cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-02-10 - Re: MIME based remailing commands

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Message Hash: 6693c70bf25654b1d062d88aa73182dd278d794d2d3f1af10d4688dc9a4a8d81
Message ID: <9502102116.AA15570@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <9502102057.AA11903@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-10 21:17:31 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 13:17:31 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 13:17:31 PST
To: Rick Busdiecker <rfb@lehman.com>
Subject: Re: MIME based remailing commands
In-Reply-To: <9502102057.AA11903@cfdevx1.lehman.com>
Message-ID: <9502102116.AA15570@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Rick Busdiecker says:
> Could one of the MIME supporters (I guess that would be `most
> everybody') explain why anything more than a To: header and an
> encrypted block is desireable for the in-the-clear message?
> 
> Specifically, why is it desireable to broadcast additional information
> about a message for which privacy is a primary concern?

No one said that it was desirable to do so, and MIME does not force
you to do so.

.pm

Thread