At 1:03 AM -0400 9/20/00, Asymmetric wrote:
At 13:47 09/19/2000 -0700, Tim May wrote:
(P.S. Lose the toad.com address. Get a clue. Or, since you appear to be a luser, "loose the toad.com address.")
You keep sending to it yourself. Mind explaining what the problem is?
And how many anonymously-remailed messages to this list have ever, in all the years of this list, included reply blocks? No more than a small handful, as I recall seeing.
Exactly my point.
A weasler. You previously claimed that remailers routinely allowed this. Note that they usually don't, and certainly not without the remailer blocks present. Given that virtually no such messages made to the CP list have included such blocks, clearly what you claimed was not feasible.
"the remailers allowed return mail" is terribly misleading, and probably arises out of ignorance of what reply blocks are and why they are so difficult to use, rather than imprecision in language.
I did rather mean pseudo-anonymous remailer, and the other response indicating I was talking about Julfs' remailer was correct. It's not as though his was the only one that existed either, just the most popular.. likely among the most popular BECAUSE it kept this database and allowed responses;
This is a lie. Plain and simple. There was Kremvax, but this predated Julf's PENET service by a couple of years. At the time of Julf's service, roughly 1992 to its shutdown in 1996, there were no other such systems. Please name one if you can. Your language above shows that your are you just bullshitting. You can't name a viable competitor, because there weren't any. And Julf's system has been down for four years. A lifetime in Internet years. Certainly of no relevance whatsover to your plaintiff calls for people to use reply-enable remailers if they wish to post to the list.
If the database it was using had been encrypted with a key known only to the remailer software itself, then it would have been easier for him to refuse to give up the information that he was ordered to produce.
Duh. Are you just now figuring this stuff out?
As for my being naive as you claim in a second here, who is really being naive here? You think that just because the remailer doesn't maintain an active database of nym mappings that it's immdiately impossible for it to be reversed? You implicitly trust anyone who says "here, use my remailer, I guarantee it's anonymous?" Get with the program. One fucking line on a console, in a firewall rule, anywhere along the way could fuck you into losing your anonymity, unless the message was sent encrypted to the remailer, and that's just to start with.
Duh. Get back to us when you figure out how chained remailers work, with PGP-nested messages. On second thought, _don't_ get back to us.
I think that using a forged header is just as reliable as using an anonymous remailer, and just as anonymous if done right. There is no "port 25" hack involved. It's as simple as setting whatever email software you use to use X as it's smtp server, and then entering a nonexistant return address somewhere else. At best, you'll be totally anonymous.
You have zero understanding of the issues involved. I regret having wasted even ten minutes today responding to you.
On another note, if you're clued in enough to even know what an anonymous remailer is, where they can be found, and how to use them,
This is rich. See my 1992 presentation on Chaumian remailers, given at the first Cypherpunks meeting, in September. See the earlier cited memos from 1988-91. See the features I described in detail. Compare to the reality of extant remailers. Then repeat your above comment with a straight face. Fucking newbies. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.