1993-03-03 - Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term)

Header Data

From: tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)
To: uunet!penet.FI!julf@uunet.UU.NET
Message Hash: 0eb1e88633237adcdd674903771ed2fccbdfcc1c44e184b396beaaf48a3af230
Message ID: <9303022222.AA26658@memexis.xanadu.com>
Reply To: <9303011309.aa09356@penet.penet.FI>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-03 09:31:28 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 01:31:28 PST

Raw message

From: tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 01:31:28 PST
To: uunet!penet.FI!julf@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term)
In-Reply-To: <9303011309.aa09356@penet.penet.FI>
Message-ID: <9303022222.AA26658@memexis.xanadu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	 IMHO a remailer operator should *NEVER* reveal any identities, but I
	 also believe very strongly that especially if you provide a way to post
	 news articles, there has to be a way to send replies to the original
	 sender. Thus a remailer must maintain mapping info.

I like this.  Does it make sense (and has it already been talked
about?) to preserve the return information only for a limited time?

dean

Thread

• Return to March 1993

• Return to “Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>”
• Return to “Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU”

• Return to “tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)”

• 1993-03-01 (Sun, 28 Feb 93 16:43:02 PST) - Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term) - Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
  • 1993-03-01 (Mon, 1 Mar 93 03:59:16 PST) - Re: Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term) - Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
    • 1993-03-03 (Wed, 3 Mar 93 01:31:28 PST) - Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term) - tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)