Re: xB Mail: Anonymous Email Client

[Jacob Appelbaum <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Arrakis wrote:
>> It's appropriate to repeat it because you're spamming this list again
>> with your ideas about licensing. You continue your attempts to ride on
>> the coat tales of the Free Software and Open Source licenses that came
>> before you.
> 
> Jacob, I'm not spamming the list with licensing ideas. I commented
> that the idea contributions would be used in a software licensed
> under TESLA, as that is a legitimate caveat for those here, as expressed
> before. Your further illustration is a testament to the legitimacy
> of that caveat.
> 

Sigh.

Actually that's just what you did when you replied to Seth and that's
just what you're doing in the paragraphs below.

Stop wasting our time debating the meaning of specific software
licensing terms.

>> *The TESLA software license is neither 'open source' or 'free'/'free
>> software' as people commonly understand those terms.*
> 
> As people commonly understand those terms, I disagree. For the 99.9999%
> of the users out there, it is free and open source. They don't hit any
> restriction. Download it, modify it, sell it, redistribute it modified
> or unmodified. That .0001% that apparently some people feel outraged
> over, only represents the addition of backdoors/spyware, or commercial
> theft.
> 

It would be reasonable to say that many people don't understand software
licensing. You are clearly one of those people.

Please consider learning about Free and Open Source software licensing
ideas:

	http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
	http://opensource.org/docs/osd

These are the definitions used by people who write software on this
list. You seem to be the exception as far as I've read.

>> Stop misusing those terms and people will
>> stop calling you on it. It's a factual debate and the facts aren't on
>> your side.
> 
> Shall I say it again? While we can all love Richard Stallman, your
> choice of definition is not universal. That the software is open
> source and free, is dependent on your purpose being non-malicious.
> I'll clarify, as per your reply: FOSS definitions != fact. They
> are colloquial, they are subjective terms.
> 

Sigh. It's depressing to watch you beat your head against the wall here.
That you restrict your users pretty much means that your software isn't
Open Source or Free Software.

> warning: "spam licensing idea" ahead, involves gpl...
> We could license it under GPL, but wrap that in a license / software
> that says you can't get to the GPL license if you have malicious intent
> (possible?). It just seems easier to use a single license.
> 

I don't have any real comment about this. It's immaterial to the
discussion as far as I can tell. I don't want to discuss creation of
software licenses.

>> To be clear, your xB* software doesn't belong on or-talk because it has
>> next to nothing to do with Tor. 
> 
> I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there are both security and
> anonymity implications for passing mail over tor that should be discussed.
> And if you haven't understood it yet, we are indeed talking about passing
> mail over tor, because that is exactly what the software will do, presumably.
> 

Of course I'm aware that there are both security and anonymity
implications for sending email over Tor. As far as I can tell, you
haven't decided if you want to use Tor or Mixmaster. It seems like you
should probably do some high level design on your own software and then
ask for advice. Which of course seems weird to say because it sounds
like you were so close to being finished with it...

> That is what _I_ want to discuss. My only caveat is telling contributors
> how I plan to use the information they share. I don't want people to be
> angry that I used information or methods in a way that wasn't suitable
> to them. That seems like a pretty straight forward issue. For some reason,
> Seth thought my disclosure of use required comment, in the interests of
> malware producers who might be contributing in the hopes of introducing
> malware/spyware. Reductio ad absurdum, that is the logical conclusion to
> the objection, if it isn't purely for attempting to open discourse about
> subjective terms. Maybe I should think of Seth's post as less of an objection
> and more like a wikipedia stub, but then again that isn't how he phrased it
> so I'll take the comments as they come.
> 

Huh. Ok.

>> If you configure a mail client to use
>> Tor, no one else needs to know about it.
> 
> I remember your same posts about incoginto, tor browser, torpedo, vidalia,
> torbutton, janusvm, rockate, etc. You're right. Discussion about software
> projects that implement tor don't belong in or-talk. Sure. How am I supposed
> to take your comments seriously, Jacob? That lack of evidence doesn't seem
> to bloster that claim as your motive. Maybe you're just a very easy-going
> guy and decided here is where you would make your stand for disallowing
> discussion on or-talk of software that integrates tor, and things that aren't
> purely about tor project itself.
> 

In your email you indicated that you weren't even sure if you were going
to use Tor for sending email. Specifically you said:

"Should we scrap Tor and make it use mixmaster?"

You seem to be looking for a general anonymous communications design
list. You should consider reading the anonbib:

	http://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/

Many of your questions would be answered with some basic research.

At some point, when you have software that actually uses Tor, it would
be reasonable to discuss it here. All of the software you mention is
related to Tor, some of it directly exists only because of a need
relating to Tor. Your software could be in that list too, if it had a
solid design or if it existed.

> Or maybe you're right, and your post doesn't belong on or-talk, and perhaps
> neither does this one. In that case, may I suggest that if you have a response,
> you send it to me personally? I wouldn't want to force you or anyone else to
> violate your self-proclaimed definition of what belongs on or-talk, after all.
> 

No. None of the meta discussion belongs on the list. It's a waste of
bits for everyone involved. I'm sorry to have contributed to it. You
don't appear to have any regard for the points that I or anyone else has
made.

> At some point you have to step back, abandon the ivory tower, and realize
> that your definitions are not the only definitions, and if they were that
> still doesn't elevate them into fact. Your position requires that
> contention, and is thus untenable. That you've called attention to it in
> some attempt to extricate Seth is admirable. However, at the end of the day
> I'm here to discuss the implications of sending mail over tor so I can produce
> actual software that real people can use, and you're here for some reason other
> than that. Pardon me if I don't allow you to undermine my purpose.

Huh. As if the rest of the people on this list don't produce actual
software that real people can use...

At some point, you should realize that your definitions don't jive with
the community you're interacting with. I wonder if that point has
arrived. I'm not holding my breath though.

Having a general discussion about sending email over Tor is a very
different discussion than Thunderbird plugin designs that may or may not
use Tor.

If you want to have a discussion about SMTP and other email protocols
over Tor, by all means, please write some email about sending email over
Tor! That sounds totally reasonable.

To be clear, no one is stopping you either way. It's just that one is
appreciated and the other is not as appreciated by at least one person
on this list. :-)

Best,
Jacob