Regularly, one can see on Usenet the rebirth of the idea that anonymity is bad, it has to be suppressed / outlawed
That idea is absurd because it cannot be enforced and it is against liberty too.
Indeed, we do not need LESS anonymity, we need MORE anonymity to fix Usenet problems.
Including spam, impersonations, mail-bombings and collateral harassement.
But also lead to a debate more about 'ideas' and less about 'characters'
        by radically eradicating any possibility of any 'ad hominem' attack.

The technological structure on Usenet leads to a number of ways to conceal one's identity.
Amog others, let us just mention:
    The many self-sevice access points and cybercafés...
    Scratch accounts from the many 'trial CD' offered in every magazine.
        All it takes then is a phone plug from an office, a motel, a phone booth....
        At worst, you need a Credit Card number (generators readily available on the WWW)
    More sophisticated ways....
In short, getting and using a totally anonymous account is more about willing it than being competent.
Total anonymity *does* exist.
And relative anonymity you get through 'screen names' is the rule rather than the exception.
One should not forget that NOTHING allows to check that supplied Name-FirstName-@ are genuine.
    hence they should not be considered more than 'screen names'.
Anonymity does exist, one has to cope with it, outlawing it is unrealistic and not enforceable.

Let us fantasize.
and imagine some super-protected protocol water-marks your messages with your genetic fingerprint.
    (Whether this is not (yet) technically feasible is not the question).
This would be totally contrary to individual liberties and laws enforced in most developed countries.
    (Loi Informatique et liberté in France...)
The file with nominative data built from hose informations
    would just deny the very idea of privacy
    would lead to a kind of society worse than deliriums Hitler/Staline/Orwell style.

One understands that  M Bill Jones, xxxx@yyy.zzz Home Tel xx.xx.xx.xx, Off Tel  xx.xx.xx.xx.xx,
  born  xx/xx/xxxx, address xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, will be an *easy* target for *every* imaginable attack:
      attacks against his E-Mail (spam / mail-bombing / impersonation)
      attacks by his name (impersonation)
      attacks on the phone or even physical
      harassment at home or at the office
      Besides attacks on Usenet coming from its ennemies at home or at the office or at the spa....
But what can you do against some M X, who posts without giving any handle for an attack,
   who can only be criticized about *these* ideas he wrote in *that* post ?
      Nothing: M X's anonymity ensures his total peace of mind, no sicko can get to him.

Notions at stake are credibility, anonymity and authentication.
They are fundamentally different (Cf: Credibility-Anonymity-Authentication) and related links.
In most cases,  *none*  is necessary:
    Ex: note, opinion, asking a question, reaction, poetry...... will be worth their intrinsic value
When a reader is looking for something specific,
    -what he needs first will be credibility,
        to solve his problem, does proposed solution look plausible and well-built?
    -what he might want is (favorable) reputation from the author
        the latter should authenticate himself as the consistent author of a string of wise posts
    -but real name..... I cannot see the point
         unless you want to track the opinions of that famous politician on Usenet
               but you should be able to authenticate him first (how many Clintons on Usenet....)
               and few of them hang around Usenet... except under a screen name
According to my own observations, anonymous posters are the ones with the heaviest tendancy to authenticate...
As a conclusion, handling out your real name is the least intersting thing for a normal Usenet reader.
Besides flattering the author's ego: pleasure to see his name written, quoted, repeated...
(That self-designates himself as potentially sensitive, reactive and vulnerable to personnal attacks...)

Do not handle out your name, except
   if really you cannot control your ego, and you are ready for anything to get some celebrity
   if you are under quotas to produce / be present on Usenet
             and your boss insists on seeing your name rather than your function + company name
Do not publicize your E-mail @ unless you expect a private mail answer
    have different E-Mail @ for fifferent usages / levels of privacy
        some of them pure 'scratch' (valid a few days) (if you pass sales ads for example)
If you engage in controversial NG
        PGP-sign your posts so that your writings cannot be deformed
If you engage in technical NG
        PGP-sign your posts if you give straight advice, step-by-step procedures,  .exe !

I PGP-sign Frog-Admin my posts about the way Frog is running.
I PGP-sign Frog-Admin my posts with advice about how to use remailers.
My E-Mail @ Frog-Admin is mentioned on this site and on the remops mailing list.
I PGP-sign XXXX my posts on other NG where I might have got some technical recognition.
My @ XXX has been sent to recipients chosen by me, after 'exploratory phase'
I sign zzz ou yyy ou www my notes on different NG
My family and closest friends got a nym @.
My business cards hold another nym @.
I use different other nym @ for various purposes.
One should notice that, by operating a remailer, I partially went out of anonymity
     because my ISP can make the link between Frog-Admin and my real name.

We do not need LESS, we need MORE anonymity to make Usenet more interesting.
Without potential victims, mail-bombs and impersonation will just stop.
Without possibilities of attacks ad hominem, fights will be more rewaeding, about ideas.
If every author, on each post,
    considers he has to built a reputation
          or that this post has to stand by itself,
    rather than believing that his name is globally known and revered
sure the quality of his posts would increase.
Those who believe one can venture on Usenet without anonymity and even want to outlaw it
    seem very close to the oners who want to outlaw condoms in another domain.
Their motives appear as highly suspicious.