[86951] in Cypherpunks
Re: encouraging digital pseudonyms (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Mon Sep 22 21:13:20 1997
From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 19:05:46 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Forwarded message:
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 17:45:58 -0400
> From: "Robert A. Costner" <pooh@efga.org>
> Subject: Re: encouraging digital pseudonyms
> Perhaps I am missing something here. I find it easy to distinguish type-I
> anonymous traffic from nym mail. Anonymous mail usually comes from an
> address like 'anon@' or 'nobody@' while pseudonymous mail will come from a
> pseudonym.
A pseudonym and an anonymous account are NOT the same thing. That is what
you are missing.
'ravage' is a 'nym that I have been using since about '82 or '83 (I used
'ogre' and 'ghost' before that), I have NEVER used an account such as
'anon<foo>@bar.com' while I do generate traffic under other short-term
'nym's.
The only reason anonymous mail comes as 'anon@' or 'nobody@' is because that
is the way they are currently set up. If an anon-remailer were serious about
long-term survival the output accounts would look just like the user
accounts and not something as blatent as the above.
Anonymous remailers will have arrived when they quit using the simple
patterning as above and they figure out how to charge for their services
(anonymous privacy is a commodity with a worth, seriously undervalued in
todays market).
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there |
| be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. |
| |
| -Alan Greenspan- |
| |
| _____ The Armadillo Group |
| ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA |
| /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ |
| .', |||| `/( e\ |
| -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate |
| ravage@ssz.com |
| 512-451-7087 |
|____________________________________________________________________|
