I have changed the subscription name in the list to the "na" form, so the immediate problem for cypherpunks is fixed. But this problem will persist. Many, if not most, mailing lists are running automated list software and the address given in the subscription request is the address added. Even if the administrator manually changes the entry, the old one can be added right back. Mailing list software could be changed to notice penet anonymous addresses, but don't hold your breath for that to be deployed soon. There are two problems with the current anon@penet design that I see as fundamental. The first, widely discussed and the proximate cause of the above problem, is automatic pseudonym generation. The second is ensured by the first and is subtler: the remailer does not allow multiple pseudonyms per incoming email address. Multiple pseudonyms allow compartmentalization and has two benefits. The first benefit is unlinkability. I have sometimes wanted to argue both sides of an issue, but refrained because that is too confusing for most to follow. (The semiotics of "consistency/ignorability" and "one mind/one opinion" are fascinating and, here, digressing.) I might also wish to argue in two completely different fora and not have these seen as the same person. For every reason you might want a pseudonym in the first place, you might also want a "pseudonym from your pseudonym," especially if you use it a lot. The second benefit of compartmented identities happens when the pseudonym is revealed, either by choice or by chance. There are many situations when a temporary identity might be desired; I leave it to others to list them. With the current single-pseudonym system, one revelation of identity reveals all others. When there is no particular benefit to being seen as the same identity, I would rather have multiple identities for exactly this reason. As far as implementations go, having multiple pseudonyms requires that a separate "request for pseudonym" be added, as well as a way to indicate from which pseudonym (or none of them) mail should be from. I would suggest bouncing mail to "an" style addresses unless a pseudonym has been declared; the bounce message would, of course, contain instructions on how to obtain a pseudonym or use the "na" form. Therefore, I would suggest that a second version of the pseudonymous system at penet do away with automatic generation and support multiple pseudonyms. Eric