From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 02:00:58 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: ANON: Chaining to Penet remailer
In-Reply-To: <930416050708_74076.1041_FHD24-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <9304160900.AA04650@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: Hal <74076.1041@CompuServe.COM>
> This method of posting does not allow you to receive replies.  I have set
> "nicknames" for these two accounts as "Untraceable account" which will appear
> in the "From" line on the postings.  Hopefully that will offer a clue that
> the normal reply mechanism doesn't work.  Maybe the nickname should say so
> more explicitly?

You'd better make it quite clear that replies will not work.  The
consequences of misunderstanding here is that somebody's missive to
an apparent penet user ends up in your remailer machine's
postmaster's mailbox.  This is not good; it's an unexpected breach
of privacy, and it will tick off the sysadmin if it continues to
happen.  It's happened at least once -- I did it.  Fortunately, my
message to "NOWHERE, MAN" was about netiquette, not 'shrooms.
Nothing to cause your postmaster's jaw to drop, but it could have
been.

The security provided by this technique could be provided without
the IMHO serious disadvantage of having no return address.  Eric's
hybrid approach, where a pseudonym server hands mail to an remailer
chain, is secure (barring sophisticated traffic analysis) if you
trust the last remailer in the chain.  Julf, have you thought about
whether you want to do something like this?

> Hal

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu