1995-02-06 - Re: Cooperation

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Message Hash: 41bfc2013210a5ed29a7682b95bd4eff41388d7e6af8033d9d84788000ab0d5b
Message ID: <9502062043.AA05429@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <199502062011.MAA19947@largo.remailer.net>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-06 20:44:12 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 12:44:12 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 95 12:44:12 PST
To: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: Cooperation
In-Reply-To: <199502062011.MAA19947@largo.remailer.net>
Message-ID: <9502062043.AA05429@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Eric says:
> If an RFC is issued, I personally would like to clean up the syntax
> and get the remailer operators to upgrade accordingly.
> 
> In particular, I chose Request-Remailing-To: as a purposefully obtuse
> experimental name.  It deserves to die.

I'd say that it would work far better if things were changed to MIME
formats. You would send a message by recursively encapsulating your
message to be remailed inside a MIME message. Simple and clean...

Perry

Thread

• Return to February 1995

• Return to “eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)”
• Return to “Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>”
• Return to ““Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>”
• Return to “Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>”

• Return to “storm@marlin.ssnet.com (Don Melvin)”

• 1995-02-06 (Mon, 6 Feb 95 08:51:56 PST) - Re: Cooperation - Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
  • 1995-02-06 (Mon, 6 Feb 95 12:13:17 PST) - Re: Cooperation - eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
    • 1995-02-06 (Mon, 6 Feb 95 12:44:12 PST) - Re: Cooperation - “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
      • 1995-02-06 (Mon, 6 Feb 95 13:15:06 PST) - Re: Cooperation - eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
      • 1995-02-07 (Tue, 7 Feb 95 05:22:55 PST) - Re: Cooperation - Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
        • 1995-02-09 (Thu, 9 Feb 95 08:06:21 PST) - Re: Cooperation - storm@marlin.ssnet.com (Don Melvin)