From: Rich Burroughs <richieb@teleport.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 08:33:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: [NOISE] Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
In-Reply-To: <199605211741.KAA02765@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.92.960521113026.7752B-100000@linda.teleport.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 21 May 1996, jim bell wrote:

[snip]
> You may recall that when the Leahy encryption bill was proposed...
[snip]

Blah, blah, blah.

This situation has nothing to do with the Leahy bill.  As you mentioned,
crypto is not the issue here. It's whether we get to have remailers,
period -- encrypted or not.

Why must you persist in bringing the bill up, constantly, whether it
applies to the situation being discussed or not?  Your gonna hurt your
arm, reaching around to pat yourself on the back like that ;)



Rich

______________________________________________________________________
Rich Burroughs  richieb@teleport.com  http://www.teleport.com/~richieb
See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon
New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause