From: bhk@dsl.co.uk 
  
 On 12 Sep, in article <9GjyoZ1mw-B@khms.westfalen.de> 
      kaih=9GjyoZ1mw-B@khms.westfalen.de "Kai Henningsen" wrote: 
  
 > What I can see - and which would not really be all that relevant to ballot 
 > stuffing - would be adding a handshake procedure to voting. That *does* 
 > make more work for the UVV, unfortunately - though it ought to be 
 > automatable. 
 > 
 > That is, make votes work as follows: 
 > 
 > 1, Find a CFV somewhere. 
 > 2. Send mail to the votetaker address in that document. 
 > 3. Get back mail from the votetaker with a fresh, unfilled ballot, with 
 > some random-looking token inside. 
 > 4. Fill in, and send back. 
 > 
 > The token would be to make sure every ballot is only used by the person 
 > requesting it; the extra steps are to make sure the email address is 
 > actually valid at that time. 
  
 This is exactly the technique that has been used by uk.* since (IIRC) 
 January 2002.  Note also that since only the votetaker needs to see the 
 sender's genuine e-mail address, then the voter can chose to have 
 displayed their "usual newsgroup address" when the voting results are 
 published.  Then the unmunging being performed by one of the current 
 lying forgers would have less potential for frightening voters. 
  
 To clarify: 
     The voter and the votetaker know the voter's real mailbox 
     The published results show the voter's usual identity and the 
     (possibly spamfuscated) e-mailbox used in the From lines on Usenet 
     postings 
  
 -- 
 Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                     bhk@dsl.co.uk 
    "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi- 
    national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet 
    software and decent hardware support." 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)