From: pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 337de94b8f2d998edd22ec7c001665ea43d26987f0d34b501983fc2228bb87ba
Message ID: <9501150554.AA29412@eri.erinet.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-15 06:02:40 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 22:02:40 PST
From: pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 22:02:40 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: How do I know if its encrypted?
Message-ID: <9501150554.AA29412@eri.erinet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 11:53 AM 1/14/95 -0600, Larry E wrote:
> ... Those who believe remailers are an evil will argue against any
>measure that will promote their presence (and I'm not suggesting
>you're in that group). ...
True enough.
> ... Is encryption a step in the right direction, if an imperfect one? If
>not I hope some other positive steps are proposed soon, else I fear
>remailers may face extinction.
The big problem I have with mandatory encryption for remailers is that it
thwarts one of the two major purposes of remailers. Basically I see
remailers serving two goals:
1) Defeating traffic analysis of point-to-point communications.
Mandating encryption for this is redundant--anyone who wanted this
would be encrypting their mail to begin with. Also, I don't
believe this mode of operation generates many complaints.
2) Anonymous broadcast transmission. This one can generate a lot of
complaints, but it is also very important for things like *.recovery
newsgroups. Mandating encryption renders this mode useless.
There is a third use, which is anonymous point-to-point transmission. While
this is of some benefit for anonymous tip line, it makes things like
mailbombs and hate mail very easy.
--Paul J. Ste. Marie
pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com
Return to January 1995
Return to “pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)”