[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-talk] On the Theory of Remailers
I'm reading your conversation, and i'm not understanding very well what you
mean by high/low latency network. Isn't it just a ping duration delta ?
You speak about low and high latency like it's a feature.
Is tor mixing only low latency with low latency in its circuits ? Opening
for a dispatching of services (ie. mail on high latency, web on low ) ?
What's the point ?
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 11:29:06PM -0500, grarpamp wrote:
> >> > It is an interesting questions, if with a modern user interface, can
> >> they
> >> > get to new life?
> >> I see no reason the state of the art from the legacy remailer types
> >> can't be combined and updated into a new service running on some
> >> of the same relay machines we have for Tor today. Even if only
> >> 10% ran them it would probably be more hosts than were ever
> >> behind the old remailer nets. And relay operators already have the
> >> abuse experience in place.
> > Most exit operators block port 25 -- for a very good reason.
> Please don't easily dispose remailers and look at their potential.
> High latency networks are not tied to port 25. They could use any port.
> Even if the Tor exit operators don't want to be in an exit position for
> e-mail traffic, they could still be a middle node.
> Neither remailers are tied to clearnet spam. If we assume that remailers
> can not be used to mail people in normal internet because of spam, they
> could mimic "hidden services", i.e. internal mail addresses only known to
> the people who should know them.
> Pseudonymous reply address for remailers:
> Remailers aren't tied to messaging as well.
> Nymserver can also fetch websites with high latency. In theory high
> latency networks complement low latency networks such as Tor and can
> provide strong anonymity.
> tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk mailing list