1995-01-06 - Re: Remailer Abuse

Header Data

From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
To: jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu
Message Hash: cf2fbfffc1240c85a6607fe03309dd07a76a4e84d7cf03b60b97e728eab3a1f4
Message ID: <m0rQL1Q-0008ZFC@crynwr.crynwr.com>
Reply To: <ab3346570002100465bb@[132.162.201.201]>
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-06 20:08:18 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 12:08:18 PST

Raw message

From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 12:08:18 PST
To: jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu
Subject: Re: Remailer Abuse
In-Reply-To: <ab3346570002100465bb@[132.162.201.201]>
Message-ID: <m0rQL1Q-0008ZFC@crynwr.crynwr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   Date: Fri, 6 Jan 1995 14:19:07 -0500
   From: jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)

   In a First Virtual payment-scheme remailernet, no matter how many remailers
   I send my message through, any _one_ operator, together with First Virtual,
   can burst my anon bubble.

Why?  Why wouldn't the FV remailers use settlements?  At the end of
the month, everyone settles accounts in re who gets what fraction of
what.  No logs are needed other than counters.

-- 
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>    http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html
Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX)  | What is thee doing about it?
Potsdam, NY 13676 | What part of "Congress shall make no law" eludes Congress?





Thread