cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1993-03-01 - Re: dispatches from the front lines of anonymity

Header Data

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
To: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message Hash: a452522c9ac5a41d757698507218b8263df3c6e81bc8be3f4cf1994c329ba8f0
Message ID: <9303011312.aa09448@penet.penet.FI>
Reply To: <9302281806.AA13608@soda.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-01 11:59:23 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 03:59:23 PST

Raw message

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 03:59:23 PST
To: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: dispatches from the front lines of anonymity
In-Reply-To: <9302281806.AA13608@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <9303011312.aa09448@penet.penet.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> Actually, I was thinking that whistleblower@anon.penet.fi would _be_
> the moderator.  Then you just post directly.  All the messages would
> come from that address, and no id's would be assigned.  Since all
> messages are from "whistleblower", replies to a poster go right back
> out to the list, also anonymized.

Well, this was my original idea as well, but the ensuing discussion
confused me.

> It's actually a much simpler system than is currently implemented,
> since id's arenit involved at all.

Exactly. And it's already implemented. I just have to enable it. But it
doesn't support PGP/MIME yet.

> PGP 2.1 contains the cleartext-signature feature, and the periodic
> posting to the list should mention this.  This allows a real pseudonym
> to develop, just like we want.

Agree. But this requires us to really actively distribute PGP 2.1.

	Julf

Thread