From: pstemari@erinet.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 95 15:33:37 PST
To: sandfort@crl.com (Sandy Sandfort)
Subject: Re: for-pay remailers and FV
Message-ID: <9501092326.AA05351@eri.erinet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 03:53 PM 1/9/95, Doug Barnes wrote:
> ... Also, there is no reason on earth to take FV for payment under
>such a scheme, if one wishes to preserve anonymity, and not have
>to deal with the fraud/reversal factors. (The stamp issuer 
>would not know which blind-signed stamps were issued to the
>turkey who reversed all his credit card transactions two months 
>after buying them -- see various threads on this vis-a-vis
>using FV to buy blinded digital cash and why it won't work too
>well.)

> ... I don't see any reason to get FV involved, unless one were so lame 
>as to be unable to get signed up directly with the credit card 
>companies as a merchant -- a process of appropriate complexity
>to indicate the posession of at least one (1) clue, which is prob.
>desirable in someone who's going to be handling remailer finances

MC/Visa require the reversibility of transactions as a condition of their 
merchant agreements.  It's not something peculiar to FV.  In fact, under 
certain conditions it is mandated by federal law.  Escort services have a 
similar problem as far as non-returnability goes, but I don't know how they 
finesse their way around it.

    --Paul J. Ste. Marie
      pstemari@well.sf.ca.us, pstemari@erinet.com