1995-10-18 - Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal

Header Data

From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b75f784f91de9efd884954b7be5f4d47a44cb277eeaefcb7ffd29e4b10d0d460
Message ID: <199510181636.JAA17879@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: <9510181554.AA05280@toad.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-18 16:38:06 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 09:38:06 PDT

Raw message

From: Hal <hfinney@shell.portal.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 09:38:06 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal
In-Reply-To: <9510181554.AA05280@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199510181636.JAA17879@jobe.shell.portal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Eli Brandt <eli@UX3.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> writes:

>If you
>split the message into shadows, you avoid having anyone in this

I think splitting the message would be OK, but then the question is who
is responsible for reassembling it?  If there were a "reassembly
server" which took such messages, assembled them, and forwarded them,
then we would be right back where we started from.  If the end user is
responsible for reassembly, then that is tantamount to voluntarily
agreeing to receive anonymous messages, and that is no problem.  The
complaints we get are virtually 100% from people who didn't want to
receive such messages, or see them posted.  And of course anonymous news
postings via shadows would also have the reassembly problem.