1995-08-08 - Re: www remailer interface

Header Data

From: Will French <wfrench@interport.net>
To: dochobbs@wwa.com
Message Hash: a023d4bd325c82a7325a1298c77edae5ca9aed8e69dbec8bef0aab0448666b99
Message ID: <199508080404.AAA02398@interport.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-08-08 04:09:14 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 21:09:14 PDT

Raw message

From: Will French <wfrench@interport.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 95 21:09:14 PDT
To: dochobbs@wwa.com
Subject: Re: www remailer interface
Message-ID: <199508080404.AAA02398@interport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> 1. removing the hardwired

> 2. removing the hardwired and forcing you to chain

> 3. keep the hardwired in and use some 'established' remailer
> or one the group can come to a consensus on.

  Given the second possibility, I see no reason to hardwire a
remailer.  It really will make people suspicious!  I can easily
imagine someone deciding not to use that remailer again, just
on general principles.

  And anyway, chaining is not always necessary, especially if
the sender is at a public Web terminal or using an anonymous Web
proxy.  The remailers don't enforce chaining, why should you?


Will French  <wfrench@interport.net>





Thread