NODE 3e3cbb93Re: List of reliable remailers
jrochkin@cs.oberlin.edu (Jonathan Rochkind)Mon, 19 Dec 94 12:04:46 PST
At 9:50 AM 12/19/94, Raph Levien wrote:
> eric
> A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead.
Question:
Are there in fact any remailers out there that _don't_ take
Request-Remailing-To:, but only Anon-Send-To:? That is, are there in fact
any "eric" remailers, according to Raph's criteria?
I've used at least one of the remailers that's labled as "eric" on Raph's
list, and used "Request-Remailing-To:" with it, and been succesful. I'm
wondering if this is the case for all of them.
NODE 91c9cf78Re: List of reliable remailers
Raph Levien <raph@CS.Berkeley.EDU>Mon, 19 Dec 94 12:28:57 PST
Jonathan Rochkind writes:
> At 9:50 AM 12/19/94, Raph Levien wrote:
> > eric
> > A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead.
>
> Question:
> Are there in fact any remailers out there that _don't_ take
> Request-Remailing-To:, but only Anon-Send-To:? That is, are there in fact
> any "eric" remailers, according to Raph's criteria?
>
> I've used at least one of the remailers that's labled as "eric" on Raph's
> list, and used "Request-Remailing-To:" with it, and been succesful. I'm
> wondering if this is the case for all of them.
I classified c2 as an "eric" remailer because it has normal handling
of subject lines with Anon-Send-To but not with Request-Remailing-To.
I think it kept the subject line even when the message was encrypted.
This is a big hole for traffic analysis.
Raph