On 14 Aug 2001, lcs Mixmaster Remailer wrote:
> An alternative is to pay the first remailer for the whole chain, and then
> to have that remailer pay the second remailer, the second remailer pay
> the third remailer, and so on. This way the follow-on remailers don't
> know who the original send
Declan wrote, quoting himself:
> > Yet some form of PPU remailer could exist today: A remailer would find a
> > cookie and an encrypted-to-PPU-public-key credit card in the body of the
> > message it receives. It would then debit a credit card for, say, $3 and
> [...]
> > The usual objection to
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Naturally you'd have to trust that at least one remailer was honest --
> but you already do that, right?
Just a curiosity note (yes, I *should* RTFM, but it's about 6am, and I'm
late for work, not to mention lazy today :-)
While one remailer is cons
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 10:01:57PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Yet some form of PPU remailer could exist today: A remailer would find a
> cookie and an encrypted-to-PPU-public-key credit card in the body of the
> message it receives. It would then debit a credit card for, say, $3 and
[...]
At 04:40 PM 8/7/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>I disagree, slightly. The same old "improvements" are still not
>implemented. Notably, pay-for-use remailers.
Let me play devil's advocate here and say I'm not sure that the existence
of PPU remailers would change much.
First, the current state of rema
