1993-10-23 - Re: Warning about exposing anon id

Header Data

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: 3261432cc4fe076460e07b2b09443c69aa494ecd509afedb5093748d9d5f8ae5
Message ID: <9310232135.AA26409@toad.com>
Reply To: <9310231826.AA08908@crypto.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-23 21:38:27 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 14:38:27 PDT

Raw message

From: Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.Claremont.EDU>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 14:38:27 PDT
To: cypherpunks list <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Warning about exposing anon id
In-Reply-To: <9310231826.AA08908@crypto.com>
Message-ID: <9310232135.AA26409@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

> From: Matt Blaze <mab@crypto.com>
> - If it simply strips out all identifying information and calls you some
> generic anonymous name, this could lead to problems for people who expect
> a reply to their messages.

One option I was thinking about was to separate the namespace into
"pseudonyms" and "anonyms".  The former would be persistent, the
equivalent of the present anXXXX addresses, and IMHO should have
some sort of human-readable `handle', even if it has to be randomly
generated from a dictionary.

When a non-user replies to a pseudonymous post (or a user does not
specify the pseudonym to use, if this is applicable), an anonym will
be allocated, consisting mostly of a largish random number.  To keep
the database size under control, anonyms should probably be deleted
after a certain period of disuse.

If someone later decides to create a `real' pseudonym, this system
ensures that they will not be unpleasantly surprised by finding that
they already *had* one, and put their signature under it.

   Eli   ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu