From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 19:20:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: anon.penet addresses in .sigs
In-Reply-To: <gFkygD49w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <199512311100.GAA18408@thor.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Subject: Re: anon.penet addresses in .sigs
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)

Dr. Dimitri Vulis writes:
> This is fascinating! Could you please explain (for the benefit of clueless
> Ph.D.'s like myself) how putting your anon id in your signature enables folks
> to send you anonymous e-mail, who couldn't do that before by e-mailing
> anon@anon.penet.fi and adding:
> 
> X-Anon-To: erc@dal1820.computek.net

This issue (the penet address in Ed's .sig) has been covered on the list 
before. The next time around I think I'll write a short FAQ.

The direct address is easier to use, especially for people whose mailers
don't allow them to add arbitrary email headers. Note that the ratio of
users of the various cypherpunk remailers to users of anon.penet is even 
lower than the S/N ratio on this list in December.

In certain parts of Usenet, many people routinely advertise addresses at
anon.penet (and similar services) in their .sigs (as Ed does) to make 
pseudonymized replies as convenient as possible. This is not a new phenomenon.

Happy New Year !

Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>		Brand new key, ID: 0x0F5470D9 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMOZtGynaAKQPVHDZAQGijAf+Ivi2IklP1cJBhDb4/VTm0d0zd/kjJRhh
4BlGShGcQayfKP59jKFBUO/gbqFzjxsdCRuJcL5D7VXOOX4gjjWxqfKM6ora/nGx
f3mr+DQO2VhhWrHcXqiURwWBknw37fGWQUMfq8DIVWgiVn5e2EkmTNwzyuY+wRm+
30xddxfjN2R5eS/DLr9Ebg+VYLvcHQ3kOvbzhHk3ZVI1x21DlT3I/3u5828OB10p
s3bpADToW1TbT1o7VrMvKtLla1CYBqJrGpSkPCCm0mG4Qx2UWDuWXr9Ej3m1fWVQ
eQI0FFb6Qm+0mzVcQnexTtj+btrqPler5oQBiQmLMuWdohB0cOtRMw==
=va+w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----