From: qwerty-remailer@netcom.com
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 94 17:21:03 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: New remailer up.
Message-ID: <199402030119.RAA17214@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Perry wrote,
"However, make no mistake that Netcom can and will cooperate with the
police if you use your remailer in a way that the government doesn't
like, so it seems that the security afforded isn't that good."

So you aren't interested unless you can commit serious felony crimes
using a given remailer? I would be happy if criminals stayed away from
my remailer. What do you mean by "security"? And if the police find out
a personally owned machine was involved, I couldn't imagine them not
just swooping in at midnight and taking it away at gunpoint. I hope
those privately owned machines don't have logs ;-). In my mind, the whole
secret to gaining privacy is not attracting attention in the first place.
Using a remailer DOES allow a person to communicate anonymously with
someone else, in two directions. If a party has enough power to tap
Netcom, then sendmail logs or no sendmail logs, they will find you.

and,
"Besides, $20 is a paltry sum for the amount of work involved."

Think of it as a trophy, which I'm sure most understood. I'm not offering
you a job.

I appreciate your view though, and since I've posted a request for
remailer comments, might you help us all and send me some comments about
the various remailers and what types of security each affords? If some
wish to use remailers for serious underground activity, which should they
use or not use? If they just want to keep bounced mail from telling their
system postmaster who they're talking to, then that's a different type
of security need.

-Xenon