[13643] in Cypherpunks
Re: Message Havens
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N)
Sat May 14 03:02:29 1994
From: SINCLAIR DOUGLAS N <sinclai@ecf.toronto.edu>
To: klbarrus@owlnet.rice.edu (Karl Lui Barrus)
Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 02:57:05 -0400
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <9405140009.AA07213@flammulated.owlnet.rice.edu>; from "Karl Lui Barrus" at May 13, 94 8:09 pm
> Your analysis is interesting, but so far fetched I'm not going to
> worry about it. I mean, yes, if the 5 billion people of earth decide
> to do this, or decide to call each other, or decide to send each other
> snail mail, everything will collapse. Considering this as a worst
> case, in my opinion, is a waste for right now, and will deter useful
> work before it even starts.
Agreed. I guess what I was trying to say (though I didn't actually
come out and say it) is that the load is O(N^2). While not a problem
now, it would be nice to find an O(N) solution. Or, more likely,
an O(Nlog(N)).
> Plus, it is ONLY necessary to retreive all messages if you don't want
> it know who you are communicating with. If you don't care if it is
> known you communicate with some psuedonym, then you don't have to get
> all the messages. The primary goal is to not mail messages out since
> that is where most the complaints against anonymous remailers lie.
Indeed. If we go with a restricted message haven, the problem becomes
very simple. Maybe we should attempt to get this working first.
