1997-12-21 - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva)
Header Data
From: Joichi Ito <jito@eccosys.com>
To: “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
Message Hash: 747ff6eabb83b8cab1202112d337cabb2330e97c83e85d54645a34803f6af407
Message ID: <199712211112.UAA17803@eccosys.com>
Reply To: <199712210732.QAA12422@eccosys.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-21 11:15:32 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 19:15:32 +0800
Raw message
From: Joichi Ito <jito@eccosys.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 19:15:32 +0800
To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net>
Subject: Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for "Criminals"? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva)
In-Reply-To: <199712210732.QAA12422@eccosys.com>
Message-ID: <199712211112.UAA17803@eccosys.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 03:05 97/12/21 -0600, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>(what money exchanes
> hands between telco's is another thing).
Actually, I was talking about the telco-telco billing arrangements...
- Joi
--
PGP Key: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x2D9461F1
PGP Fingerprint: 58F3 CA9A EFB8 EB9D DF18 6B16 E48D AF2A 2D94 61F1
Home Page: http://domino.garage.co.jp/jito/joihome.nsf
To subscribe to my personal mailing list send mailto:friends-subscribe@ji.to
Thread
Return to December 1997
- Return to “Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>”
- Return to ““bill.stewart@pobox.com” <bill.stewart@pobox.com>”
- Return to “Charlie Comsec <comsec@nym.alias.net>”
- Return to “Dave Emery <die@die.com>”
- Return to “dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)”
- Return to “ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)”
- Return to “Joichi Ito <jito@eccosys.com>”
- Return to “Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>”
- Return to “Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>”
- Return to ““Robert A. Costner” <pooh@efga.org>”
- Return to “Steve Schear <schear@lvdi.net>”
- Return to “The Sheriff <sheriff@speakeasy.org>”
- Return to “Tim May <tcmay@got.net>”
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>”
- 1997-12-20 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 02:26:45 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Charlie Comsec <comsec@nym.alias.net>
- 1997-12-20 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 02:55:07 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
- 1997-12-22 (Mon, 22 Dec 1997 11:15:44 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? - ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
- 1997-12-20 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 04:12:23 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? - “Robert A. Costner” <pooh@efga.org>
- 1997-12-20 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 05:29:20 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Dave Emery <die@die.com>
- 1997-12-21 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:51:25 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
- 1997-12-21 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 23:31:07 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Pet - dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
- 1997-12-21 (Mon, 22 Dec 1997 07:30:57 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Steve Schear <schear@lvdi.net>
- 1997-12-22 (Tue, 23 Dec 1997 03:48:31 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-12-23 (Tue, 23 Dec 1997 23:09:18 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Paul Bradley <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
- 1997-12-24 (Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:52:14 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? - “bill.stewart@pobox.com” <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
- 1997-12-22 (Tue, 23 Dec 1997 03:48:31 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
- 1997-12-24 (Wed, 24 Dec 1997 11:51:47 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - “bill.stewart@pobox.com” <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
- 1997-12-21 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 15:36:42 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Joichi Ito <jito@eccosys.com>
- 1997-12-21 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 17:15:36 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@invweb.net>
- 1997-12-21 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 19:15:32 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Joichi Ito <jito@eccosys.com>
- 1997-12-21 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 13:51:25 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? (was: Re: UCENET II and Peter duh Silva) - Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
- 1997-12-21 (Mon, 22 Dec 1997 04:46:56 +0800) - Re: Completely anonymous communications ARE only for “Criminals” - Charlie Comsec <comsec@nym.alias.net>
- 1997-12-23 (Tue, 23 Dec 1997 18:32:34 +0800) - Re: Completely anonymous communications ARE only for “Criminals” - The Sheriff <sheriff@speakeasy.org>
- 1997-12-20 (Sun, 21 Dec 1997 02:55:07 +0800) - Re: Is Anonymous Communication only for “Criminals”? - Tim May <tcmay@got.net>