From: “Rev. Mark Grant, ULC” <mark@unicorn.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 89f9f308093382cd2fe8aebca50ea10c9768b6413462e0d0368ea3a77920299a
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9605211502.A26742-0100000@unicorn.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-21 20:44:54 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 04:44:54 +0800
From: "Rev. Mark Grant, ULC" <mark@unicorn.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 04:44:54 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Long-Lived Remailers
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605211502.A26742-0100000@unicorn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 21 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> Traffic analysis will be quite easy to do, of course, as all mail sent to
> the persistent address comes out of the "disposable@foo.com" address.
> Q.E.D.
Yeah, but the attack model I was assuming was lawyers rather than
intelligence agencies. The NSA could probably easily link the two
together, but the Church of Foobar(tm) probably couldn't. They'd only have
access to the logs on the ISP and the information you gave when you signed
up, not the raw packets on the Net.
Mark
Return to May 1996
Return to ““Rev. Mark Grant, ULC” <mark@unicorn.com>”
1996-05-21 (Wed, 22 May 1996 04:44:54 +0800) - Re: Long-Lived Remailers - “Rev. Mark Grant, ULC” <mark@unicorn.com>