From: frc%bwnmr4@harvard.harvard.edu (Fred Cooper)
To: marc@Athena.MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Message Hash: 56c83efca2304870c71856c34cd9324882bfda6494777a63c832cf690876dc81
Message ID: <9309080005.AA08479@bwnmr4.harvard.edu>
Reply To: <9309072346.AA23274@hodge.MIT.EDU>
UTC Datetime: 1993-09-08 00:11:46 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 17:11:46 PDT
From: frc%bwnmr4@harvard.harvard.edu (Fred Cooper)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 17:11:46 PDT
To: marc@Athena.MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Subject: Re: Remailing
In-Reply-To: <9309072346.AA23274@hodge.MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <9309080005.AA08479@bwnmr4.harvard.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
How does this make TA trivial?
I am assuming that batch mailings or staggered mailings are occuring.
The remailers are known locations so any traffic between mailers is
assumed to be observed. The key is making it impossible to correlate
arrival and departure time of any particular message. Am I missing
something?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a
iQCVAgUBLI0h2bbAlE4AqlTZAQExOAQAs6lLhVMjm5hi9swLgkLFJUSz8SazhlfW
5RDTBxNJs2oxt0oit1oEvKqBR26zKKayrwQf2O1DIxQD/f08qfIRS5dbLiz8c4VE
5XiP5j+HBr9j/mt5EiN8uCukpi1eP4pCq/cl82UDqkA8kkosvNDfSY26ubmf97FH
3uNbJ6vkWv0=
=qryI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to September 1993
Return to “Marc Horowitz <marc@Athena.MIT.EDU>”