[87265] in Cypherpunks
Re: Remailer latencies (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Choate)
Sat Sep 27 12:02:20 1997
From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 10:32:18 -0500 (CDT)
Reply-To: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Forwarded message:
> Subject: Re: Remailer latencies (fwd)
> Date: Sat, 27 Sep 97 10:17:52 -0400
> From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr@together.net>
> I am incline to think that as the traffic goes up the need to
> generate 'n' mails for each 'real' inbound/outbound goes down.
In effect as you get more popular your traffic becomes easier to track.
I don't think I would use a remailer that advertised this 'feature'.
Traffic analysis is something that is easily automated so the measure of
success (to my mind anyway) is what sort of resources would a mallet need
to get a solution versus the time frame that solution might we relevant.
Admittedly this is a very sloppy area of remailers, I am not aware of any
analysis with anon. remailers in mind.
If anyone does know of a source please cough it up...
____________________________________________________________________
| |
| 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 |
|____________________________________________________________________|
