From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
To: Joe Thomas <jthomas@mango.mitre.org>
Message Hash: e258bf45ef785116ecb1f404b474324d135d2459114ca569a4c1578ca173bac8
Message ID: <9303011947.aa20452@penet.penet.FI>
Reply To: <9303011721.AA02070@mango>
UTC Datetime: 1993-03-01 18:58:50 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 10:58:50 PST
From: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.FI>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 10:58:50 PST
To: Joe Thomas <jthomas@mango.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: A novel (?) return address idea
In-Reply-To: <9303011721.AA02070@mango>
Message-ID: <9303011947.aa20452@penet.penet.FI>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> The current na/an address workaround is okay, but I think we could do
> better.
Definitely agree!
> Here's my scheme:
> When someone wants to reply to an anonymous message or post, the
> remailer decrypts the address, ignores the "salt" bits, looks up the
> anonymous ID in its database, and sends it on to the desired
> recipient.
> A couple disadvantages could be running out of bits for the return
> address,
Lemmesee... Monocase, and can't use much more than letters, digits and
some special signs. Could be feasible, but we would get some rather
weird addresses...
> and adding more encryption work for the remailer.
This could be a problem. Anon.penet.fi is currently a feeble 25 Mhz 386,
and I have already ordered the replacement, a 60 Mhz 486 to handle the
load problems.
> You'd
> definitely have to own the machine, and implement some, er, different
> mailing software, since you'd have to accept mail for users with any
> random name whatsoever.
Anon.penet.fi already does this. As long as we have something to pattern
match for (to separate alt.sex.bestiality@anon.penet.fi from
xy656b-akw@anon.penet.fi).
> What do you all think about this for a "Mark II" anon.penet.fi?
Have to sleep on it (it's 8:30pm here in finland), but it sounds
feasible to me...
Julf
Return to March 1993
Return to “jthomas@mango.mitre.org (Joe Thomas)”