From: Hal <74076.1041@CompuServe.COM>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 09:03:28 PST
To: CYPHERPUNKS <CYPHERPUNKS@TOAD.COM>
Subject: Chaining Pax and Penet.
Message-ID: <930111164804_74076.1041_DHJ37-1@CompuServe.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Karl L. Barrus <barrus@tree.egr.uh.edu>
> My original thinking was that once I established the id's in both
> direction, when someone responded to anon.435@pax, they would be
> allocated an id if they didn't have one.  And since penet had by this
> time seen anon.435@pax, no new id would be made, and the mail would
> proceed on the me.  

The problem is this: when someone responds to your anonymous ID
anon.435@pax, their mail _from_ Pax does not come from anon.435.
Anon.435 is _your_ id.  Instead, their mail from Pax comes from their
own anonymous ID (possibly a newly allocated one).  Then, when the
mail goes to Penet, it sees this new "From" ID and allocates one of
its own.

The same thing happened when you sent to anon.435@pax from your
system which already had a Pax ID.  When the mail was forwarded from
Pax to Penet, it was not marked as coming from anon.435.  Instead,
it was marked as coming from this already-assigned Pax ID. (I don't
think you ever said what that already-assigned ID was.)  Penet had
not seen that ID before, so it allocated an alias for it and sent
back to that ID.  Penet's mail-back would _not_ go to anon.435, but
rather to the Pax ID which it was replying to.

Hal

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.1

iQCVAgUBK1F6D6gTA69YIUw3AQGMTAQAqXm7SdE6uyf+04J5GY3KU7dk7A2D7loC
TeT+0UqpsSPOI+31YrJPww2h9XuwGylAZ9dqu/hPdolIzukjr+WiOKRyU34imezd
iX9yYv3Ry3jCebcn9c79NY3zEQhjGh1LhqKmec5QLp3FjPB+gQZZypdaHz4GeDJF
4oDyArzKafc=
=wZgY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Distribution:
  CYPHERPUNKS >INTERNET:CYPHERPUNKS@TOAD.COM