1996-11-08 - No Subject

Header Data

From: Bovine Remailer <haystack@cow.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f97d85d047d29043bca5be44191a952863162c46b64edae3d9bd05e180c2bd0c
Message ID: <9611080435.AA27183@cow.net>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-08 04:47:21 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:47:21 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Bovine Remailer <haystack@cow.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 20:47:21 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: No Subject
Message-ID: <9611080435.AA27183@cow.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:

> At  4:39 AM 11/6/96 -0500, Jim Ray wrote:
> >Judge Kozinski wrote:
> >> ... Perhaps the answer
> >> is that the post office should not accept mail unless there
> >> is a clear indication of who the sender is on the upper left
> >> hand corner of the envelope. ...
> In the case of postal mail, return address forgery is so easy that anyone
> who can address an envelope can figure it out.  Requiring something
> scribbled there certainly wouldn't help protect against anonymous mail. 
> You would have to couple it with "is a person" checks to ensure the person
> posting it is the person referenced by the return address.  Bye bye corner
> post box.

Yes the failure to forsee this did stand out a little in the discourse :).