From: attila <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 1996 12:29:27 +0800
To: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: www.anonymizer.com
Message-ID: <199607262318.QAA01690@primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Addressed to: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
              Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>

** Reply to note from Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com> 07/25/96 11:38pm -0700

= <<<<>>>> 
= * Frames, for instance, do bizzare things when anonymized, at least 
= with Netscape 3.0b5.  Frames are, of course, _evil_, and are banned 
= by the CDA, and anyone who uses them should be flamed mercilessly 
= and forced to use Lynx on a 24x80 monochrome display until he or she 
= repents and sees the error of their ways, and if that doesn't work 
= they should be exiled to AOL with only Microsoft Word Internet Assistant. 
= But that's a flame for another day.... 
= <<<<>>>> 
=  

	I did not realize you were sadistic --or is this possibly
    latent masochism?

	my aggravation is the commercial hosts want to know all --we
    do not wish to give them our all...

	maybe an easier solution on anonyminity would be to establish
    a _plausible_ ID for www.anonymizer.com sites.  make sure the 
    target receives as much information as, say Netscape, might give 
    them...  So what if time, inc. collects 5000 cases of Bill Stewart
    at some host which anonymizer creates.

	your point on matching security levels is valid; anonymizer 
    needs to report the difference in security levels to you --you 
    make the decision. --send a very simple response form at connect 
    time showing the parameters, and you make the decision.  this,
    of course, would be a reasonable idea in all cases so you have
    a solid idea oj just who are connected to --fun if both ends are
    anonymized!



---
Cyberspace is Our Freedom!  Fuck Their CDA!
  Democracy Requires Free Speach & Strong Cryptography