1993-03-27 - Comments on anonymous servers

Header Data

From: “Lord Krieg” <CVADSAAV@CSUPomona.Edu>
To: “cypherpunks” <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: e22e84211db6e24616967c752e17bdfe3f06635399755c3f244cc2f4677d5fdd
Message ID: <9303270638.AA02109@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-27 06:38:11 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 22:38:11 PST

Raw message

From: "Lord Krieg" <CVADSAAV@CSUPomona.Edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 22:38:11 PST
To: "cypherpunks" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Comments on anonymous servers
Message-ID: <9303270638.AA02109@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Joe Thomas has suggested that a group of penet-style anonymous servers 
be set up to act as "front ends" for the Cypherpunk remailers. This seems 
like a good idea (provided that the technical problems can be overcome), 
but I'd like to propose an addition.

Having more than one of the penet-style front ends active at once will 
only provide more targets for (anonymous) net.fascists. I suggest that 
instead of having a handful of front ends operating, have only one front 
end actually operational at a time. Other servers would be on standby, 
and would constantly update their database with the active server. That 
way, the moment someone trashed the active server, another could be 
activated. This way the service would be interupted only briefly.

Since it has thus far taken some time for anonymous servers to be brought 
down, this should allow the front ends to keep up. If someone out there 
trashes a new front end every month, we would only need to find a new 
server every month, with a "cushion" of servers waiting on standby.

Now, as I understood the suggestion from Joe Thomas, the Cypherpunk 
remailers behind the front ends would only be "visible" to the people 
involved in running the service. This would certainly make the remailers 
more secure, since the net.fascists would not know who to terrorize to 
can the remailers.

Although I certainly may be misunderstanding something, I don't really 
see why the users of the service would ever need to see a message about 
"if mail to here bounces, try there." Shouldn't the loss of a remailer be 
dealt with entirely "behind the scenes," by the service administrators?

If I've said something really stupid or obvious here, please bear with 
me. The whole idea of anonymity only became of interest to me a few days 
ago. (It's amazing how badly some people react to fascist slime telling 
them they can't do something, even if they never thought of doing it 

                            Kenneth G. Hagler

*   Internet: cvadsaav@csupomona.edu    *   My insurance company     *
*   Phone: (909) 865-7751               *     is Beretta U.S.A.      *
*   PGP 2.2 key available on request    *                            *
*   ...study of the military arts will make one who is naturally     *
*   clever more so and one who is born somewhat dull rather less     *
*   so.                                                              *
*            --Daidoji Yuzan Shigesuke, _Budo Shoshinshu_            *
Version: 2.2