From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: ab4530436e7ee57ebae17ea20785216160b14c96554c7d576449505990745504
Message ID: <9402010825.AA26310@anchor.ho.att.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-01 08:30:29 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 00:30:29 PST
From: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 94 00:30:29 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: 2-way anonymous via SASE
Message-ID: <9402010825.AA26310@anchor.ho.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Hal Finney writes:
> From: "Jon 'Iain' Boone" <boone@psc.edu>
> > So, you use a chain of anonymous-id's to set up your return-path?
>
> Unfortunately, return-paths are not exactly the strong point of the
> current cypherpunks remailers :-). That is what much of the discussion
> in this thread has discussed: how to best allow for convenient but secure
> return paths.
Yeah; the only solutions I've seen so far either give you some persistence,
like anon.penet.fi, or no replies, or have generally been pretty ugly,
requiring rapidly-increasing numbers of messages to set up chains
of anonymous IDs, or use broadcast, like the Blacknet "post to Usenet"
or DCnets. AIR-MAIL may be a start.
It seems to need something that supports a small but >1 number of replies
to make a non-ugly system, which means either some kind of Time-To-Live or
destruct messages from one or both ends need to be supported.
Bill
Return to February 1994
Return to “wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)”
1994-02-01 (Tue, 1 Feb 94 00:30:29 PST) - Re: 2-way anonymous via SASE - wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (bill.stewart@pleasantonca.ncr.com +1-510-484-6204)