Re: (Another) alternative to

Reply to: RE>(Another) alternative to remailer shutdowns Where would these message parts be put back together/decrypted? Wouldn't this require the receivers mail program to re-generate the original message? -------------------------------------- Instead of having the last remailer in the chain store the plaintext of an encrypted anonymous message, it might be more convenient to have the sender split the message into two messages and send these. The first message would contain random characters, and the second would contain the xor of these random characters with the anonymous message. By themselves, each piece would, of course, be harmless random text, so remailer operators greatest crime would be spamming. If the two pieces were sent through chains with different last remailers, no one operator could be held accountable, and, of course, it would be ridiculous to suggest that one operator could be held responsible for that fact that another sent some random text which happened to be the xor of the random text another had sent with a harassing message. (For instance, the other operator could be trying to frame the first, with the help of the receiver.) It seems to me that the only way to deal with a remailing scheme of this kind would be outlaw anonymous remalining in general. Leonard

On 23 May 1996, Jay Haines wrote:
Reply to: RE>(Another) alternative to remailer shutdowns
Where would these message parts be put back together/decrypted? Wouldn't this require the receivers mail program to re-generate the original message?
[my stuff]
Yes, it would require work on the part of the receiver to put the message back together. This shouldn't be too difficult, though. The receiver's software could look through all random messages of the same length and xor them together to see if something non-random popped out. Alternatively, a "standard" format for these split messages could include the a random message ID as the last 160 bits of one part of the message and the SHA hash of this ID in the last 160 bits of the other part. (The idea is to keep the messages looking random for legal reasons.) Remailer operators may want to add a note to message to the effect of "For legal reasons, this remailer only sends random looking text. For information on the possible usefulness of random looking text visit <joe neutral's home page>."

I would like to add an extension to my proposal for split message anonymous remailing schemes. The current proposal counts on the good will of the senders to split their messages into random pieces. If a remailer operator receives non-random text I can think of at least three options for what to do: 1) The operator can drop the message. 2) The remailer operator can split the message him or herself and send the pieces through new remailer chains. 3) Suppose there is a computer named Moe that lives on the internet, is hidden behind a nym, and splits messages and enters the pieces into remailer chains. The remailer can then encrypt the non-random text along with a "please forward to" command to Moe, and send the ciphertext anonymously to Moe. (Due to the encryption there is no need to split this message.) The risk, in ascending terms of legal danger, for the operator would be 1), 3), and 2). Nevertheless, all three alternatives should be safe within a secure (in the sense of Chaum, 1981) remailer network. Leonard
participants (2)
-
Jay Haines
-
Leonard Janke