From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 95 14:45:36 PST
To: Jonathan Rochkind <jamesd@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: for-pay remailers and FV (Was Re: Remailer Abuse)
In-Reply-To: <4715.789430801.1@nsb.fv.com>
Message-ID: <oj3QO_30Eyt58xICEo@nsb.fv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Excerpts from fv: 6-Jan-95 Re: for-pay remailers and F.. "James A.
Donald"@netcom (1127*)

> On Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

> > Hmm. Maybe I don't completely understand how this is going to work, but
> > won't _every_ remailer in the chain need to know your FV billing account?

> First remailer knows you and your FV billing account.  Charges you
> its own fee and the fee for all for profit remailers in the list.
> (The envelope states what this fee is going to be) 

> Second remailer charges first remailer.

> Third remailer charges second remailer.

> If the postage on the envelope is insufficient to cover all
> the for profit remailers the message passes through, it gets
> bounced or dropped.

> In principle it could work, 

Yes, I think you've probably just identified a *second* way it could
work.  I agree it's awfully complex, though.  I'd prefer my consortium
approach, but it's nice to see that multiple models are possible. --
Nathaniel