1995-02-02 - Re: Remailer encryption module

Header Data

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 229742b22b227365d13c477219db3a988c8776c7b1b3e6b946135b60e9052e55
Message ID: <199502021935.LAA07891@largo.remailer.net>
Reply To: <9502021508.AA28912@elvis.tamu.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-02 23:44:26 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 15:44:26 PST

Raw message

From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 95 15:44:26 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Remailer encryption module
In-Reply-To: <9502021508.AA28912@elvis.tamu.edu>
Message-ID: <199502021935.LAA07891@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

   From: Allan Bailey <allan@elvis.tamu.edu>

   [re: not using PGP for remailers]

   Isn't this what the forthcoming PGP RFC is about?  

Not to my knowledge.  As I understand it, they're just trying to
standardize a PGP format by documenting what the code can actually
handle and what was already planned into it.

   Also, what about the PEM "standard"?

PEM carries too much identification on the outside of the encryption
wrapper to be of good practical use against traffic analysis for
regular mail, much less remailer mail.

   Consider what CP did with his(her?) PGPTools kit.  As long as we have
   an agreeable dataformat "standard", the implementation becomes

I expect someone to have library come out that does the format.  The
format need not be very complicated.  Getting rid of all the key
distribution features makes a format much easier indeed.