From: Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>
To: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.fi>
Message Hash: 1c3a3efe726439854ceaf74cbe9c8086c28bf70b365569df0c2ad91620050ca8
Message ID: <9310231917.AA09665@crypto.com>
Reply To: <199310231907.AA11705@mail.eunet.fi>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-23 19:28:26 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 12:28:26 PDT
From: Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 12:28:26 PDT
To: Johan Helsingius <julf@penet.fi>
Subject: Re: Warning about exposing anon id
In-Reply-To: <199310231907.AA11705@mail.eunet.fi>
Message-ID: <9310231917.AA09665@crypto.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Julf writes:
>There is one more option - use two separate sets of anon id's. This is the
>way anon.penet.fi Mk II is going to operate.
How will this work? Will you have a separate name space of "heavyweight"
anonymous IDs for messages that explicitly ask for a psuedonym (like with
a password) and those that don't? If so, that sounds like a nice solution.
-matt
Return to October 1993
Return to “Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>”