XPost: alt.privacy.anon-server, misc.phone.mobile.iphone   
   From: nobody@yamn.paranoici.org   
      
   Bob  wrote:   
   > Yamn Remailer wrote:   
   >   
   >> You're mad! He did a comparison including a score for each of the items.   
   >>   
   >> The most severe problems seem to be   
   >>   
   >> | >> So tell us some facts about the superiority of your system compared   
   >> | >> with the Mixmaster / YAMN design, where for example we have   
   >> | >>   
   >> | >> - a uniform packet design irrespective of message size   
   >> | >   
   >> | >The Onion Courier Mixnet uses with it's client random adaptive padding   
   >> | >when sending messages, so that third parties do not know what is send,   
   >> | >compared to fixed padding payloads. Once the messages enters the pool   
   >> | >padding will be removed and then fixed size padding at each hop will   
   >> | >be applied.   
   >> |   
   >> | Worse - That's a devastating flaw of your not so modern Type 1 system,   
   >> | as padding only increases size and a larger message is doomed to stick   
   >> | out like a sore thumb, whereas with Type 2 remailers all packets are of   
   >> | equal size of 4 kB (Mixmaster) or 20 kB (YAMN) with larger messages   
   >> | being split and reassembled at the exit remailer.  That's the main   
   >> | reason why Type 1 remailing is obsolete and was abandoned years ago in   
   >> | favour of Type 2 Mixmaster / YAMN!   
   >>   
   >> and   
   >>   
   >> | >> - message routing through multiple chains to increase reliability   
   >> | >   
   >> | >The Onion Courier Mixnet, compared to the Mixmaster and YAMN Mixnet,   
   >> | >is totally decentralized and anonymous mix nodes can communicate with   
   >> | >public Tor Hidden Service mix nodes to form different chains.   
   >> |   
   >> | Worse - Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAICS each message is sent through   
   >> | just one single chain of nodes, which means it gets lost if one of these   
   >> | nodes is down.   
   >>   
   >> To me those are knockout criteria.   
   >>   
   >> So a simple question: Is he right?   
   >   
   > We should ask ourselves the following questions for a) and b).   
   >   
   > a) What can ISPs see when examining tor cells, each 514 bytes in size? Can   
   they   
   > count that you always send equal in size remailer packets when using YAMN   
   and know then that you use a remailer service? I would say yes. With adaptive   
   padding they have a much harder time to guess, no?   
   >   
   > b) Don't you loose remailer packets, if you use copies=n with the same chain   
   when one node is down or when selecting random yamn chains and a node is down?   
      
      
     You blow smoke.  Answer the question!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)