Well, the servers have to be able to see the whole path header so they can check for their own name and drop the message it it's already present. Otherwise you get message loops, or you have to arrange the network so there can be no circular flows, which would require a centralized administration inconsistent with your proposed cell structure. It would be sufficient for the names in the path header to be arbitrary handles with no relation to the server's identities, though.
It could be worse. In fifty years there probably won't even be text fora like this. Written language will be a lost secret of the mysterious past and it'll all just be morons grunting at each other over webcams.
Is this entire site populated by illiterates?
on
SGI Arises From the Ashes
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In a really paranoid environment, Usenet can be compartmentalized; you would pull the feed from the person directly above you in your hierarchy, and they would pass traffic to someone else above them, without you knowing who the upstream provider is.
I'm sure somewhere, you could find people who would be willing to let you beat them with a rubber hose on a daily basis; they'd just be very expensive. (If they had any other skills besides 'will allow self to be beaten regularly.')
Hey, some of us would do that for free.:)
So use a threshold scheme so that no one person has access to the secret key, but it can still be recovered if someone loses their share. Yes, this makes it a pain in the butt to decrypt the backups, but if you need to restore often enough that this is an issue, you probably have bigger problems.
Slashdot Mirror
John 3:16
2 Kings 2:23
Well, the servers have to be able to see the whole path header so they can check for their own name and drop the message it it's already present. Otherwise you get message loops, or you have to arrange the network so there can be no circular flows, which would require a centralized administration inconsistent with your proposed cell structure. It would be sufficient for the names in the path header to be arbitrary handles with no relation to the server's identities, though.
It could be worse. In fifty years there probably won't even be text fora like this. Written language will be a lost secret of the mysterious past and it'll all just be morons grunting at each other over webcams.
Sheesh. That should be 'death throes'.
In a really paranoid environment, Usenet can be compartmentalized; you would pull the feed from the person directly above you in your hierarchy, and they would pass traffic to someone else above them, without you knowing who the upstream provider is.
You know about the Path: header, right?
I'm sure somewhere, you could find people who would be willing to let you beat them with a rubber hose on a daily basis; they'd just be very expensive. (If they had any other skills besides 'will allow self to be beaten regularly.') Hey, some of us would do that for free. :)
Well, I think that's the point. You're not supposed to steal the cart to take your groceries home.
I'm guessing someone would have noticed the pyramids.
Well, who *is* George Burns?
So use a threshold scheme so that no one person has access to the secret key, but it can still be recovered if someone loses their share. Yes, this makes it a pain in the butt to decrypt the backups, but if you need to restore often enough that this is an issue, you probably have bigger problems.
Yes, inbreeding is bad. Here's a free clue: sex doesn't necessarily imply breeding.