From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 22:02:32 +0800
To: jonathon <grafolog@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9605210818.A20379-0100000@netcom3>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960521011638.4377B-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 21 May 1996, jonathon wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 May 1996, Declan B. McCullagh did NOT write:

[Oops, I was replying to Declan's forward of Hal Finney's message, and got
the attribution wong. The path cypherpunks -> fight-censorship -> me 
is often faster than cypherpunks -> me, probably because unsubscribing
and resubscribing put me way down on the list. Sorry. This was Hal.]

> > I like the "knock-knock" approach, though it would of necessity impose
> > load. If someone has an anonymous message waiting, send them a simple note
> > with instructions on how to retrieve it.
> 	
> 	That way you could also charge the recipient to retrieve
> 	a message. 
> 
> 	How about a farthing to recieve a message, and 
> 	two farthings to send a message, no charge to 
> 	mixmaster recipients or originators?

That sounds like a great opportunity for denial-of-service attacks. No,
thank you.

A flat fee for a special-delivery service profile (gimme $5/month and you
get messages automatically, without the confirmation) would be fine, but I
can't see paying per piece to *receive* anonymous messages.

-rich