Re: [Mixmaster-devel] Inter-remailer protocol
Brought to you by:
weaselp
From: Katherine <ka...@th...> - 2001-11-15 03:44:14
|
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Len Sassaman wrote: > > Should we support both? I personally think batch jobs will be best, but > > that's just my opinion. I've been wrong on occassion :) > > There's no reason to do anything besides batch transmisions, IMO. Any opposing thoughts on this? [snip] > > For the most part, yes. But there may be a case where the remailer only > > wants to talk to other remailers. I don't know if it's worth the > > trouble; perhaps later? > > Hrmm. I'm thinking that perhaps there should be an optional challenge in > the connection handshake. If a remailer only wants to receive from other > remailers, it will demand the connecting remailer to authenticate itself > -- otherwise, no auth is done? Makes sense to me. I think it's certainly something we should think about, as it has several nifty applications. The middleman thing is one. Another is private remailers -- only allowing certain parties to use the remailer; perhaps a group can have a remailer that's middleman, but they can inject messages in. Another is using the same connection to send messages back and forth. IE at some point the client and server roles are switched. Another take on that last one is for nym servers; you can connect up, send your messages and collect waiting messaes. If remailers also did this a nym user could run a remailer and anyone watching the traffic would not know if they were getting nym or remailer messages. > How hard would this be to work into the existing protocol? I guess it depends on what type of authentication is done. Kat |