| Joe Fox 2005-10-28, 5:30 pm |
|
Excuse the top-post, but it seems to me that a really good ng to find
solutions involving email anonymity would be alt.privacy.anon-server
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:0fj0m1hir34fhqg5ehf7p8gop57lo0pvs0@
4ax.com:
> On 25 Oct 2005 23:59:29 -0700, spamharvestor@gmail.com said in
> alt.usenet.offline-reader.forte-agent:
>
>
> Also, every time he tries to send an email, the email server sends him
> packets (read the RFC for the email protocol), and he never gets them,
> because they're being sent to the wrong address, so his email program
> never gets past the first "hello, mail server, are you there?" packet.
>
>
>
> Sure it is. The authorities are following the law. A law which gives
> them the authority to read every internet packet going through their
> country.
>
>
> No, the parcel that says, "yes, I'm here, send me the address to send
> the mail to" can't be delivered to the mail sender's email program, so
> the program can never send the mail.
>
> Email can't be UDP, because email is a verified protocol - the program
> knows that it's been delivered to the next point. If you want to send
> unverified packets - UDP - there are plenty of programs that do it -
> but that's not how email works.
>
>
> Again - faking his email address prevents him from sending email. Talk
> just sends packets blind, so it doesn't need a return address. But
> there's no way to know that something you sent by talk got there,
> since there's no one to tell if it did - no return address.
>
> Your choice - non-hidden address or no way of knowing if the message
> got to the intended recipient.
>
|