NODE 2c0e2f26Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal
s1018954@aix2.uottawa.caWed, 18 Oct 95 10:08:41 PDT
On Wed, 18 Oct 1995, Hal wrote:
> Modemac proposes sending messages to remailers via newsgroup postings.
>
A fair amount of alt.test postings seem to be pgp'd (though a lot were
Detweiler Blacknet tentacles, not that I've checked since Tim's Blacknet key
was factored ). There was also an alt.anonymous.messages or something
along those lines. Bad propagation.
It seems to me that receiving messages through newsgroups (sent through
remailernet) and having them retrieved automatically by your newsreader
might be a better method of defeating traffic analysis. Sounds like Vinge's
piece in True Names about downloading the entire world bbs. All you'd need
to do here would be to scan your local feed of alt.test .
While this would work in the short run, with a low level of users, in a
high usage scenario, you'd post a destinated pseudonym (you might want it
encrypted) in alt.test along with the name of the specific newsgroup the
actual message would be posted to. Saves computing power.
NODE ddcd0038Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal
s1018954@aix2.uottawa.caWed, 18 Oct 95 11:11:00 PDT
On Wed, 18 Oct 1995 I wrote:
> It seems to me that receiving messages through newsgroups (sent through
> remailernet) and having them retrieved automatically by your newsreader
> might be a better method of defeating traffic analysis. Sounds like Vinge's
Nah. I'll take it back. Send encrypted through usenet, receive
encrypted through usenet. Best of both, but very slow and only good for
voluntary mail reception. You could also have an agent doing this
scanning for msgs and posting unencrypted (or send mail to an
unwitting spam victim). While it protects all but the last mailer almost
completely, it's far slower than remailernet and only protects against
traffic analysis.
NODE 8d98ee50Re: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal
Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@Glue.umd.edu>Wed, 18 Oct 95 14:06:46 PDT
On Wed, 18 Oct 1995 s1018954@aix2.uottawa.ca wrote:
> Nah. I'll take it back. Send encrypted through usenet, receive
> encrypted through usenet. Best of both, but very slow and only good for
> voluntary mail reception.
Not to mention a tremendous waste of bandwidth if people do it on a
regular basis.
Philosophical question: Is Usenet a "mix"?
-Thomas