This message routed through 8 remailers, sent around 11:50 CST 2/19/93: pmantis -> soda -> alumni -> rebma -> rosebud -> mead -> shell -> buffalo Actually, rewriting hop.mail and anon.mail in PERL might be a good idea... Signed, ?@?.?[.?]*
On Fri, 19 Feb 1993 23:24:43 -0800, nobody@pmantis.berkeley.edu said: nobody> Remailed-By: Tommy the Tourist <tommy@out>
nobody> This message routed through 8 remailers, sent around nobody> 11:50 CST 2/19/93: pmantis -> soda -> alumni -> rebma nobody> -> rosebud -> mead -> shell -> buffalo Are you sure? If that's true, then someone along the way is munging the headers pretty badly, because my Received: lines show it going from pmantis -> toad.com -> me --Strat, being a mailer weenie
Earlier, Bob Stratton wrote:
Are you sure? If that's true, then someone along the way is munging the headers pretty badly, because my Received: lines show it going from
pmantis -> toad.com -> me
That's right, because each remailer attempts to discard as much of the header as possible. Otherwise it wouldn't be anonymous - if I were to send a message to you through rosebud and the headers showed the path from me to rosebud and rosebud to you, you'd know where the message really came from! So the header of an anonymously mailed message should make it look like the message originated from the last hop. /-----------------------------------\ | Karl L. Barrus | | elee9sf@menudo.uh.edu | <- preferred address | barrus@tree.egr.uh.edu (NeXTMail) | \-----------------------------------/
participants (3)
-
Karl Barrus -
nobody＠pmantis.berkeley.edu -
strat＠intercon.com