1993-02-23 - Re: Beware of anon.penet.fi message!

Header Data

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
To: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message Hash: f1f7c1d71ae1124da1c2767ebf3a895948e9578b3009893c5f720ee2cee3b517
Message ID: <9302231921.aa24595@penet.penet.FI>
Reply To: <9302231728.AA20762@soda.berkeley.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-23 20:36:33 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 12:36:33 PST

Raw message

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 12:36:33 PST
To: Eric Hughes <hughes@soda.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: Beware of anon.penet.fi message!
In-Reply-To: <9302231728.AA20762@soda.berkeley.edu>
Message-ID: <9302231921.aa24595@penet.penet.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> Currently to mail to person 1234 at penet, you send mail to 
> 	anon1234@penet.fi
> This mail goes out anonymously from the sender, either using an
> existing mail address or creating one.  But if one were able to reach
> person 1234 also with the email address, say,
> 	name1234@penet.fi
> the behavior could be _not_ to make this posting anonymous.
> To wit, the 1234 indicates that you are replying to a pseudonymous
> recipient, and the anon/name pair indicate whether the sender is
> anonymous.  Thus no change in default behavior, and no new header
> lines.

A great idea, Eric! Thanks!

Oh, a minor correction, it`s an1234, not anon1234.
So in the name of symmetry the non-anonymous path should be na1234.
Now we only have to fight about what the From: line in anonymous
messages ought to say, an1234 or na1234?