1995-10-15 - Re: PA Remailer Concerns

Header Data

From: anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b6828137d53f9700f3053649dcd11f4d4ecb3778dc1e2146b4cf322ee9c4595b
Message ID: <199510150647.XAA25530@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-15 06:48:32 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 14 Oct 95 23:48:32 PDT

Raw message

From: anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 95 23:48:32 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PA Remailer Concerns
Message-ID: <199510150647.XAA25530@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Has anyone examined the legislative history associated with this statute?

I would be surprised if they were singling out anonymous remailers.  They may have had other concerns regarding phone abuse, e.g., long distance fraud.  

Then again, I could be full of it...

Thread

• Return to October 1995

• Return to “anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com”
• Return to “futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)”
• Return to “Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>”
• Return to “s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca”
• Return to “sameer <sameer@c2.org>”

• Return to “Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@Glue.umd.edu>”

• 1995-10-15 (Sat, 14 Oct 95 23:48:32 PDT) - Re: PA Remailer Concerns - anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com
  • 1995-10-15 (Sun, 15 Oct 95 12:58:22 PDT) - Re: PA Remailer Concerns - Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@Glue.umd.edu>
    • 1995-10-16 (Sun, 15 Oct 95 18:42:30 PDT) - Re: PA Remailer Concerns - Mark <mark@lochard.com.au>
      • 1995-10-16 (Sun, 15 Oct 95 19:13:48 PDT) - Re: PA Remailer Concerns - futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
        • 1995-10-16 (Sun, 15 Oct 95 19:33:27 PDT) - Re: PA Remailer Concerns - sameer <sameer@c2.org>
      • 1995-10-16 (Sun, 15 Oct 95 19:32:40 PDT) - Re: PA Remailer Concerns (and one very stupid joke) - s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca