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