From: hodges@CNMAT.CNMAT.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Hodges)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4153369c2f99c520473579e3a6778f3c4a641a6a7cb526956c07bb0c726f1f4c
Message ID: <v02130503ac6bbec86307@[128.32.122.198]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-08-31 18:36:39 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 31 Aug 95 11:36:39 PDT
From: hodges@CNMAT.CNMAT.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Hodges)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 95 11:36:39 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Mixmaster Security Issues
Message-ID: <v02130503ac6bbec86307@[128.32.122.198]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Lance Cottrell writes:
>Because of the message size limitations there are some advantages to
>sending the mixmaster chain through some type 1 remailers first, rather
>than sending a type 1 message in a Mixmaster packet.
Are there any gateways that will take a (pgp-encrypted) type 1 message,
with presumably some kind of headers giving onward routing information and
put it into the type 2 network?
Should there be such a service? I think this was discussed earlier, but
Lance's statement above seems to reopen the discussion.
>It is very difficult to know what fraction of the traffic I see is cover. I
>generate some cover traffic my self, and I know some others do as well.
>Right now a reordering pool of 5 messages results in a latency of about 30
>min. Mixmaster is no longer a small fraction of the remailer market. A
>majority of all public remailers support Mixmaster.
What is the total daily volume of mixmaster traffic for all the advertised
mixmasters? Has anyone measure this statistic?
Regards,
Richard Hodges
Return to August 1995
Return to “hodges@CNMAT.CNMAT.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Hodges)”
1995-08-31 (Thu, 31 Aug 95 11:36:39 PDT) - Re: Mixmaster Security Issues - hodges@CNMAT.CNMAT.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Hodges)