1995-11-04 - Re: alt.anonymous.messages considered harmful

Header Data

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Message Hash: c837cf2a6b9bbbaa160cb9a0f726e53bc2e2e792462b88faa982ce1e75c6c05c
Message ID: <199511032022.PAA03575@ducie.cs.umass.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-11-04 18:16:09 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 02:16:09 +0800

Raw message

From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 1995 02:16:09 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: alt.anonymous.messages considered harmful
Message-ID: <199511032022.PAA03575@ducie.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> >Specifically, if HTTP transactions with
> >a popular web server were routinely encrypted, then all reasonably long
> >visits to that site would act as cover traffic for a message pool on that
> >server.
> 
> Qua?  The "length" of the visit is just the time to download a document.
> Leaving a page in the browser window doesn't generate traffic...

You're absolutely right. I wasn't thinking sensibly about HTTP.  I wanted to
make an argument about the time it would take to search the pool and serve a
results page. But upon reflection, I don't think that even holds up under my
HTTP delusions of yesterday, let alone a realistic view. Please ignore the
"reasonably long" part of my previous statement. Thanks for pointing that out.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>





Thread