From: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: e0bf06f0f4882b28a3d740bc8a23ad16119b55cc45629ddfe9f0a4b299d7dcba
Message ID: <9303010103.AA08082@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-01 01:03:49 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 17:03:49 PST
From: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 17:03:49 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Future of anonymity (short-term vs. long-term)
Message-ID: <9303010103.AA08082@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sorry, I sent my last message before it was ready (and before it got
divided into two separate messages). It mostly says what I wanted it
to, so I won't bother you with another version.
On the SHORT-TERM end of things, I have two more thoughts on how to
make truly anonymous remailers good net citizens:
1. Agree on a header line which identifies all messages coming out of
our remailers. If someone wants to filter out all anonymous messages,
I think we should help them to do so.
2. Here's my proposal for what kind of remailer logging to do:
logging of source-to-destination mapping: NONE.
destination logging: NONE.
source logging: on a machine-by-machine basis, log the total
input volume over a fairly long period, with some random
noise added. When a source is providing too much volume,
and it's not on your local list of "friendly" remailers,
then take action to reduce the volume. I suggest that the
first action should be to INCREASE THE DELAY to reduce the
volume-per-unit-time of messages from that site. If the
volume of spooled traffic from a site reaches a threshold,
only then start throwing away messages.
-- Marc Ringuette (mnr@cs.cmu.edu)
Return to March 1993
Return to “Theodore Ts’o <tytso@Athena.MIT.EDU>”