1993-03-01 - Re: Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term)

Header Data

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
To: Marc.Ringuette@gs80.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Message Hash: b5a7a124f68adab4d2e73598ec3a64d57e67ab41a13a30f57c08311255e27308
Message ID: <9303011309.aa09356@penet.penet.FI>
Reply To: <9303010042.AA07783@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-01 11:59:16 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 03:59:16 PST

Raw message

From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 03:59:16 PST
To: Marc.Ringuette@gs80.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term)
In-Reply-To: <9303010042.AA07783@toad.com>
Message-ID: <9303011309.aa09356@penet.penet.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> I disagree that it is necessary for a remailer operator to reveal the sender
> of a piece of mail under any circumstances, and I will not trust a remailer
> which does not IMMEDIATELY THROW AWAY the correspondence between input and
> output addresses.

I agree with your disagreement but disagree with your conclusion (huh?).

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.