5 ms·

But the anonymous user can create N anonymous accounts and spam you N times with N accounts, right? That's where spam forces us to choose between blacklisting

But the anonymous user can create N anonymous accounts and spam you N times with N accounts, right? That's where spam forces us to choose between blacklisting people and whitelisting (which breaks anonymity).

jstanley 8y ago
Sure, then you'd get N contact requests which you'd have to ignore (which has the same effect as deleting a contact which you'd previously accepted). But people can spam your email account as well. When this became a problem, spam filters were developed. There's no reason the same thing couldn't happen in Ricochet if spam became a problem. Ricochet's problem isn't that too many spammers are using it. It's that almost nobody at all is using it.
- dfabulich 8y ago
  Email spam filters didn't/don't actually work that well without de-anonymizing features like SPF and DKIM. I'm not saying that spam is a problem today, but that the design goals of Richochet don't allow it to deal with the spam problem for users who actually want anonymous messaging.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    What anonymous messaging system would you recommend?
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
I'd never accept a request from a random user. My workflow would be like this: agree to discuss on signal or via pgp, which you use to get the ricochet-ID from the person that intends to connect with you. Once they tell you their id via this out of band channel, it's easy to reject any other requests that you don't expect. My ricochet-id is public knowledge now. But say you're a journalist who wants to protect their source (on your end) e.g. a total stranger who is going to tell you some secrets then no need to even have a contact list. No need for a history. You just use the ricochet-id once. Maybe in a short-lived VM, Qubes or Tails whatever ... And tear down the whole system anyway once I'm done with the chat. So in the first case you can simply avoid spam with boostrapping a safe rendezvous point, the second case would never see any spam.
- jstanley 8y ago
  I deliberately publish my Ricochet ID (ricochet:it2j3z6t6ksumpzd) and accept most requests from random people. It's led to mostly people who add me as a contact then close Ricochet before I reply and never open it again, a large handful of fun conversations with interesting people, and a couple of weird conversations with crazy people :).
  - samatman 8y ago
    Sadly not scalable, but one of the great pleasures of using early or obscure communications media. The entire early Internet worked this way and it was lovely.
- dfabulich 8y ago
  If you'd never accept a request from a random user, then you're not doing anonymous messaging. If you're a journalist who wants to receive a message from a total stranger, then you'd have to accept a contact request from a that stranger. Spammers can then deny the journalist access to anonymous requests by spamming them with anonymous requests. The journalist could try to keep their contact ID a secret, but then anonymous sources would have no idea how to contact the journalist.
  - DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
    >If you'd never accept a request from a random user, then you're not doing anonymous messaging. as mentioned you can use other anonymous channels before you switch to another one such as ricochet. the point isn't to establish authenticity before moving to anonymity but to add a layer of protection that allows you to decide on the rendezvous point and further increase plausible deniability
  - gye 8y ago
    Terminology is the single biggest problem here: "Anonymous communication" in CS does NOT mean you do not reveal your identity to the person you are communicating with. It means you stay anonymous from the network perspective: No third party learns with whom you are communicating, and everything you reveal to your communication partner becomes an explicit attribute: Your "identity"/name/nickname, but also your location.

jstanley 8y ago

Sure, then you'd get N contact requests which you'd have to ignore (which has the same effect as deleting a contact which you'd previously accepted). But people can spam your email account as well. When this became a problem, spam filters were developed. There's no reason the same thing couldn't happen in Ricochet if spam became a problem. Ricochet's problem isn't that too many spammers are using it. It's that almost nobody at all is using it.

dfabulich 8y ago
Email spam filters didn't/don't actually work that well without de-anonymizing features like SPF and DKIM. I'm not saying that spam is a problem today, but that the design goals of Richochet don't allow it to deal with the spam problem for users who actually want anonymous messaging.
- jstanley 8y ago
  What anonymous messaging system would you recommend?

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago

I'd never accept a request from a random user. My workflow would be like this: agree to discuss on signal or via pgp, which you use to get the ricochet-ID from the person that intends to connect with you. Once they tell you their id via this out of band channel, it's easy to reject any other requests that you don't expect. My ricochet-id is public knowledge now. But say you're a journalist who wants to protect their source (on your end) e.g. a total stranger who is going to tell you some secrets then no need to even have a contact list. No need for a history. You just use the ricochet-id once. Maybe in a short-lived VM, Qubes or Tails whatever ... And tear down the whole system anyway once I'm done with the chat. So in the first case you can simply avoid spam with boostrapping a safe rendezvous point, the second case would never see any spam.

jstanley 8y ago
I deliberately publish my Ricochet ID (ricochet:it2j3z6t6ksumpzd) and accept most requests from random people. It's led to mostly people who add me as a contact then close Ricochet before I reply and never open it again, a large handful of fun conversations with interesting people, and a couple of weird conversations with crazy people :).
- samatman 8y ago
  Sadly not scalable, but one of the great pleasures of using early or obscure communications media. The entire early Internet worked this way and it was lovely.
dfabulich 8y ago
If you'd never accept a request from a random user, then you're not doing anonymous messaging. If you're a journalist who wants to receive a message from a total stranger, then you'd have to accept a contact request from a that stranger. Spammers can then deny the journalist access to anonymous requests by spamming them with anonymous requests. The journalist could try to keep their contact ID a secret, but then anonymous sources would have no idea how to contact the journalist.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  >If you'd never accept a request from a random user, then you're not doing anonymous messaging. as mentioned you can use other anonymous channels before you switch to another one such as ricochet. the point isn't to establish authenticity before moving to anonymity but to add a layer of protection that allows you to decide on the rendezvous point and further increase plausible deniability
- gye 8y ago
  Terminology is the single biggest problem here: "Anonymous communication" in CS does NOT mean you do not reveal your identity to the person you are communicating with. It means you stay anonymous from the network perspective: No third party learns with whom you are communicating, and everything you reveal to your communication partner becomes an explicit attribute: Your "identity"/name/nickname, but also your location.