Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.mail
Subject: Re: Reading other peoples' mail
Message-ID: <37000002@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Apr-86 10:35:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.37000002
Posted: Fri Apr 11 10:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Apr-86 06:15:36 EST
References: <669@hoptoad.uucp>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories - Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 61


Sooo...pretty interesting topic we're all talking about here.

I'm rather disgusted by the attitude John Gilmore has towards the whole
issue though.

I can just imagine sending someone encrypted mail because I DON'T WANT
ANYONE along the way reading it and getting a message back from 
john_gilmore@hoptoad saying "You were using my machine for your mail and 
I couldn't ascertain if it was legit or not so I removed it.  If you 
don't like it, USE ANOTHER MAIL ROUTE!"

Such a friendly attitude.  So willing to help.

As one of the local mail "folks" here in HP, I've actually been known to
propose built-in encryption routines that would be part of SENDMAIL or
some other ``second level'' transport mechanism that would know the 
public encryption keys for specific machines.  The mail packet going off
of the local machine would then be encrypted as it left (regardless of
the protocol - SMTP/UUCP/ACSnet/??) and then decrypted as it was received
on the destination machine.

While nosy twits (no names needed) could still go through the pain of 
decrypting, it would in reality be such a hassle that they'd just find
themselves out of a source of amusement.

By the same token, that's why my mailer, Msg, has a built-in encryption
facility that's so incredibly easy to use...

------------------

	On the other hand, it seems we're all dealing with this in an 
  adversarial sort of way...

  That is, if John wants to limit the mail that goes through his system to
  small packets only, or whatever, then what we need to do is to modify the 
  SYSTEM to support that.  For example, let's have mailers that use 
  different routes according to the size of the message...think of it -
  machines that could perhaps direct connect long-distance phone line type
  connections NOW if the message is small (under 2K, say) or queue any
  larger messages for that evening (or a different route even).

	This is, from what I understand, somewhat akin to the ACSnet bit
  about prioritized message packets...

	If I had a machine of my own I'd make my uucp map entry something
  that made calling to my machine reasonably cheap, but calling OUT of
  my machine, even if to a local host, incredibly expensive.  This would
  mean that my machine would be a 'last resort' route if absolutely needed,
  but otherwise I'd never see mail.

	You can't have it both ways - you can't be a "mini-hub" and still
  ask not to have too much mail go through your system...

-------------

	In a ramblin' sort of way, this afternoon,

					-- Dave Taylor
	
					taylor@hplabs