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

Header Data

From: Jim McCoy <mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
To: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan Barrett)
Message Hash: e6b69d7b5ee5455be119da6d4fd439966ca01391e29e768b3dc685a4918528ec
Message ID: <199310231848.AA06534@tigger.cc.utexas.edu>
Reply To: <Pine.3.03.9310231644.B3609-a100000@daisy.ee.und.ac.za>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-23 18:53:26 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 11:53:26 PDT

Raw message

From: Jim McCoy <mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 93 11:53:26 PDT
To: barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za (Alan Barrett)
Subject: Re: Warning about exposing anon id
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.03.9310231644.B3609-a100000@daisy.ee.und.ac.za>
Message-ID: <199310231848.AA06534@tigger.cc.utexas.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

Alan Barrett <barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za> writes:
> Scott Collins says:
> > To avoid this [direct replies to an anon id reveal _your_ anon id],
> > instead of replying to e.g., an41418@anon.penet.fi, reverse > > the
> > first two letters (mnemonic 'not anonymous') and thus reply instead to
> > na41418@anon.penet.fi.
> I believe that, [...] replies to anonymous IDs should, by default, not be
> double-blinded [...]  Perhaps the anon admins could [...] put na####
> instead of an#### in the FROM address, and educate their users. 

A better method might perhaps be to set the Reply-To field to automatically
be the na#### address.  This makes it easier for people with smart mailers
and doesn't mess around with who the message is actually from...