|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > May 2005 > Normalizing Messages
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Normalizing Messages
|
|
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
One of the things that can partition anonymous messages is a pattern
to the headers. For example, if somebody uses an odd header and the
final remailer doesn't remove it, the sender could compromised.
Parsifal gets around this by removing all headers except those needed
to send the message, but, even there, patterns can sometimes be
discerned.
For example, if somebody uses the same four m2n gateways, in the same
order, he might begin to stand out.
There must be a number of other things in headers that tend to
partition senders, and which could be 'normalized' for all senders,
thus lessening the problem.
People may object, however, to any such tampering. Would it, for
example, be objectionable, in your opinion, if a final remailer were
to replace the mail2news gateways with 3 or 4 of its own choosing,
putting them in a random order?
Another example of possible partitioning might be the structure of a
reply: the number of lines between paragaphs, the number of > left
between the original message and the reply. Things like that could be
normalized without affecting the sense of the message, but, again,
some people might find it objectionable.
I suppose the reply to such objections would be that the message is
going to be changed by definition, since it has been encrypted and
various headers removed, so anything that can be done to keep the
sender unknown should be welcomed by the sender.
That's certainly how I would feel, but others may feel differently.
So I'm asking for ideas as to what can be normalized, either in the
headers or in the message, and whether any, or all, of such
normalization is objectionable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQEVAwUBQmwHxc+YNVItMjFNAQHTQQf+J+1xKT9/9GaxjQdMmVxNFelvjJKzNveQ
N7C+UyCf2iYPY0cXcHZCEnbZReN5eTYkxLMrWTYn
+uzVD+rIo+uJ1pVWwqpvryqj
0kA++2+atJPNa73Eqz4Nv456jWOQlXI0c/Tiv8tQ+UEndAf25bOJ7TMugG8cOFdH
mMZIZHlnmFPb35bYktqnyY3yeWeH0RxzOf2ZmjwM
mNWx4flomU61UkEe/Hv0taB6
nTfHT20Hhd7rIjfUJOmJL+Dm/Vf0E/KIhNnb5EIiqHbfGQVwA707DIKYMnZbGpnK
fjR99/ 4p+VHZfDYfivyTGfJ2Eh4MmEkrmKoQlUs6jyr1cN
WiCZkzcQ==
=qhT8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| J.Alfred Prufrock 2005-04-24, 5:45 pm |
| In article <5q1o61dits5bq0v5dulpq15r004bg1nkhn@4ax.com>
admin <admin@parsifal.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> One of the things that can partition anonymous messages is a pattern
> to the headers. For example, if somebody uses an odd header and the
> final remailer doesn't remove it, the sender could compromised.
>
> Parsifal gets around this by removing all headers except those needed
> to send the message, but, even there, patterns can sometimes be
> discerned.
This may come as a shock to you, but some of us like for the
post or email itself to be identifiable. That is, unique.
I am J. A. Prufrock, a fictional character, but with a personality
and special headers that identify me as the person I am.
It does nothing to tie me to an IP address, regular email address,
etc.
It is up to the sender to see if there are any unique headers that
identify him personally, and to adjust his headers accordingly.
As for m2n gateways, there aren't that many to choose from
so we all tend to choose the same ones.
J. A. Prufrock
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:56:50 -0400, admin wrote in
Message-Id: <5q1o61dits5bq0v5dulpq15r004bg1nkhn@4ax.com>:
> One of the things that can partition anonymous messages is a pattern
> to the headers. For example, if somebody uses an odd header and the
> final remailer doesn't remove it, the sender could compromised.
>
> Parsifal gets around this by removing all headers except those needed
> to send the message, but, even there, patterns can sometimes be
> discerned.
Does it remove all headers? I thought both Mixmaster and Reliable only
stripped specific headers as defined by the operator.
> People may object, however, to any such tampering. Would it, for
> example, be objectionable, in your opinion, if a final remailer were
> to replace the mail2news gateways with 3 or 4 of its own choosing,
> putting them in a random order?
If people use a Post directive, the method of posting (and the gateways)
will be selected by the last-hop remailer. Shouldn't matter what order
the gateways are in as everything exiting from that remailer will have
identical characteristics.
> Another example of possible partitioning might be the structure of a
> reply: the number of lines between paragaphs, the number of > left
> between the original message and the reply. Things like that could be
> normalized without affecting the sense of the message, but, again,
> some people might find it objectionable.
