From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:07:22 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: email anonymity alternatives
In-Reply-To: <199602010400.FAA16774@utopia.hacktic.nl>
Message-ID: <199602010643.BAA21255@thor.cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Looks like anonymous FAQ time again....

Anonymous writes:
[I added some rational line breaks]
> Are anon remailers the only way to send anon email without giving up the
> source eventhough an organization has a wealth of dough/technology and
> several class B addresses?

No. You don't need "a wealth of dough/technology" either. Basically you just
need to create packets at a sufficiently low level in the protocol stack.
I'd say it's much easier to use a remailer, but then I'm biased. :)

> Couldn't they just trick their mail servers

Indeed, they can have the mail servers under their control emit pretty much
anything. It's nice to be able to launch the packets at a site ostensibly
not under your control, though, so the return path will really be cold.

> And are nym accounts the only way to receive email without giving up who
> the intended recipient of tha mail/news post actually is?

Well, the sender needs to have some useful encoding of the recipient address.
You can hide the address by encrypting it (reply blocks) or you can use an
address you don't need to hide (nym accounts, newsgroups and mailing lists).
I can't think of any other way to do it right now.

Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>