From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 15:20:26 PST
To: "Karl L. Barrus" <barrus@tree.egr.uh.edu>
Subject: Re: double anonymity via pax and penet
In-Reply-To: <9301071910.AA04605@tree.egr.uh.edu>
Message-ID: <9301072254.aa08873@penet.penet.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> 	I've been toying lately with "tying" the remailers at pax and
> penet together.  Briefly, the anonymous service at anon.penet.fi
> supports anonymous remailing (but you must register your id),
> anonymous posting, and anonymous forwarding.  The remailer at
> pax.tpa.com.au support anonymous remailing (runs pgp, must register
> your key for encryption service) and anonymous posting.  For more
> info, get the help files by mailing to help@anon.penet.fi and
> anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au.

Well, let's start by saying that fo%bar@blach addresses are pretty error
prone, as there are a lot of brain-damaged mailers out there. Much safer
to use the X-Anon-To: header for this kind of stuff. See the help file
from help@anon.penet.fi for more info.

Secondly, currently anon.penet.fi strips off PGP messages and signature
blocks. I am going to fix the .sig stripper Real Soon Now....

Thirdly, I notice a lot of mailers get "From:" and "Sender:" (or
envelope) addresses screwed up. Anon.penet.fi puts the anon id in the
"From:" field, but makes "Sender:" point to the anon admin, to catch
mail bounces that might reveal the true identity of an anon id. I don't
know how pax.tpa.com.au handles this....

> 	These are the anonymous id's I beleive I've generated because
> of this procedure: an5022@penet, an5030@penet, an5047@penet (I don't
> understand this one), anon.435@pax, anon.437@pax (I don't understand
> this one either).  I figured I would use four id's: one from penet for
> barrus@tree, one from pax for barrus@tree, one from penet for pax, and
> one from pax for penet.
> 	For some reason, when I mail to anon.437@pax or an5047@penet
> from barrus@tree, the mail doesn't arrive in either of my accounts.
> So I'm still trying to sort out this mess before I mail to the
> administrators at both sites, explain what happened, and have these
> various id's deleted.  Anybody with an id already established on pax
> or penet is welcome to mail to me at anon.208@pax or an5030@penet to
> help me figure out if it worked (I've run out of accounts to test this
> from and I don't want to involve elee7h5@rosebud where I'm running a
> remailer).
> 	I think the step I may have erred was mailing to anon.435@pax
> from elee9sf, where I have an id.  Maybe by mailing from barrus@tree I
> would have been assigned an id, and recieved acknowledgement of an id
> from penet for the id at pax, and possibly an5047@penet wouldn't have
> been generated.

I'll check on those id's tomorrow. It's 11pm out here, and I have a
specification to finish for a meeting tomorrow morning....

	Julf (an0@anon.penet.fi)