Security Against Compelled Disclosure

[Bill Stewart]

I realize this discussion was a couple of weeks ago, but I'm just catching 
up to it now :-)

Ignoring the flamage and the inter-listmanager discussions, if possible,
I'd like to address the problem of removing attachments.

Removing big attachments is one thing,
but there are a number of posters whose mail programs use MIME
in ways that are likely to get removed, even if they're just using it
for PGP signatures.  While I'd prefer to encourage such people not to
use formats like that, they *do* happen (especially on the 
remailer-operators list,
where each different sub-version of Mutt seems to use a different format...)

Tim May periodically flames the users of attachments, and while I agree that
binary attachments are often non-portable and non-readable by many people,
there are attachments that are just text with MIMEage headers around it,
which are perfectly fine - if your reader can't do anything useful to 
display it,
it *should* be able to show you the raw message body and let you read around
the junk, just as you'd probably read around PGP signature headers.

         Bill


At 08:29 AM 08/04/2001 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > You fool. One of the cypherpunks nodes removed the attachment.
>
>Actually they should ONLY be removing attachments to their subscribers, if
>they are removing attachments in general then they are breaking the
>contract.
>
>More over, the size limitations for messages to the CDR's was agreed to be
>1M minimum over a year ago.
>
>Check the archives.
>
> > Sending attachments to the distributed cypherpunks list when at least
> > one node remove them is about as useful as, well, arguing with Choate.