1993-03-01 - Re: A novel (?) return address idea

Header Data

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

Raw message

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

> 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...