---------- From: Nomen Nescio[SMTP:nobody@dizum.com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 1:10 PM To: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: RE: CNN.com on Remailers
Peter Trei writes:
Modulo the recent discussion of how some remailers treat traffic from other known remailers differently than mail from unknown addresses, remailers don't need to know about each other.
If they don't know know about each other, and there is nothing on the machines which suggest they no about each other, it's difficult for a law abiding remailer operator to become inadvertantly linked to a non-lawabiding one.
Did you even read the message which explained WHY remailers need to know about each other, and why they need to treat traffic from remailers different from that from unknown addresses? Your message shows no sign of it.
Rather than issuing your blanket statement that remailers don't need to know about each other, you need to explain how to deal with the issues which presently require the contrary.
Yes, I have read the letter - they need to treat input from known remailers differently due to worries over spam and flooding attacks, so they treat other known remailers as priviliged sources of high volume traffic. This does not invalidate my point - that such special treatment could lead a remop into legal problems. We have two different problems, with mutually undesirable solutions. Peter Trei ============================================================================ ================ This e-mail, its content and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee(s) and are PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. Access by any other party is unauthorized without the express prior written permission of the sender. If you have received this e-mail in error you may not copy, disclose to any third party or use the contents, attachments or information in any way, Please delete all copies of the e-mail and the attachment(s), if any and notify the sender. Thank You. ============================================================================ ================
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Trei, Peter wrote:
Yes, I have read the letter - they need to treat input from known remailers differently due to worries over spam and flooding attacks, so they treat other known remailers as priviliged sources of high volume traffic.
This does not invalidate my point - that such special treatment could lead a remop into legal problems. We have two different problems, with mutually undesirable solutions.
If the sending node doesn't know about the destination node, how does it konw where to send the traffic (even if the sender provides the address)? The reality is that the remailers must 'know' of each other one way or another. Simply being part of a 'remailer network' (anonymous or not) tends to already put one in a 'conspiratorial' situation. Truly robust remailers MUST be located in domains that protect speech and association with something similar to 'innocent until proven innocent'. That's the only defence against 'conspiracy'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate -
Trei, Peter