymous postings of Medusa's. Obviously, she has created the illusion of support or rejection of something that is not consistent with reality. It is a deception. People may have lowered or raised their opinion of something merely because they saw multiple posts criticizing the same thing, when they all came ultimately from Medusa. In the absolute worst case they would alter their *real space* activities or perceptions, perhaps thinking that someone else is a jerk and avoiding meeting them in person, or giving up work on a particular project because someone else was apparently farther along. By this time it should be clear that Medusa does not really have any ethics or morality, if she is going to deceive and manipulate people like this. She might even create imaginary `realspace' illusions to augment her elaborate cyberspatial fantasies. She might make up progress reports on various projects, and have various details confirmed by JR. If someone pops up on the list saying `I haven't seen anything going on with this' JR would pop up and say `don't worry, you can be sure that it's happening.' These fantasies would totally pollute and poison any trust in an online community. It could be compared to brainwashing. * * * Let's add some new dimensions to our little thought experiment. Suppose that the possibility of *private* email is added to all these areas, and that *very many* pseudonyms could be maintained with a minimum of effort. First, again, the `talk too much' case. If someone is posting too often, Medusa would not like that because it detracts from her own arsenal of pseudonymous identities. She would flame from her array of identities in public postings. If the person persists, she could assault him with private email, especially in the one-two form `I really admire and respect what you've done, but you've really got to be quieter.' The first half of the sentence generates respect, and the second half manipulates the listener. And if someone got this flame from *both* JR and Medusa in private email, they might be quite intimidated. `gosh, these cypherpunk members seem to know what they are talking about, and they say I'm out of line, so I better cut it out.' Even if the person had never `met' these identities before, they could be manipulated. In fact, totally arbitrary new identities could be created and still influence some people. `this person is responding to my public posting, so s/he obviously is a contributing member and his opinion counts. If they are telling me to shut up, I'd better be quiet. Especially if JR, a software engineer who I have a great deal of personal respect for says so.' Even if other cypherpunks would be aghast to find out there were behind-the-scenes flames going on, they might never know. Some people, while at the same time just deleting flames, can be very upset by them. Note that in all these cases, if any of this was going on in `real world meetings' it would be considered shocking depravity. In the online realm, some are championing it all as `newly liberating freedoms with true anonymity'. Note that if these messages were sent *anonymously* there would not be much of a problem. People would realize they could be coming from anyone, including the known powermongers on the list, and dismiss them without too much value. There is obviously a fundamental distinction here between *passive* concealment and *active* deception. The former is `anonymous', the latter is `pseudoanonymous' or `pseudospoofed.' Now let's look again at the `ego' case. This can be *extremely* compelling when orchestrated via multiple identities and private email. Imagine a person criticizes Medusa on the list, and gets a barrage of public and private flames. `You are really way out of line here. Medusa has done all of these things for the cypherpunks.' There could be all kinds of `damage control' where different pseudonymous entities try to clean up the holes, each one addressing a different aspect of the criticism. All this could be done without snake@netcom.com ever sending *anything*! An entire illusion of respect for an entity could be manufactured. It might look something like an `elite clique' to anyone who didn't know there was a single entity behind the postings. Again, the case of the control freak. Obviously the ability to create the illusion of consensus in public postings and private mail would be extremely dangerous but very enticing for Medusa, who has no compunctions about deceit and treachery. A megalomaniac would be quite drawn to the capability. They would even be interested in developing powerful software to keep track of all the identities to prevent any `crossings' (a leak of information that reveals a link between identities). What's to prevent them? Certainly not a personal conscience. With all of this, quite a barrage of misinformation could be orchestrated, a sort of mental invasion campaign. Medusa could systematically `break down' any resistance to her evil plans for world domination `behind the scenes' without anyone ever knowing it. If anyone said something, they would be accused of harboring bizarre conspiracy theories and violating the trust of personal email. Finally, what about the idea of consensus and peer pressure under this system? I think it has become clear that an entire *movement* could be faked with this system. A