From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 19:11:36 PDT
To: Jeremiah A Blatz <darklord+@cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Remailer REORDER not DELAY
In-Reply-To: <QhzS1SG00iV0I3ap9f@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <9406150211.AA26508@fnord.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


    Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 12:52:46 -0400 (EDT)
    From: Jeremiah A Blatz <darklord+@cmu.edu>
    
    Say that soda hasn't received any messages for 5 hours before
    10:14, then receives 4 between 10:15 and the time Angie's mailer
    connects to port 25 of soda's remailer. You wait until soda spits
    out 4 messages, then the 5th is Angie's.

If the messages are been randomly ordered, you do not know this.
Angie's message could be the first message sent out after it is
received.  I was attempting to address the possibility of
unnecessarily long delays and message queue build up during a period
of high use.  During a low usage period, the scheme that I outlined
should act like the one that Jim choate outlined.

If there are long enough delays between messages, none of the proposed
schemes interferes with traffic monitoring.

			Rick