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
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>
Return to August 1995
Return to “Will French <wfrench@interport.net>”
1995-08-08 (Mon, 7 Aug 95 21:09:14 PDT) - Re: www remailer interface - Will French <wfrench@interport.net>