From: Mike Fletcher <fletch@ain.bls.com>
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 15:29:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Alternative to remailer shutdowns...
In-Reply-To: <19960524.1408058.1225D@kermit.aatech.com>
Message-ID: <9605250258.AA00973@outland.ain_dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>     There are hundreds of machines littered around the net that
> dont bother adding "received" headers to mail.
[ . . . ]
> Another possibility is that rather than operating remailers at all, maybe 
> we should be operating non-logging smtp hosts that dont add received 
> headers. Building a client to take advantage of these servers would be 
> trivial (i wrote one last night, and i am not proficient in C) and it 
> could be argued that the situation was not created intentionally to allow 
> anonymous messages, merely to preserve disk space and bandwidth.

	You really don't even need a client.  RFC822 defines a method
for bouncing mail through another server.  Just use

"user%final.dest.com@laxly.configured.org" 

as the address and laxly.configured.org will send it on to
user@final.dest.com.  

	Wonder what would happened if the sendmail in the
(Linux|NetBSD|your favourite i386 UNIX) distributions came cofigured
to not add Received: headers by default . . . .  Probably would make
diagnosing bounces hell, but it would make a lot of remailer-chain
tail ends.

	Anyone tried out whitehouse.gov to see if it's adding
Received:'s or not yet? :)

---
Fletch                                                     __`'/|
fletch@ain.bls.com  "Lisa, in this house we obey the       \ o.O'    ______
404 713-0414(w)      Laws of Thermodynamics!" H. Simpson   =(___)= -| Ack. |
404 315-7264(h) PGP Print: 8D8736A8FC59B2E6 8E675B341E378E43  U      ------