From: jthomas@mango.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)
To: tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)
Message Hash: 5428c56dc54072fe6fddaaefd1a12a8ae3b6995e2d61e6c0a9321fff769707a2
Message ID: <9303031544.AA25573@mango>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-03 15:48:15 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 07:48:15 PST
From: jthomas@mango.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 93 07:48:15 PST
To: tribble@xanadu.com (E. Dean Tribble)
Subject: Re: Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term)
Message-ID: <9303031544.AA25573@mango>
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?
It could make sense. It would make _practical_ sense in a scheme
like the one I proposed (then amended thanks to John Gilmore's
comments) in which the remailer encrypts the return addresses with a
key that is regularly changed. Just forget the old keys after a
certain amount of time.
(BTW, forget I ever said anything about using timestamps as salt.
The amount of known-plaintext per message is huge if you do that.
Any PRNG would be better. I must have left my brain at home
yesterday...)
Joe
Return to March 1993
Return to “jthomas@mango.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)”
1993-03-03 (Wed, 3 Mar 93 07:48:15 PST) - Re: Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term) - jthomas@mango.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)