1994-05-15 - Re: Penet Spoofing
Header Data
From: Alan Barrett <barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 608702855c493aa1af79178f5433e07c07da6a4607b1d74ca2998400bdd1bf44
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9405150922.N248-0100000@newdaisy.ee.und.ac.za>
Reply To: <9405141815.AA00592@flammulated.owlnet.rice.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-05-15 07:34:41 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 15 May 94 00:34:41 PDT
Raw message
From: Alan Barrett <barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za>
Date: Sun, 15 May 94 00:34:41 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Penet Spoofing
In-Reply-To: <9405141815.AA00592@flammulated.owlnet.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9405150922.N248-0100000@newdaisy.ee.und.ac.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> I would like to add that I have evidently been a victim of "penet
> spoofing" as well, since I too received the following message from
> penet:
I have another theory: If an anXXX@anon.penet.fi address subscribes
to the mailing list, then everybody who sends mail to the list will be
given an anon alias. (Now to wait and see whether I get allocated an
anon id from anon.penet.fi in response to this message.)
I still say that double-blinding should not be the default action of
servers like that at anon.penet.fi. Double blinding is sometimes
useful, but one should have to request it explicitly.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
Thread
Return to May 1994
- Return to “Alan Barrett <barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za>”
- Return to “Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>”
Return to “Karl Lui Barrus <klbarrus@owlnet.rice.edu>”
- 1994-05-14 (Sat, 14 May 94 11:15:46 PDT) - Re: Penet Spoofing - Karl Lui Barrus <klbarrus@owlnet.rice.edu>
- 1994-05-14 (Sat, 14 May 94 15:46:28 PDT) - Re: Penet Spoofing - Eli Brandt <ebrandt@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
- 1994-05-15 (Sun, 15 May 94 00:34:41 PDT) - Re: Penet Spoofing - Alan Barrett <barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za>