From: SINCLAIR  DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 May 94 23:56:33 PDT
To: klbarrus@owlnet.rice.edu (Karl Lui Barrus)
Subject: Re: Message Havens
In-Reply-To: <9405140009.AA07213@flammulated.owlnet.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <94May14.025626edt.193@cannon.ecf.toronto.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Your analysis is interesting, but so far fetched I'm not going to
> worry about it.  I mean, yes, if the 5 billion people of earth decide
> to do this, or decide to call each other, or decide to send each other
> snail mail, everything will collapse.  Considering this as a worst
> case, in my opinion, is a waste for right now, and will deter useful
> work before it even starts.
Agreed.  I guess what I was trying to say (though I didn't actually
come out and say it) is that the load is O(N^2).  While not a problem
now, it would be nice to find an O(N) solution.  Or, more likely, 
an O(Nlog(N)).

> Plus, it is ONLY necessary to retreive all messages if you don't want
> it know who you are communicating with.  If you don't care if it is
> known you communicate with some psuedonym, then you don't have to get
> all the messages.  The primary goal is to not mail messages out since
> that is where most the complaints against anonymous remailers lie.
Indeed.  If we go with a restricted message haven, the problem becomes
very simple.  Maybe we should attempt to get this working first.