1993-02-28 - dispatches from the front lines of anonymity

Header Data

From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a5b310eada36b546a16b015c01621d706147b8beec1b56ead21a3a1358b1a285
Message ID: <9302281806.AA13608@soda.berkeley.edu>
Reply To: <9302281154.aa16279@penet.penet.FI>
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-28 18:09:40 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 10:09:40 PST

Raw message

From: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 10:09:40 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: dispatches from the front lines of anonymity
In-Reply-To: <9302281154.aa16279@penet.penet.FI>
Message-ID: <9302281806.AA13608@soda.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>A more important matter is the way the group should be implemented.
>Moderated or unmoderated doesn`t matter, as the server already knows how
>to send messages to moderated groups to the moderator. 

Actually, I was thinking that whistleblower@anon.penet.fi would _be_
the moderator.  Then you just post directly.  All the messages would
come from that address, and no id's would be assigned.  Since all
messages are from "whistleblower", replies to a poster go right back
out to the list, also anonymized.

It's actually a much simpler system than is currently implemented,
since id's arenit involved at all.

>Pros are that it would make it very hard to track down the real
>poster, cons that it would be impossible to tell the different
>posters from each other, thus not enabling informers to earn good or
>bad reputations, unless they include key signatures or something.

PGP 2.1 contains the cleartext-signature feature, and the periodic
posting to the list should mention this.  This allows a real pseudonym
to develop, just like we want.