From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 94 18:11:33 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Mighty morphing power cypherpunks
In-Reply-To: <199412030113.RAA27075@netcom8.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9412040211.AA02600@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


    From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
    Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 17:13:28 -0800 (PST)

    My point was that if some of the autonag messages go astray, or are
    deliberately misled, who cares?

I suspect that LD would love to play around with this feature.  Spoof
a letter from someone and you can make the cypherpunks send that
person some hate mail.  Basically, I just think it's a mistake.  I
think that annotating a message as it passes through cypherpunks --
such as cypherpunks@hks.net does -- is a fine idea.  However, I think
that adding new ways for attackers to make privacy advocates look bad
isn't a great idea.

    The proposed system is for everyone, not just pseudonyms.  If I
    meant pseudonyms, I would have said pseudonyms, not nyms.

I understood that and followed the same convention.  I'm not worried
about pseudonyms -- they land in the bit bucket somewhere.  I'm more
concerned about spoofed real addresses.

			Rick