From: “Christian D. Odhner” <cdodhner@indirect.com>
To: na26436@anon.penet.fi
Message Hash: 4a6c5c4ce2afab13b000d6ab72db2e8feaab5e368b01761738a999634e06ccf6
Message ID: <Pine.3.07.9311041952.A26707-b100000@indirect.com>
Reply To: <9311040252.AA20137@alumni.cco.caltech.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-05 02:17:50 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 4 Nov 93 18:17:50 PST
From: "Christian D. Odhner" <cdodhner@indirect.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 93 18:17:50 PST
To: na26436@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Re: ANON: mail concerns
In-Reply-To: <9311040252.AA20137@alumni.cco.caltech.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9311041952.A26707-b100000@indirect.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, 3 Nov 1993 nobody@alumni.cco.caltech.edu wrote:
> >::
> >Request-Encryption-To: X
> >
> >If user ID X is on the remailer's pubkey ring, the outgoing message is
> >encrypted to X. This could be usefull for anonymous return-address blocks.
>
> Encryption should be the default. Err on the side of caution.
>
What if the "To" address has more than one key associated with it? Maybe
even more than one entity? Another (not publicized) remailer?
Maybe this wouldn't be a problem. Hmmm.....
Happy Hunting, -Chris
Christian Douglas Odhner | "The NSA can have my secret key when they pry
cdodhner@indirect.com | it from my cold, dead, hands... But they shall
pgp 2.3 public key by finger | NEVER have the password it's encrypted with!"
My opinions are shareware. To register your copy, send me 15$ in DigiCash.
Key fingerprint = 58 62 A2 84 FD 4F 56 38 82 69 6F 08 E4 F1 79 11
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.3
>
> iQCVAgUBLNgXzIjvfLxJbYYtAQEK4AP9HrSaMSOnlsxzEjgLbAgvsCSw3vMxLJ4u
> 856ZbKI2cZTNLoPzyWLNW68gZ7kcNeaF7MHKzWbI9tLEDePpWN34sB11wBlpfzcf
> WzcYVLI6JBLVERq2seyKU3cqAhWuxldSDeAlsKkMsrzI0tGgOaLkxCxhxn9weZf8
> 58mZeANd3sg=
> =8F9u
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Return to November 1993
Return to “nobody@alumni.cco.caltech.eduEternal Optimist <na26436@anon.penet.fi>”