-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jonathan replied:
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that it's really the _last_ remailer in the chain that's taking the most heat, and it would be nice if they got payed.
Unfortunately, this creates the closest association between specific traffic and paying customers.
There's also an issue of some remailers refusing to be last in the chain, so they dont' expose themselves so much. So the remailers which _did_ agree to be last in the chain would obviously get used for this purpose, while the others wouldn't, but they wouldn't get any more money for it.
What's to prevent mail from remailer A sent to remailer B from being sent right back to A for delivery? That's a part of the mixing required for true randomness. I don't know if this is being done now (by Chain or premail), and I'd like to know why. There might well be a good reason I'm not aware of. In order to join the mesh, remailers would be required to accept and ultimately deliver mail to ensure equality among them. I believe that a class of "prime" remailers would arise; these would be the preferred remailers, and their input and output would largely be balanced. This assumes, of course, that "second-class" remailers (those which profit equally but don't deliver as the last unit in the chain) aren't allowed in on a equal basis. Prime operators deserve, and would receive, compensation.
They might even get less, since most people probably don't use the same remailer twice in a chain, so the ones agreeing to be last are hardly ever going to be first. That seems undesirable.
See above. What's the difference between A-->B-->C-->B and A-->B-->C-->D ? If someone is logging messages and routing, it's less secure, but then so is the entire remailer system. Prime remailer operators are those who don't log. Maybe message size would tip off snoopers. This can be overcome with minor tweaking to existing remailer code by tacking on or or eliminating padding to messages. But logging still makes the whole system extremely vulnerable.
remailers, since that poses even more exposure to heat, and it would be nice if ops were conpensated for.
Agreed. But since the payment "on the way out" (i.e.; a store) is much less desirable (and would probably work to reduce traffic), payment "on the way in" (i.e.; the subway) seems like the preferred alternative. =D.C. Williams <dcwill@ee.unr.edu> - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLw3RLCoZzwIn1bdtAQHpYgF/brIk7ssBTsR+26TqW6MifGwz+lymbXlc cYWFzNCJcrbRTgy7zHgPisvk/roHW0Nv =XJAq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----