1993-01-15 - Re: possible solution to the anonymous h

Header Data

From: Marc Horowitz <marc@MIT.EDU>
To: Hal <74076.1041@CompuServe.COM>
Message Hash: 708ea16b4267fd8f06efc628e3a3b45fa99518df6726b23bb501b520e729bc1d
Message ID: <9301150739.AA02931@deathtongue.MIT.EDU>
Reply To: <930115065840_74076.1041_DHJ55-1@CompuServe.COM>
UTC Datetime: 1993-01-15 07:40:28 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 23:40:28 PST

Raw message

From: Marc Horowitz <marc@MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 93 23:40:28 PST
To: Hal <74076.1041@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: possible solution to the anonymous h
In-Reply-To: <930115065840_74076.1041_DHJ55-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <9301150739.AA02931@deathtongue.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>> One other point I'd make with regard to Marc's message is that if PGP itself
>> is the problem, there's no reason the remailers can't use RIPEM.  That's
>> legal in the U.S., so the legality issue would not arise.  This might be
>> a good approach to take in broaching the subject with administrators.  I
>> haven't looked at RIPEM much but I'm sure the remailers could use it just
>> as easily as PGP.  Even non-encrypting remailers can provide basic
>> anonymous posting and mail, if those would be more acceptable.

I thought about this.  The major problem is that once the PEM
beta-testing period ends, all keys must be registered with "approved"
(by RSA) central authorities.  I highly doubt they'd issue
pseudonymous keys, but maybe they would allow someone to set up a
heirarchy especially for that purpose.  I'm not convinced.