1996-05-21 - Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns

Header Data

From: “Rev. Mark Grant, ULC” <mark@unicorn.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: d24b0d5259cc79a2ee05e65e023c6161269cfbd5a23da1e959c98f075c6227a4
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9605211529.A26742-0100000@unicorn.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-05-21 20:29:48 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 04:29:48 +0800

Raw message

From: "Rev. Mark Grant, ULC" <mark@unicorn.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 04:29:48 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9605211529.A26742-0100000@unicorn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 20 May 1996, Rich Graves wrote:

> On Tue, 21 May 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:
> I like the "knock-knock" approach, though it would of necessity impose
> load. If someone has an anonymous message waiting, send them a simple note
> with instructions on how to retrieve it.

I have a partial implementation of this for Mixmaster if anyone wants to
try integrating it into the main code. It works (or worked) for single
packet messages but I never finished the multi-packet code. Of course, if
Mixmaster is being rewritten anyway then it won't be much use. 

AFAIR it also relies on the 'In-Reply-To:' field in the header working 
correctly.

	Mark






Thread