You shouldn't do anything to change the message body, it belongs to the
poster. Also, changing the body will break signatures.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iQEUAwUBQmwbQ2oLu9HNUqmMAQoBiQf4pOfIrgxd
4sSgaNqJyWTeRGK8uyIFqXwu
aJBesFoUXGq5gwnC5V4SwQH1HmBp2c+GzLaXuvBk
pujC1tIigmAFQyUjoF5B/ZTH
9X9VvClF3wNgq57mXmq8fzcXHdXBCE1gy6njAdna
lPvGiw1kI824pEzrvKl6TwP2
xmmyH2TI4iRTaMULw4g5bZxCH6WxjZEqqt+TZGCm
uKtLfFwx2tqQR4/tkbY3ronQ
l11TN4n9oLJFAf09VR37b5IOXnJDh1CcAf8MRYq8
Vlw51Ed76Sxcj8srSq/p9nxr
vX9tMgt01rh3tY4m5pCsCKGvQZ25Jm3NNDzPLzPd
JPAYVX7YNwbs
=nY/N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>
| |
| Userbeam Remailer 2005-04-24, 5:45 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, admin <admin@parsifal.ath.cx> wrote:
>For example, if somebody uses the same four m2n gateways, in the same
>order, he might begin to stand out.
>
>There must be a number of other things in headers that tend to
>partition senders, and which could be 'normalized' for all senders,
>thus lessening the problem.
>
>People may object, however, to any such tampering. Would it, for
>example, be objectionable, in your opinion, if a final remailer were
>to replace the mail2news gateways with 3 or 4 of its own choosing,
>putting them in a random order?
People choose mail2news servers based on their reliability and
propagation. Some mail2news servers don't carry all groups. Others
might limit crossposting. It's up to the user which mail2news servers
they wish to use. If a user wishes to use the remailer's choice of
mail2news servers then they will send a Post type message instead of
selecting mail2news servers.
If you really wish to play with this header then take the mail2news
servers that the user chose and randomly put them in a new order. Don't
remove add or change them to different ones.
>Another example of possible partitioning might be the structure of a
>reply: the number of lines between paragaphs, the number of > left
>between the original message and the reply. Things like that could be
>normalized without affecting the sense of the message, but, again,
>some people might find it objectionable.
A lot of people sign their messages. Your editing will prevent their
signature from being valid.
>I suppose the reply to such objections would be that the message is
>going to be changed by definition, since it has been encrypted and
>various headers removed, so anything that can be done to keep the
>sender unknown should be welcomed by the sender.
Headers perhaps, but not body. The body of messages is never touched by
a remailer.
>That's certainly how I would feel, but others may feel differently.
>
>So I'm asking for ideas as to what can be normalized, either in the
>headers or in the message, and whether any, or all, of such
>normalization is objectionable.
Fiddle with headers if you must although I dislike the idea. The body
is up to the user and you should never touch that.
| |
| anonymous@remailer.hastio.org 2005-04-25, 8:45 pm |
| On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, admin <admin@parsifal.ath.cx> wrote:
>=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
>Signature: 0x2D32314D
>Date:
>Status: INVALID (Unknown)
>
>One of the things that can partition anonymous messages is a pattern
>to the headers. For example, if somebody uses an odd header and the
>final remailer doesn't remove it, the sender could compromised.
>
>Parsifal gets around this by removing all headers except those needed
>to send the message, but, even there, patterns can sometimes be
>discerned.
Up to this point you are ok
>For example, if somebody uses the same four m2n gateways, in the same
>order, he might begin to stand out.
>
>There must be a number of other things in headers that tend to
>partition senders, and which could be 'normalized' for all senders,
>thus lessening the problem.
>
>People may object, however, to any such tampering. Would it, for
Damn right!
>example, be objectionable, in your opinion, if a final remailer were
>to replace the mail2news gateways with 3 or 4 of its own choosing,
>putting them in a random order?
YES! I (and most others I presume.) choose m2n based on preference and
experience. LEAVE USER'S MESSAGE ALONE!
>Another example of possible partitioning might be the structure of a
>reply: the number of lines between paragaphs, the number of > left
>between the original message and the reply. Things like that could be
>normalized without affecting the sense of the message, but, again,
>some people might find it objectionable.
>
>I suppose the reply to such objections would be that the message is
>going to be changed by definition, since it has been encrypted and
>various headers removed, so anything that can be done to keep the
>sender unknown should be welcomed by the sender.
>
>That's certainly how I would feel, but others may feel differently.
>
>So I'm asking for ideas as to what can be normalized, either in the
>headers or in the message, and whether any, or all, of such
>normalization is objectionable.
WHEN will you get it? LEAVE MESSAGES ALONE!
