From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f805a8dabeff74998f2a5976c3910fa727e18eca0ab2b2cd550a85fb8498599d
Message ID: <3.0.1.32.19970322204155.007231a8@mail.io.com>
Reply To: <199703222156.NAA06194@swan>
UTC Datetime: 1997-03-23 04:59:49 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 20:59:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 1997 20:59:49 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Remailer problem solution?
In-Reply-To: <199703222156.NAA06194@swan>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970322204155.007231a8@mail.io.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 01:56 PM 3/22/97 -0800, nobody@hidden.net wrote:
>John Perry is shutting down because somebody is using his remailer to
>send unkind messages to the FBI. (BTW, probably the FBI is sending
>mean messages to the FBI.)
Perhaps it's their colleagues at another TLA. :)
>Why would not one of these solutions work?
>
>1. Accept and send PGP encrypted messages only.
This "works" in that it reduces the number of people subjected to messages
they don't want to see, but it also makes it more difficult (or impossible)
to use remailers for tasks like:
sending info to crypto-illiterate reporters/politicians/whatever
("whistleblowing")
sending messages to newsgroups and mailing lists which don't have a shared
private key
>2. Keep a list of addresses of people who do not wish to receive mail
>from the remailers.
This is done already, but the group of people who don't want to recieve mail
from remailers but haven't signed up yet (because they don't know about
remailers) is orders of magnitude bigger than people who've signed up. Mostly
people get on the block list(s) because they've already been mailed things
they didn't want to see; by the time they learn about blocking, it's too
late.
Also, it's difficult to apply this solution to many remailers - should all
remailers block an address because one remailer operator claims to have
received a request? Or should each operator act alone, which means that one
anonymity-hostile end user must send multiple block requests?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5
iQEVAgUBMzS0cv37pMWUJFlhAQHf6wf+PXP/Q4C1YAAue2uqLtYJo7lIi3l2huQd
dzsNIYt77tq9ThacUwyhymOD44S7kKYB95cU44NBnLnD4Unv16jH+9AU4PWeHrhJ
lqWOhYI02lJEl3NLD4c5MR0FIRqcFj2jny2FNBpmMou/v8Mh/vJLQTcPrQP9p9Y9
4yOrbQuzafRzgrmcyLbaSzEgP+uljFP6LeP6RTfYCR4+R97xxr8veSuugYVcEX/o
Z2w7w+OiMrUtFbE+kDFHJVm/wHW1w+WxDfM//BZUPLOqTI1v62CIzWoNn7dOCeX6
GN2yn8bk17YE2Nz15AIXiD55yt96cOK6L+WvktwNQXk3rcUfbLUUsw==
=N7e1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com |
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.
|
Return to March 1997
Return to “Sergey Goldgaber <sergey@el.net>”