From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 95 13:14:35 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Still more on the Digicash protocol
Message-ID: <01HYNCMO0E728Y4X93@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)

It seems to me that end-to-end encryption is not significantly more important
for remailed messages. Really, there's less information in the message when
it emerges from the last remailer, so there's less to protect than in the
ordinary case. Furthermore, it may not even be feasible, since I may not have 
a public key I can associate with my correspondent.
------------------------------------------
	A possible solution: the correspondent generates a new public key and
sends it as part of the transaction. The key is then wiped afterward. Sorry if
this isn't possible due to something that I've misunderstood.
	-Allen