SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST

[qut@netcom.com (Be Good)]

> On Tue, 14 May 1996, Keith Henson wrote:
> 
> > was to Krup.   I can't speak for all of them--actually, I can't speak
> > for *any* of them, but the ones who have said anything about the
> > recent uses of the remailers do not seem unhappy.  There may be
> > some discussion related to this on the cypherpunks mailing list.
> 
> Actually, there hasn't really been any discussion on cypherpunks, which I
> find a little surprising. I'd have thought that a remailer going down
> because of political/legal pressure would raise more of a ruckus. People
> seem jaded, but I'm not sure why.
> 
> I posted a half dozen articles to comp.org.eff.talk, more to stimulate
> discussion than to argue a position. We trolled up a statement from Hal
> Finney to the effect that remailers might need to be restricted in order
> to save them -- which I found to be rather provocative, but nobody said
> anything. Anybody?

The remailer capacity is quite underdone, there aren't really 
that many remailer servers out there.  Only TWO servers outside
the US.  Only ONE server making direct posts to netnews.  And
what, two or three nym servers?  Obviously this is severe 
undercapacity and we need to start up MUCH more servers and
FAST, ESPECIALLY in foriegn countries.

IMHO, trying to make it more user friendly to use remailers
is pointless considering the limited number of servers to use.

I'm CLUELESS about this stuff, I'd love to help, at least by
distributing code and exact intructions to make it as easy
as possible to encourage clueless types to start it up.

So what is the expense of setting up a full-featured server
like hacktic?  Mr. Graves should start up a new server, and
tcmay is rich, so he has no excuse.



-- 
		God grant me the serenity to accept
		the things I cannot change,
		the courage to change the things I can,
		and the wisdom to know the difference