Pass them on, use the senders instructions, or close shop and go home.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
| |
| Anonymous 2005-04-26, 7:45 am |
| On , Zax <fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA512
>
>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:56:50 -0400, admin wrote in
>Message-Id: <5q1o61dits5bq0v5dulpq15r004bg1nkhn@4ax.com>:
>
>
>Does it remove all headers? I thought both Mixmaster and Reliable only
>stripped specific headers as defined by the operator.
It can if he's been farkin around with the source... In which case is even more reason to avoid his 'remailers' like the plague!
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:18:43 +0000 (UTC), Zax
<fleegle@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 16:56:50 -0400, admin wrote in
>Message-Id: <5q1o61dits5bq0v5dulpq15r004bg1nkhn@4ax.com>:
>
>
>Does it remove all headers? I thought both Mixmaster and Reliable
>only stripped specific headers as defined by the operator.
Last-hop messages are cycled through a small VB program to process
headers and then returned to Reliable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQEVAwUBQm4i/ s+YNVItMjFNAQFkfwf+KhWyMOdyoWTrhVIkPXIvh
0Vb6aja7b5t
RwynXjVbOr9nspAUVWh94nIAxFu0+LVznJDDUfoA
nav6izLrbfY+dnqLSotaSorq
QK26uhGCcpAIDM9KI35ucGCcBs/L7H5dFhF5ob0OMSftJsvhyEXmIoDrFd08x3rq
rqNySGDhvaCxQvQIYIEk5EUgcVfNLTUI1Tx8HxZL
pq0/wsGPkfW5ct/FvDpKD/P/
hfiYccrr0PKilP3IPRP8aFXT8a49eKCJjYI57bJf
UYp7lRo6smLCkjMR1wjNzlzm
TC40LLCsoG4dpKxqeYy2r16prrdSCGOWdZkNGnGg
Y0A+42spNE33og==
=tC1a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2005-05-01, 5:48 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
admin wrote:
<snip>
> So I'm asking for ideas as to what can be normalized, either in the
> headers or in the message, and whether any, or all, of such
> normalization is objectionable.
Why are you so obsessed with changing your users stuff without asking
them for this first? Besides, this should be done on the client level if
anywhere and not on the last hop (in which case the partitioning that
you speak of has already taken place despite your efforts to correct the
users error)..
Maybe there should be a new 'Parsifal' directive in the mixmaster server
software. You could specify it and people not wanting to use it could
ignore it.
hth,
Thomas
- --
"Nothing is true. Everything is permitted" - W.S. Burroughs, Naked Lunch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQnJeYAEP2l8iXKAJAQFxsQMgnqdlC5oc
Biswr/GBho/X7XhfcK9exm86
bEPiuFJ9UH5TXAiT1GcnvIN9lq3boZjRS6mWEa2q
wAAdMGFYXi51zYpZekIwCFda
N3n2cJbQnvYdLbpYHrBkhKonrLkeNrQO6RGY8Q==
=qPaH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| A.Melon 2005-05-01, 5:49 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In article <427262f9$0$777$3a628fcd@reader20.nntp.hccnet.nl>
Thomas J. Boschloo <nospam@hccnet.nl.invalid> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> admin wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Why are you so obsessed with changing your users stuff without asking
because he's incapable of learning that such things are none of
a remops business.
> them for this first? Besides, this should be done on the client level if
> anywhere and not on the last hop (in which case the partitioning that
> you speak of has already taken place despite your efforts to correct the
> users error)..
>
> Maybe there should be a new 'Parsifal' directive in the mixmaster server
yeah, it would cause the post to be edited for form and content
and then posted on video billboards across the globe.
not to worry though, after he got thru with the edits it would
be unreadable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQnRmjM/ fycBOJ+clAQKWfAf+MaA02CVl1IzkkxXGwhPdfow
OEFsnmbAb
TbnzFMvf5JB5WBU2QI+/8aKjQkflXBqDupCFJiS/a1kcchxVLAMcBc6X8BHhPBnV
M2aoqHj7yvJmI2692yUgtnSWpbai7+iTn+dnKP1/hpwgv449uv4OsYEgq1nZaef4
bJfRwLfAUrwlhrUD4peM9miwrKthhBOgEl0+etSO
8GTyocKn8t9qJH5OLgyk0Prp
1DjNauxaVzuHqpVrsSzecl7Vd9wXHiav9N86VGdp
Vi1d/syBE9ZGzP2rd6IS+noN
8CwwO8hIOjUAQT+V02TnMgXW5wQknMLt0Di3xo9S
RxJaam8ODE8L1w==
=LOa+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
|
|
|
|
|