cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-12-31 - Re: anon.penet addresses in .sigs

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: fb13f8108afb06120b1c9e70d10c80154cfeeadb15fc6d1fefb33ff70ba7f4ce
Message ID: <Ty7ygD2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <199512311100.GAA18408@thor.cs.umass.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-12-31 13:40:15 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 31 Dec 95 05:40:15 PST

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 95 05:40:15 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: anon.penet addresses in .sigs
In-Reply-To: <199512311100.GAA18408@thor.cs.umass.edu>
Message-ID: <Ty7ygD2w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex) writes:
> 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

I recall that anon.penet.fi can be used by those whose mailers don't allow
them to add new headers -- the extra headers can be placed in at the top
of the body and it'll recognize them.  Likewise cypherpunk remailers let
you add headers with ##. I've taught at least one extremely "non-technical"
user to use the cypherpunks remailers successfully.

> users of the various cypherpunk remailers to users of anon.penet is even
> lower than the S/N ratio on this list in December.

Like, negative????? :)

> 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

My question was "why". I think I see the answer now.  Thank you.

Happy New Year!

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Thread