| Author |
Can remailers be trusted?
|
|
| Jay Public 2005-05-24, 2:45 am |
| Can remailers be trusted? Just ask yourself a few questions for the answer.
1. Do you know the operator of the remailer?
2. Can they be absolutely trusted?
3. Why do they run the service?
4. How do you know that the same operator isn't running multiple remailers.
5. Are logs kept?
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2005-05-24, 7:45 am |
| In article <SXBWCY5W38496.0328240741@si93kru1.poster>
Jay Public <Jay.Public@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> Can remailers be trusted?
Of course not. Remailers are built on a lack of trust. You're
not meant to trust any remailer. Provided that you sufficiently
chain, your message is anonymous even if all but one of the
remailers in your chain are run by TLA's.
| |
| vhzjvfz 2005-05-24, 7:45 am |
| On 2005 Jay Public said:
> 1. Do you know the operator of the remailer?
I've met a few of them. They are mostly harmless.
> 2. Can they be absolutely trusted?
No. Just like everyone can't be absolutely trusted.
> 3. Why do they run the service?
Because they want to.
> 4. How do you know that the same operator isn't running multiple remailers.
You can't, unless the operator is a complete AMATEUR.
> 5. Are logs kept?
Probably, yes.
So what?
| |
| Privado 2005-05-25, 5:47 pm |
| Mostly they can be trusted to waste alot of your time due to the fact
that they screw up so much. What do you expect from services run for
free by guys that really cannot stay on top of things?
Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote in
news:PAPFGL2F38496.7184143519@reece.net.au:
> In article <SXBWCY5W38496.0328240741@si93kru1.poster>
> Jay Public <Jay.Public@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> Of course not. Remailers are built on a lack of trust. You're
> not meant to trust any remailer. Provided that you sufficiently
> chain, your message is anonymous even if all but one of the
> remailers in your chain are run by TLA's.
>
>
| |
| J.Alfred Prufrock 2005-05-25, 5:47 pm |
| In article < GNU9661784651C65PrivadohorseshitWOPs@213
.155.197.138>
Privado <Privado@horseshitWOPserver.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Mostly they can be trusted to waste alot of your time due to the fact
> that they screw up so much. What do you expect from services run for
> free by guys that really cannot stay on top of things?
>
> Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote in
> news:PAPFGL2F38496.7184143519@reece.net.au:
>
Since you're not posting via remailer, and I am,
may I assume that means that 1) the remailers
do a fine job of posting and 2) you don't know
how to use them effectively?
And since you "top post" you don't really have
a firm grip on newsgroup etiquette.
J. A. Prufrock
| |
| George Orwell 2005-05-25, 8:45 pm |
| In < GNU9661784651C65PrivadohorseshitWOPs@213
.155.197.138>,
Privado@horseshitWOPserver.com wrote:
>Mostly they can be trusted to waste alot of your time due to the fact
>that they screw up so much. What do you expect from services run for
>free by guys that really cannot stay on top of things?
>
Funny, They work pretty good for me.
But then I actually *HAVE* a clue.
I'ts tiny, but it's a clue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
|
|
|