mailing list could turn into a sort of international brainwashing machine for Medusa's evil agenda. Combine the possibility that there is more than one Medusa -- perhaps she has several sisters. They are all conspiring behind the scenes to break down resistance, confuse and obfuscate their opponent's arguments with psychological mind-bombs, and promote it all under something like Liberation of the Universe. An ingenous tactic would be to litter the mailing list with pseudospoofed posts that attack irrelevant points and obscure the original messages of real people. Who would ever know? What would prevent it? What is our protection? After all, creating multiple identities and pseudospoofing is a fundamental right of cyberspace, right? With it, the liberation of the world is at hand! As one eminent cypherpunk said to me, ``There is no movement. Get this delusion out of your head. There is only software.'' Another astonishing possiblity is that Medusa is actually present on *multiple* mailing lists and newsgroups. She could assault people in all kinds of ways. She might see that someone she hates has posted to some arbitrary list, and try to strike up a new conversation with them with a unique tentacle. The person would be *wholly* unsuspecting because of the `distance' of the body and the tentacle. He might let strategic information slip to Medusa that compromises his protection and privacy based on this empty trust. Obviously, all this would be *extremely* difficult to detect, especially if no one had the capability to trace even pseudonymous identities to unique people. There would be various suspicious signs, however. If `newbies' consistently popped up out of nowhere to ask seemingly staged questions, provide setups, or comment on issues they would presumably have little knowledge to do so (such as the general list quality, the `movement', etc.) it would look very suspicious. Let's say that Medusa was extremely sensitive about `newbie flames' because she had been accused in the past of being hostile to newcomers. She might stage a routine where she helps out a `newbie' just to deflect the criticism and `prove' that she is actually very gracious. She would post to reaffirm that. `Why, I just helped out that newbie with the book reference.' If anyone who was confronted about the possibility of personally pseudospoofing instead deflected concern with satire and no specific denials, it would also be suspicious. * * * Some people dismiss the importance of peer pressure theories, saying that people are not really influenced by other's opinions, and even if they were, nothing harmful could ensue. `As for people being tricked into seeing a consensus when one does not exist, who cares?' But consider the following scenario. Imagine that Medusa has grown quite a few snakes in cyberspace, and uses them all in a single disinformation campaign. `Who cares?' To answer this, consider the psychology and anatomy of a lynch mob. In frontier days, this was the notion of `criminal justice' -- a mob of people would catch a criminal, supposedly the perpetrator of heinous crimes. I suspect pseudo-trials went on even in these `mob societies'. you see, a mob is often comprised of people with a slight glimmer of conscience individually. A leader will often arise who manipulates that doubt so that it is turned into vicious hatred, almost animal brutality, to serve the aims of the public lynching. `What did this man do?' the leader might ask, somewhat rhetorically. `He stole my gold!' says one. `He raped my wife!' says another. `He murdered my brother!' says the other. At this point, as you can imagine, the rest of the mob needs no further motivation. Some people may have their doubts about the guilt of the criminal, but they will think they are in the minority, and will be afraid to speak up. They would fear that *they* might be the next target! So, if the crowd's too impatient to watch the `criminal's' eyes bulge out from the asphyxiating rope, or are in a particularly vindictive mood, they might even rip or bludgeon the `criminal' to oozing brains and blood, meat strips, and poking bones with their bare hands, all with the barest encouragement like `what are we going to DO ABOUT IT?' from the Leader. Ah -- Justice is Served -- but what if the `Leader' is Medusa? And `one' is Snake #1, `another' is Snake #2, and `the other' is Snake #3? And the `criminal's' only `crime' was that he had accidentally stumbled on to Medusa's Lair? Some sensible people might have been repulsed enough to sneak away unnoticed. `What an ugly mob! I'm glad I got out of there! I'm sure glad I'm not the one dangling from the noose!' Others in the mob, upon learning this, would be contemptuous. `They were nothing but pathetic, whimpering, sniveling cowards anyway. They didn't deserve our company.' * * * One of the most treacherous and evil uses of pseudospoofing is the following. Suppose Medusa not only had no ethics and morality, but was actually Satan in disguise. Suppose that she liked to torment and `punish' people with her `tentacles' whenever they `misbehaved', measured by their resistance to her oppression. She could be quite unpleasant, don't you think? She could consistently flame their arguments from different tentacles even if the posts were intelligent, just out of spite. She might bait them and say `I