On Sun, 26 May 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 02:12 AM 5/27/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Sat, 25 May 1996, jim bell wrote:
Likewise, I don't see why the first address in the chain is vulnerable, as long as the message subsequently passes through at least one trustworthy remailer, and probably a temporary output address.
I repeat, all it takes is one person to send through only one remailer (perhaps even a Co$ plant) and the first in chain remailer is toasted.
Think before you type please.
You should take your own advice. The mere fact that the first link in the chain is "known" doesn't mean that it is provably involved. Without a substantial amount of bugging that the COS hasn't the resources to do, there is a big difference between them _believing_ that a given message originated there, and being able to prove it in court. And notice my caveat: "As long as the message subsequently passes through at least one trustworthy remailer, and probably a temporary output address."
The above is incorrect for several reasons and is a poor dodge to boot. Take it to private mail.
Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
--- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell@pacifier.com