From: tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)
To: uunet!netcom.com!norm@uunet.UU.NET
Message Hash: d97157badde2b213e0e6a79686f7197eb6cca7a43ef3872d8e9a20c24feb5897
Message ID: <9301100731.AA10229@xanadu.xanadu.com>
Reply To: <9301100152.AA02289@netcom2.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-01-10 07:56:14 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 23:56:14 PST
From: tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 23:56:14 PST
To: uunet!netcom.com!norm@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Politics of Rmailers
In-Reply-To: <9301100152.AA02289@netcom2.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9301100731.AA10229@xanadu.xanadu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 17:52:01 -0800
From: uunet!netcom.com!norm (Norman Hardy)
I can imagine a system administrator choosing to require that
all mail originating from his machine include a signature that
correctly identifies the local name of the sender.
I can imagine it, but none exist. This is mostly because the From:
field is supplied by the mailer and satisfies that requirement,
whereas requiring things in teh body of the mail message goes against
the grain of how the systems are used.
remailers: They require operators of remailers to be sympathetic
with the ends of the users of remailers. This obviously does not
Are there other reasons to use a remailer besides anonymity? I can't
think of any, so that solves the sympathy problem. If a remailer
operator conspires to reveal who you are that's a different issue, and
is solved (or reduced a lot) by using a chain of remailers. Then
*all* of the remailers have to be compromised to reveal that
connection from source to destination.
dean
Return to January 1993
Return to “tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)”