have some information for you' and when they reply in a query, snatch it from their fingers. She might have all her sisters try to work on the person in particular and break them down. `You are not going to have any friends if you keep this up. Why are you such a troublemaker, anyway? You are rude and have no manners. You need to grow up and stop thinking that everyone is out to get you. That path leads to madness.' Or, if the person has recognized the brainwashing and is amidst flight, she could try to lead him back to darkness. `Oh, I so enjoyed your posts, please reconsider.' This from a tentacle the victim has never heard from before. Now imagine the most fantastic possibility of all, that Medusa is so interested in tormenting a certain (from her view) `uncooperative' individual that she no longer even cares about converting him. Let's call him Luke Skywalker. Even the arguments like `I am your father, join the dark side, and together we can rule the universe' from many other tentacles have failed. In utter desperation she might still endeavor to build up another situation to simply gain his trust, say, with even a respectable Jim Riverman tentacle. `Luke -- I saw your post on lightsaber techniques, and I'm really impressed.' She could try to cultivate the trust over a long series of exchanges by responding to questions and revealing some simple information she knows would interest him. `yes, there seems to be some kind of clique or conspiracy going on'. Then she would slip in things like `what do you know about it?' `what do you think of Medusa, anyway?' Or, if she already knew that Luke thought she was evil, she might say `Luke -- that bastard Medusa has really gotten to me too. You should see my newbie posts she flamed me over! I don't know what to do. What are you going to do?' If Luke were naive, credulous, gullible, trusting, open, and honest, he might let very serious strategic information leak, partly in the hopes that Jim Riverman could help him personally, and together they could choke the monster. ``I am going to shoot at the exhaust vent in the trench with my X-wing fighter. Do you know where it is?'' ``Oh yes, my dear Luke!'' Luke would just be betrayed by yet another slimy tentacle. What a pity. Yet Luke may not even realize the betrayal by the tentacle at first. He may continue to carry on the conversation, oblivious to the treachery. He might confide to a snake that he is afraid of double agents who might betray him. Medusa, of course, would seduce him further, with more hypnotic tentacles, in sheer desperation. `Oh Luke! You are such a paranoid schizophrenic! why do you believe the world is tormenting you so? You are deluding yourself with visions of madness in thinking that anyone is against you or is trying to deceive you about their identity!' Luke might get a message from Jim Riverman saying, `Luke -- I think you've really gone off the deep end this time. I know `Snake #7' personally. He's my best friend. And `Tentacle #12' was my old girlfriend! Get a grip on yourself, man. No one is out to get you.' In sheer desperation, after realizing he had been betrayed because of some `crossing' (for example, in the final desperate approach, finding the exhaust port coincidentally boarded up!) Luke Skywalker might fantasize about pulling out his light saber and severing all the writhing tentacles, if he had the chance. But it would be useless, because Medusa would simply grow others. Could we say that Luke learned a valuable lesson about the importance of discriminating his trust? If so, what is the lesson? Luke would simply be encouraged to be more paranoid, perhaps to the point of mistrusting even those he *could* trust without betrayal. Even this paranoid suspicion would not guarantee that another disguised snake of Medusa would build up trust to betray him yet again. Assuming he was still sane or alive. * * * Notice in the mob scenario that people are deceived by the belief that others around them have some opinion, and therefore change their own opinion in accordance. There are far more serious abuses of this that can lead to massive hysteria. For example, H.G.Wells wrote a story The War of the Worlds describing an invasion of an alien race bent on the destruction of the populations of the earth -- a very apocalyptic vision. It was fiction, but some people didn't realize that when Orson Welles turned it into a radio broadcast program in the mid-20th century. At this time, the radio had been built up as a medium of trust, and people placed a great deal of reliance on the accuracy of the news they received from it. Some rural farmers pulled out their shotguns and clogged streets in their flight when they heard of the `invasion.' It is easy to dismiss them as gullible fools. But to a certain extent, they were betrayed by the technology they had come to rely on. It is easy to suggest that no one would take a story like this seriously today. But the simple reality is that many people continue to propagate the same tired `urban legends' even on the precipice of the 21st century, and many new ones are arising with telephones, fax, and computer technology. The stakes are insidiously higher. And the potential for a serious, concerted prank played on many cyberspace `channels' simultaneously (bulletin boards, mailing lists, Usenet groups, etc.) is