From: "Philippe Nave" <pdn@dwroll.dw.att.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 94 12:35:51 PDT
To: Jim_Miller@bilbo.suite.com
Subject: Re: Remailer Musings
In-Reply-To: <9404201609.AA17197@bilbo.suite.com>
Message-ID: <9404201927.AA05836@ig1.att.att.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Jim Miller writes :
> 
> It might be worthwhile to create a remailer package for a remailer  
> that only sends to other known remailers.  People hesitant about  
> running a full service remailer may still be willing to run a  
> behind-the-front-lines remailer.
> 

This illustrates my point precisely. Look at the messages on this thread
over the past few days; questions about 'common carrier' status, legal
questions, etc reveal that there is, in practice, more to running a 
'full service remailer' than just setting up the software. 

Running multiple overseas remailers may complicate investigations and
legal action *for now*, but I can't help feeling that this is only a
temporary fix. [My opinion, ignore at will..]

Bill Stewart raised some concerns about whether it is possible to
forge return addresses; I am certainly not an expert, but I wonder
whether some inspired cypherpunk can come up with a way around the
technical problems involved. [Sips coffee, raises eyebrow] If 'they'
can't find the remailer operator (much less the anonymous poster), 
then all these questions of culpability and risk are moot.

- -- 
........................................................................
Philippe D. Nave, Jr.   | Strong Crypto: Don't leave $HOME without it!
pdn@dwroll.dw.att.com   | 
Denver, Colorado USA    | PGP public key: by arrangement.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLbWBqgvlW1K2YdE1AQFZbQQA1MR14wbBcK2BHRe45tT9x48MFpVpPK+1
wxOlpWiYtiQgV2m/rLkYzlrSCBaTjIU5Rj1UpOK1vpwOBIJmrQH5aKEQIPmc1Quw
nw7xieKsZxe/7o6PsmZoOvIg5N+niOyRgTSyXsuQI/ycSNu0tsnAjL03B2UXkkXZ
bnCXfQMwInE=
=SAu/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----