Paul Ferguson wrote: I have been experimenting the past few days with anon remailer to USENET gateway systems to see what the results would be -- nada. ... My guess is that the usenet gateway at utexas refuses anon e-mail. Anyone got any other suggestions? I haven't tried any other gateways -- yet. I had a similar experience with utexas. It worked the first time I tried it, but failed on a subsequent attempt. I suspect that after some complaint utexas was modified to reject anonymous input. Here is my list of E-mail/Usenet gateways: group-name@ucbvax.berkeley.edu * (blocked from non-bky sites) group-name@cs.utexas.edu * (was working but now blocked???) group-name@pws.bull.com * (Bounced to remailer) group-name@demon.co.uk group.name.usenet@decwrl.dec.com group.name@news.cs.indiana.edu Note that some of these require trans-literation of periods to dashes in the newsgroup name; others do not. Ucbvax is supposed to block mail from non-Berkely sites; it might work from these Cypherpunks remailers (I haven't tried it): 1: hh@pmantis.berkeley.edu 2: hh@cicada.berkeley.edu 3: hh@soda.berkeley.edu Utexas see above, bull bounced to the (wimsey) remailer; I haven't tried the others yet. But I'm afraid that the utexas story will be repeated for any gateway that continues to allow anonymous posting to newsgroups. I see the obvious solution is for the Cypherpunks remailers to support direct anonymous posting. Certainly the programming should be trivial. The "political" risk is something to consider, however. But we are supposed to be the fearless leaders to crypto-anarchy. "If not us, who? If not now, when?" -- edgar@spectrx.saigon.com (Edgar W. Swank) SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Cupertino, Ca