1996-05-19 - Re: The Crisis with Remailers

Header Data

From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 4af0167f40fdb08833bd55d32eb23fcc49b14735d34d253a7d19e19f1474450c
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960519100718.1166B-100000@smoke.suba.com>
Reply To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960518183037.484A-100000@bitbucket.edmweb.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-19 19:56:39 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 03:56:39 +0800

Raw message

From: snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 03:56:39 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Crisis with Remailers
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960518183037.484A-100000@bitbucket.edmweb.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.93.960519100718.1166B-100000@smoke.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sat, 18 May 1996, Steve Reid wrote:

> I wonder, would the average spammer be less likely to spam if he had to
> PGP-encrypt messages to the remailer? I know we want to make remailers

	Some of the technically less sophisticated would. But these people
hardly ever use remailers anyway. 

> Also, if a remailer could be set up to _only_ remail to other remailers,
> that would greatly reduce liability. Obviously we'd still need _some_
> remailers that can deliver to the intended destination... I think a lot 
> of people would be more willing to run remailers if it didn't mean that 
> mailing list/usenet spam would have their name attached. 

	The way I am thinking of setting one up would work as the front
end would accept the mail, and the back end, a seperate account would
send it. By using multiple back ends, traffic analysis would be made
marginally less easy, and there would be less complaints about the front

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>