From: Leonard Janke <janke@unixg.ubc.ca>
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 07:29:20 +0800
To: Jay Haines <jay_haines@connaught-usa.com>
Subject: Re: (Another) alternative to
In-Reply-To: <n1379284116.57328@flu.connaught-usa.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960523104104.6918A-100000@netinfo.ubc.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On 23 May 1996, Jay Haines wrote:

>         Reply to:   RE>(Another) alternative to remailer shutdowns
> 
> Where would these message parts be put back together/decrypted? Wouldn't this
> require the receivers mail program to re-generate the original message?
> 
> [my stuff]

Yes, it would require work on the part of the receiver to put the message
back  together. 

This shouldn't be too difficult, though. The receiver's software
could look through all random messages of the same length and xor them 
together to see if something non-random popped out. Alternatively, a
"standard" format for these split messages could include the 
a random message ID as the last 160 bits of one part of the message 
and the SHA hash of this ID in the last 160 bits of the other part.
(The idea is to keep the messages looking random  for legal reasons.)

Remailer operators may want to add a note to message to the effect of
"For legal reasons, this remailer only sends random looking text. For
information on the possible usefulness of random looking text visit
<joe neutral's home page>."