From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
To: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
Message Hash: 60ad00ce8b6f7753d1ecaccb434b53338fd8e49223edb8caaf96745e424da62a
Message ID: <9502020446.AA06471@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
Reply To: <199502020400.XAA03916@libws2.ic.sunysb.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-02 04:48:07 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 20:48:07 PST
From: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 20:48:07 PST
To: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: Fundamental Question?
In-Reply-To: <199502020400.XAA03916@libws2.ic.sunysb.edu>
Message-ID: <9502020446.AA06471@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 23:00:18 EST
From: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
Well, it's happened in the past. Doesn't mean Usenet is perfect for it,
since nobody wants to sift through several thousand messages a day for
messages encrypted to him/her.
It's easy to automate and you are incorrect in saying that nobody does
it. alt.anonymous.messages was created as an implementation of an
anonymous message pool. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's
perfect, but it's simple and it works. If you post a message
encrypted for my public key and include my name and/or my key id in
the subject, I'll get it. And, no, I'm not the only one who uses it.
Rick
Return to February 1995
Return to “Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>”