1993-01-06 - Re: A solution remailer signature suppression
Header Data
From: tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts’o)
To: peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
Message Hash: 401696aec88a1bccc6ce1742355bb7ed2235fbbb47d58f1cb88d59fefec3c381
Message ID: <9301062123.AA17503@tsx-11.MIT.EDU>
Reply To: <9301061648.AA16517@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-01-06 21:24:09 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 13:24:09 PST
Raw message
From: tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 13:24:09 PST
To: peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: A solution remailer signature suppression
In-Reply-To: <9301061648.AA16517@toad.com>
Message-ID: <9301062123.AA17503@tsx-11.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I also agree that any sort of mailers should pass a message body
UNTOUCHED. Next thing you know, people will be advocating that
remailers have AI capabilities for stripping out incriminating
statements made inside the body.
If your mail system is broken enough that it inserts signatures without
your permission, and you have no way to controlling it, it's broken.
End of statement. Fix it or ditch it.
- Ted
Thread
Return to January 1993
- Return to “edgar@spectrx.Saigon.COM (Edgar W. Swank)”
- Return to “gnu (John Gilmore)”
- Return to “peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>”
Return to “tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts’o)”
- 1993-01-02 (Fri, 1 Jan 93 17:10:34 PST) - Re: A solution remailer signature suppression - edgar@spectrx.Saigon.COM (Edgar W. Swank)
- 1993-01-02 (Fri, 1 Jan 93 23:10:10 PST) - Why mailers should not touch the body - gnu (John Gilmore)
- 1993-01-02 (Fri, 1 Jan 93 23:13:51 PST) - Why remailers shouldn’t suppress signatures - gnu (John Gilmore)
- 1993-01-06 (Wed, 6 Jan 93 08:48:52 PST) - Re: A solution remailer signature suppression - peter honeyman <honey@citi.umich.edu>
- 1993-01-06 (Wed, 6 Jan 93 13:24:09 PST) - Re: A solution remailer signature suppression - tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts’o)