From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 09:39:41 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal
In-Reply-To: <9510181554.AA05280@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199510181639.MAA01815@opine.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Eli Brandt writes:
> A cause of this is that the last remailer is the only agent in a
> position to see the message before delivery, so it can be argued that
> it should take responsibility for the decision to deliver.  If you
> split the message into shadows, you avoid having anyone in this
> position.  It can then be argued that nobody should pass along random
> noise from unknown parties... you can't solve political problems with
> technology, but you can make the politics increasingly absurd.

As I mentioned in a reply to Modemac I just sent, the recipient's MDA in this
scheme reassembles the shadows/fragments into the intended message. So it
would only be possible to send anonymous mail to recipients who have Message
Gluing Agents on their accounts. 

I posit that such people are likely to be anonymity-friendly, and thus 
unlikely to complain vociferously about any anonymous mail they receive.
This protocol generally could not be used to send anonymous mail to public 
fora -- mailing lists, newsgroups, etc. -- except some freewheeling places
like cypherpunks which don't object to conventional anonymized mail anyway.

However, I foresee a slight possibility that a split delivery scheme like
this could fall into favor in some circles as a compromise <ahem> "solution".
The requirement that the recipient take an active role in accepting anonymous
mail could reduce the traditional spam/harassment complaints to a minimal
level.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>