cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1994-08-09 - Re: Remailer ideas

Header Data

From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d688abf34d633dad83d7858d3cf56b00c26963132362b656d83fe19c96c0b9ac
Message ID: <9408090521.AA04161@fnord.lehman.com>
Reply To: <199408090315.UAA22167@jobe.shell.portal.com>
UTC Datetime: 1994-08-09 05:21:33 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 8 Aug 94 22:21:33 PDT

Raw message

From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 94 22:21:33 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Remailer ideas
In-Reply-To: <199408090315.UAA22167@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <9408090521.AA04161@fnord.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


    Date: Mon, 8 Aug 1994 20:15:36 -0700
    From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
    
    . . . I still think that there would be real utility in the
    ability to specify that a particular piece ofmail should be
    re-transmitted if it does not get delivered to the destination
    machine within a certain period of time.

Agreed.
    
    That's one reason I like the "enabledmail" approach.  All we have to do
    is persuade everyone . . . .

I also agree that this approach is desireable.  My contention is not
that these things are undesireable, but rather that they are not as
trivial as was originally suggested.

			Rick

Thread