extremely dangerous. If anyone wanted to stockpile an arsenal of fake identities and simultaneously assault the entire Cyberspace in diverse quarters, either as a twisted prank or a malicious detonation, nothing prevents it today. In fact, the loose structure of the Internet virtually encourages a kind of arms race among Medusas and their increasingly cheap, ubiquitous tentacles collected from public access sites with no authentication or safeguards. How many Medusas are stalking Cyberspace today? Some people have suggested that a Silicon Valley group called the `Cypherpunks' ostensibly interested in `privacy for the masses' and the `cryptographic revolution' have done exactly that -- used respectable outlets of the media (such as New York Times) to gain favorable recognition while brainwashing others on the Internet to be receptive to their true subversive aims of tax evasion, black marketeering, overthrow of governments, lawlessness, and anarchy, all under the heading of `Cryptoanarchy'. Supposedly, top leaders E.Hughes, T.C.May, J.Gilmore, and fanatic followers have assaulted many with their fake identities on their mailing list and on other sensitive Internet mailing lists, such as those devoted to software development. The legendary Internet lunatic S.Boxx has claimed that they have built up a large network of international posting sites, interstate phone numbers, and hired actors to appear in media pictures and official meetings. All the three prominent leaders have refused to comment or deny the allegations despite enormous public pressure within and outside the group. If it is indeed the case that the cypherpunks are a front, hoax, or conspiracy (the details are sparse and inconclusive) the Cypherpunks Movement nevertheless appears to be advancing like an unabated blitzkrieg. * * * The idea of different people in a drug network actually being tentacles of a single Medusa is a very provocative and compelling metaphor to explore. The drug organization understands the idea of compartmentalizing knowledge so that worthless front-line street-level runners are unaware of higher or even lateral components of the organization, so when apprehended, even if they `squeal' they are worthless in uncovering them. The police can cut dozens of quivering tentacles and Medusa lives on. In a sense, Pablo Escobar was the ultimate Medusa. He surrounded or `insulated' himself with human buffers until his death. Many people in Columbia to this day think he is a hero, a modern day Robin Hood. He certainly promoted this image! It was critical to his `success'. The truth, of course, was that he was the world's first and foremost `narcoterrorist,' advancing bloodiness to new heights of grisliness. But his perceived image and circle of `tentacles' was also critical to his downfall. Once his sycophants perceived a momentum against him, they simply switched sides and informed on him. An entire secret organization was formed of his former enemies, the friends and families of the people he murdered (numbering in the hundreds). One decisive factor may have been (as rumor has it) his murder of about a dozen of his personal bodyguards because he was suspicious of their loyalty. This heinous treatment of human life as expendable as cash is very much analogous to the Medusean philosophy of viewing all tentacles as ultimately expendable too. This is the double edged sword of Medusa's tentacles -- they can also turn and strangle her, and Medusa must go to extraordinary measures to prevent it, even a paranoid `purge' against Medusa's own `family' like those of Saddam Hussein's. Perhaps the most horrifying vision of what can be accomplished with the use of digital tentacles is that of the Cyberspatial Mafia. What dark deeds will be possible when it is as easy to create fake identities to manipulate others as it is to run software over the Internet? Actually, this is entirely possible today, and it is just feeble faith in `security through improbability' that opposes its presence. What will happen tomorrow in future global cyberspace when an Escobar crossed with a Robert Morris, named Medusa, is born today? * * * But perhaps you think otherwise! Ah, the Joy of Psuedospoofing. Let Medusa and Her head of snakes thrive in Cyberspace, and let's all bathe in the beauty of Her radiance! Weekly virgin sacrifices on the altar of the Death Star! `one' said to me, `I think the Usenet credo, `live with it', applies.' `one' said, `that which cannot be enforced should not be prohibited.' `one' said, `better to live with the occasional vagaries of digital pseudonyms than to ban them.' `one' said, `the assertion that [T.C.May] is Jamie Dinkelacker is just too bizarre to be believed.' `one' said `thanks for the exposure'. `one' said `on that path lies madness'. `one' said,`the right to pseudospoof is Constitutionally guaranteed.' `one' said,`a message should be judged solely on its content, and not who posted it.' `one' said, `Only dumb people on the Internet would be fooled by this. When they do get burned once, that's good -- they're no longer gullible or trusting. There is no point in setting up rules just to protect them at the expense of others.' And the Ones were Not Unique. -- ``Death is the ultimate form of censorship.'' (author unknown) Jim Riverman Software Engineer jr@netcom.com (415) 941-4782 [work]