On 13 Sep 2013, at 21:46, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:17:35PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:53:28 -0500 Nico Williams
>> wrote:
>>> Traffic analysis can't really be defeated, not in detail.
>>
>> What's wrong with mix networks?
>
> First: you ca
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 15:46:58 -0500 Nico Williams
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:17:35PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:53:28 -0500 Nico Williams
> > wrote:
> > > Traffic analysis can't really be defeated, not in detail.
> >
> > What's wrong with mix networks?
>
>
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 03:17:35PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:53:28 -0500 Nico Williams
> wrote:
> > Traffic analysis can't really be defeated, not in detail.
>
> What's wrong with mix networks?
First: you can probably be observed using them. Unless too many people
On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:53:28 -0500 Nico Williams
wrote:
> Traffic analysis can't really be defeated, not in detail.
What's wrong with mix networks?
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzgerpe...@piermont.com
___
The cryptography mailing list
cryptogra
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 04:03:44PM -0700, Nemo wrote:
> Phillip Hallam-Baker writes:
>
> > I have attempted to produce a summary of the discussion so far for use
> > as a requirements document for the PRISM-PROOF email scheme. This is
> > now available as an Internet draft.
> >
> > http://www.iet
Phillip Hallam-Baker writes:
> I have attempted to produce a summary of the discussion so far for use
> as a requirements document for the PRISM-PROOF email scheme. This is
> now available as an Internet draft.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hallambaker-prismproof-req-00.txt
First, I suggest r
