[817] in libertarians
Re: [root@MIT.EDU: packet sniffers & their ilk]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (an169883@anon.penet.fi)
Fri Mar 17 00:01:50 1995
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
From: an169883@anon.penet.fi
X-Anonymously-To: libertarians@mit.edu
Reply-To: an169883@anon.penet.fi
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 1995 04:35:37 UTC
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 17:16:27 EST
> From: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
>
> |> From: an169883@anon.penet.fi
> |>
> |> > <sybok@MIT.EDU>
> |> > Sounds like someone was trying to remain anonymous while asking a legitimate
> |> > question. As a libertarian I support anonymous postings, as long as it
> |> > is not abused. Is there really a need to "out" this person?
> |>
> |> Hear, hear!
>
> Is penet.fi really secure? I heard (rumors) it had been compromised.
There are varying levels of security; use the right tool for the job.
This series of anonymous messages are for making a minor rhetorical
point, and penet.fi has enough security to accomplish that. If the
mapping of real addresses to anonymous addresses is ever revealed I
have nothing to fear from either the actions of law enforcement or the
opinions of my peers.
> Also, in my experience, it often took days for things to get where
> they were going.
The first anonymous reply from penet.fi landed on the list with in
hours of the post it responded to. Thus, you know that the maximum
lag time was no more than a few hours. Depending on when I sent it,
it could have been as low as a few seconds....
> I reccommend the anon remailers and chaining as documented on the
> cypherpunks page (as elsewhere).
A different (but very good!) tool fit for a different job...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.
