Re: Warning about exposing anon id
Wonderer says:
[direct replies to an anon id reveal _your_ anon id]
To avoid this, instead of replying to e.g., an41418@anon.penet.fi, reverse the first two letters (mnemonic 'not anonymous') and thus reply instead to na41418@anon.penet.fi. It will go to the same person, but your reply will not by anonymized, and thus your identity will not be revealed. Hope this helps, Scott Collins | "Few people realize what tremendous power there | is in one of these things." -- Willy Wonka ......................|................................................ BUSINESS. voice:408.862.0540 fax:974.6094 collins@newton.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. 5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2B Cupertino, CA 95014 ....................................................................... PERSONAL. voice/fax:408.257.1746 1024:669687 catalyst@netcom.com
Scott Collins says:
Wonderer says:
[direct replies to an anon id reveal _your_ anon id]
To avoid this, instead of replying to e.g., an41418@anon.penet.fi, reverse the first two letters (mnemonic 'not anonymous') and thus reply instead to na41418@anon.penet.fi.
I believe that, according to the principle of least astonishment, replies to anonymous IDs should, by default, not be double-blinded; and deliberate action should have to be taken to request the double-blinding that currently happens by default. Perhaps the anon admins could be persuaded to modify their systems accordingly; They would just need to put na#### instead of an#### in the FROM address, and educate their users. Several months ago, I tried to persuade one of the anon admins to do this, but I was not successful, and that server has since shut down. --apb Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa RFC822: barrett@ee.und.ac.za
Alan Barrett <barrett@daisy.ee.und.ac.za> writes:
Scott Collins says:
To avoid this [direct replies to an anon id reveal _your_ anon id], instead of replying to e.g., an41418@anon.penet.fi, reverse > > the first two letters (mnemonic 'not anonymous') and thus reply instead to na41418@anon.penet.fi.
I believe that, [...] replies to anonymous IDs should, by default, not be double-blinded [...] Perhaps the anon admins could [...] put na#### instead of an#### in the FROM address, and educate their users.
A better method might perhaps be to set the Reply-To field to automatically be the na#### address. This makes it easier for people with smart mailers and doesn't mess around with who the message is actually from... jim
participants (3)
-
Alan Barrett -
catalyst＠netcom.com -
Jim McCoy