From: Raph Levien <raph@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 07:59:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Remailers not heard from; info?
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960219213114.006a3f04@mail.aracnet.com>
Message-ID: <199602192239.OAA31378@kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bruce Baugh wrote:
> A fix along the lines of
>
> ::
> don't-send-anything-after-this
>
> might be readily applicable.

   This is simply the "cut" feature of remailers, which is already
implemented.

   In response to your question about preserving subject headers,
there are actually three different behaviors. The default is to
preserve the subject header if the input message is not encrypted,
otherwise to discard it. The other two behaviors (nsub and ksub) are
to preserve or discard the subject header, respectively. I do not
recommend nsub, because it is allows tracing a message through the
subject header. No currently operational remailers have nsub behavior.

   In response to your question about remailers which haven't
responded to your tests, remail@c2.org is quite functional. I have no
idea why it did not respond. The other remailers are no longer
functional. In general, when I take a remailer off the page, it is
because it has been non-functional a few weeks, when the remailer
operator announces that it will be taken offline, or (temporarily)
when I know that the remailer will be unavailable or unreliable for a
while. There may be publicly known functioning remailers which are not
on my list, but I rather tend to doubt it.

   In general, I applaud independent work confirming or confronting my
remailer-list, but I ask that you please RTFM before doing things like
suggesting new features.

ObNoise: do any of our resident lawyers have any idea whether "RTFM"
is indecent?

Raph