On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 06:10:14PM +0100, Moritz Bartl wrote: > >> > In summary, I think we should try to expand the way people use Tor, as >> > opposed to pushing them towards less safe solutions. >> >> Interesting. And I tend to agree. I feel there is more and more room for >> a higher-latency suite of applications. > > Anything SMTP (especially if artificially slowed down) seems a good > candidate. Taking a chapter from rms, send your requests to fetch > HTTP resources via an email gateway. NNTP would be another. If you are letting latency rise that high, a Type III remailer suddenly becomes a plausible alternative to Tor. Could it be that the demand for low-latency anonymity of the type Tor provides just isn't that high, as it makes interactive use difficult? > _______________________________________________ > tor-talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
