cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-05-15 - Re: crosspost re remailers

Header Data

From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: Keith Henson <hkhenson@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 7a834b6f9475cc7a77ae66f450b273d36377aa02f090b2067583db465064a65c
Message ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960514222524.27098D-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply To: <199605141901.MAA02888@netcom.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-15 11:03:26 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 19:03:26 +0800

Raw message

From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 19:03:26 +0800
To: Keith Henson <hkhenson@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: crosspost re remailers
In-Reply-To: <199605141901.MAA02888@netcom.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960514222524.27098D-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Tue, 14 May 1996, Keith Henson wrote:

> was to Krup.   I can't speak for all of them--actually, I can't speak
> for *any* of them, but the ones who have said anything about the
> recent uses of the remailers do not seem unhappy.  There may be
> some discussion related to this on the cypherpunks mailing list.

Actually, there hasn't really been any discussion on cypherpunks, which I
find a little surprising. I'd have thought that a remailer going down
because of political/legal pressure would raise more of a ruckus. People
seem jaded, but I'm not sure why.

I posted a half dozen articles to comp.org.eff.talk, more to stimulate
discussion than to argue a position. We trolled up a statement from Hal
Finney to the effect that remailers might need to be restricted in order
to save them -- which I found to be rather provocative, but nobody said
anything. Anybody?

-rich

Thread