From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 93 10:17:12 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Proposal for anon chaining
In-Reply-To: <199304161412.AA09006@spot.Colorado.EDU>
Message-ID: <9304161717.AA15797@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> From: KINNEY WILLIAM H <kinney@spot.Colorado.EDU>
> The routing information would be for the benefit of the remailers only. 
> It would be created by the RECIPIENT and made publicly available as a 
> pseudonymous mail address. It would work like this:
...
> This seems to me to be a very robust pseudonymous mail system which 
> could be implemented by relatively minor changes to the existing Cypherpunk 
> remailer structure.

This appears to be the ARA system that was previously suggested,
which I was speaking of using with penet.  Your comment that changes
would be needed implies that it is different; if so, could you
clarify the difference?

The reason Eric suggested hanging this off the side of a pseudonym
server is that it is rather inconvenient in its pure form,
particularly for unsophisticated users.  It involves a thirty-line
block of cruft, cutting and pasting... ideally your MUA would handle
everything, but this isn't going to happen soon.  Grafting this onto
a nymserver as a return address gives you the ease of use of
something like penet, without having to maintain a central
nym<--->name mapping.

>                                 -- Will

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu