From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 13:45:30 +0800
To: unicorn@schloss.li
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
Message-ID: <01I50LTPJE848Y4XBT@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"unicorn@schloss.li"  "Black Unicorn" 22-MAY-1996 18:40:57.71

>On Tue, 21 May 1996, Andrew Loewenstern wrote:
 
>> IANAL, but I have one, and he said (a couple of years ago) that these  
>> shrinkwrap contracts are practically worthless without a signature.  At
>> least this was how things were being handled in some districts.  Anyone
>> care to comment?

>I concur.

	Those (other) lawyers who I have read on the subject would also concur.

>> crypto relevance:  Can RSADSI __really__ enforce the silly "thou shalt not  
>> call certain functions" restrictions in their 'license'?  I doubt it, but I  
>> would love for someone to prove me wrong.

>This is closer.  You're asked to accept the terms of the license or return
>the product.  It's a stronger issue and more likely to be upheld.

	Would this be extensible to the remailer question by saying "agree to
hold us blameless for the contents of this mail or don't mail it back to us
for decoding"? Admittedly, this might not get around the problem of overly
long mail used for bombing, but with Mixmaster you'd get such a letter for
each section as I understand it.
	-Allen