I'd like to thank Eric Hughes and Mike Sherwood (who wrote privately) and Hal Finney (who responded here) to my requests for enhancements to Eric's remailer code. By the way, Hal, your signature did not match the associated plaintext: WARNING: Bad signature, doesn't match file contents! Bad signature from user "Hal Finney <74076.1041@compuserve.com>". Signature made 1992/12/19 21:43 GMT This is likely due to some trailing blanks in your plaintext. I've written to Branko to try to get PGP to remove trailing blanks if -t is active. First, I'm glad Eric agrees that anonymous posting to newsgroups is a good idea and is on his "to do" list. Until then, thanks to Hal for posting the info about the ucbvax gateway. I had that info at one time, before hearing about remailers, but discarded it since I thought I'd never use it. I'm sorry Eric doesn't agree that stripping the .sig is a good idea. I respectfully dissent. I've found that I can probably disable my own automatic .sig, so I suppose this isn't too urgent. Nevertheless, I would think it desirable to make remailers as easy to use as posible. Having to remember to disable the automatic .sig is certainly an inconvenience. Forgetting to do so could potentially be very embarrassing or even incriminating!! The pax remailer uses "--" or "__" as sig delimiters (according to their docs) & apparently this is satisfactory. I think this means that "----" would NOT be a delimiter, so it would be unlikely to be used by mistake. I wouldn't mind a more explicit delimiter, for example ::--Remailer cut HERE-- if Eric thinks "--" is too ambiguous or is likely to be used inadvertantly in the middle of a msg. Anyway I guess I can muddle through for the time being. I agree with Hal that the pax remailer can probably be the first in a chain to Eric remailers. Probably also the last in a chain of Anonymous returns. But I don't see how pax could be used in the middle of a chain. I would encourage Eric to correspond with the guy running the pax remailer: anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human) to see if you couldn't come up with a common remailer code with best features of both. Certainly it would be great to have an Eric-style remailer running in Australia!! -- edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Silicon Valley, Ca
I think that signatures should be kept. If you really want to be anonymous, you have bigger things to worry about than your sig showing up or not. And if I want to build a pseudonymous identity for myself, I might want to have a sig for that identity. I wouldn't want the remailers stripping that out. Perhaps it would make sense to have a header field which indicated if the sig should be kept or not. Marc
participants (2)
-
edgar@spectrx.Saigon.COM
-
Marc Horowitz