| Author |
Help request - Problem posting anonymously
|
|
| fred_stokes_no_spam@example.com 2005-06-02, 5:46 pm |
| Despite all my attempts to post anonymously, I cannot succeed
using Quicksilver.
It seems that no messages can go through any remailer that I
tried. The remailers are chosen automatically by QS. Am I so
unlucky that QS always picks problematic remailers? I try and
send messages through 2 remailers every time.
| |
| fred_stokes_no_spam@example.com 2005-06-02, 5:47 pm |
| In article <DKU444KH38505.4336805556@si93kru1.poster>
Rantin Elflodger <ElflodgerRantin361@hushmail.deacron.de> wrote:
> Try sending through one specific remailer. Parsifal always works for me.
>
> Is your sending template correct? Take a look at
> http://parsifal.ath.cx/misc/ez.html for an example of a basic sending
> template.
Thanks. I would think posting through 2 remailers would be the
minimum requirement.
As for the templates, I didn't change anything in QS, and
everything worked fine in the past. I don't understand what the
problem might be.
| |
| Rantin Elflodger 2005-06-02, 5:47 pm |
| On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:33:34 +0300, fred_stokes_no_spam wrote:
> In article <DKU444KH38505.4336805556@si93kru1.poster> Rantin Elflodger
> <ElflodgerRantin361@hushmail.deacron.de> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks. I would think posting through 2 remailers would be the minimum
> requirement.
The suggestion to use one remailer was to test your setup in as simple a
way as possible.
>
> As for the templates, I didn't change anything in QS, and everything
> worked fine in the past. I don't understand what the problem might be.
| |
| fred_stokes_no_spam@example.com 2005-06-02, 5:47 pm |
| In article <XMCRU1UE38505.4633564815@si93kru1.poster>
Rantin Elflodger <ElflodgerRantin361@hushmail.dnsarll.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:33:34 +0300, fred_stokes_no_spam wrote:
>
<snip>[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The suggestion to use one remailer was to test your setup in as simple a
> way as possible.
I didn't realise that's what you meant. 
I have a couple more questions:
1. Could my ISP be blocking any outgoing emails to remailers?
2. Can I see the *encrypted message* created by QS before it is
sent out?
| |
| Anonymous 2005-06-02, 5:47 pm |
| In article <20050602153508.86736BBCC1@demokritos4.cytanet.com.cy>
fred_stokes_no_spam@example.com wrote:
>
> In article <XMCRU1UE38505.4633564815@si93kru1.poster>
> Rantin Elflodger <ElflodgerRantin361@hushmail.dnsarll.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> I didn't realise that's what you meant.
>
> I have a couple more questions:
>
> 1. Could my ISP be blocking any outgoing emails to remailers?
Possibly.
> 2. Can I see the *encrypted message* created by QS before it is
> sent out?
Change the "Host" portion of your QS headers to reflect a directory on your
computer, like this:
Fcc: outbox
Host: C:\test
From: example@example.invalid
etc.
QS will then send the encrypted message to that directory as a text file
which you can open and inspect. If you like what you see then you can re-
send the message using your normal means, or even copy it to another client
like Outhouse Express and send it to the first remailer in the chain.
| |
| Anonymous 2005-06-02, 5:47 pm |
| In <20050602141307.DC451BBBEC@demokritos4.cytanet.com.cy>,
fred_stokes_no_spam@example.com wrote:
>Despite all my attempts to post anonymously, I cannot succeed
>using Quicksilver.
>
>It seems that no messages can go through any remailer that I
>tried. The remailers are chosen automatically by QS. Am I so
>unlucky that QS always picks problematic remailers? I try and
>send messages through 2 remailers every time.
1) always use at least 3 remailers
Chain: *,*,*; Copies=3
2) always have QS update stats before sending. it cannot chose good
remailers
if it does not have current stats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 2005-06-03, 5:46 pm |
| In article < 129e51ec3e0957c6e79d6171e078b218@paranoi
ci.org>
Anonymous <nobody@paranoici.org> wrote:
>
> In article <20050602153508.86736BBCC1@demokritos4.cytanet.com.cy>
> fred_stokes_no_spam@example.com wrote:
>
> Possibly.
>
> Change the "Host" portion of your QS headers to reflect a directory on your
> computer, like this:
>
> Fcc: outbox
> Host: C:\test
> From: example@example.invalid
> etc.
>
> QS will then send the encrypted message to that directory as a text file
> which you can open and inspect. If you like what you see then you can re-
> send the message using your normal means, or even copy it to another client
> like Outhouse Express and send it to the first remailer in the chain.
(Excuse my non editing the previous thread)
Thank you for the advice. I'll try it.
| |
| Anonymous 2005-06-03, 5:46 pm |
| In article < f625a65f685b8cd3f56130a1d52beaa8@paranoi
ci.org>
Anonymous <nobody@paranoici.org> wrote:
>
> In <20050602141307.DC451BBBEC@demokritos4.cytanet.com.cy>,
> fred_stokes_no_spam@example.com wrote:
>
> 1) always use at least 3 remailers
>
> Chain: *,*,*; Copies=3
>
> 2) always have QS update stats before sending. it cannot chose good
> remailers
> if it does not have current stats.
I occasionally use aaarg.net or xenophon.homeip.net/echolot/ for
remailer updates.
Are they reliable enough?
| |
| George Orwell 2005-06-03, 5:46 pm |
| In article < f625a65f685b8cd3f56130a1d52beaa8@paranoi
ci.org>
Anonymous <nobody@paranoici.org> wrote:
>
> In <20050602141307.DC451BBBEC@demokritos4.cytanet.com.cy>,
> fred_stokes_no_spam@example.com wrote:
>
> 1) always use at least 3 remailers
>
> Chain: *,*,*; Copies=3
>
> 2) always have QS update stats before sending. it cannot chose good
> remailers
> if it does not have current stats.
I occasionally use aaarg.net or xenophon.homeip.net/echolot/ for
remailer updates.
Are they reliable enough?
..
| |
| Anonymous via Panta Rhei 2005-06-03, 5:47 pm |
| In article < 647faa08321275334930a9f2cb59e288@paranoi
ci.org>
Anonymous <nobody@paranoici.org> wrote:
>
> In article < f625a65f685b8cd3f56130a1d52beaa8@paranoi
ci.org>
> Anonymous <nobody@paranoici.org> wrote:
>
> I occasionally use aaarg.net or xenophon.homeip.net/echolot/ for
> remailer updates.
> Are they reliable enough?
Sure.
Just stay away from:
metacolo Last update: Fri 24 Sep 2004 03:25:39 GMT...!
It's good to download stats from various sources and compare them
occasionally. For the most part they're all fairly consistent, but
sometimes you'll spot some bizarre fluctuations.
Take Panta stats for example. Listed latencies are all over the map,
comparatively speaking. Also panta still lists some dead remailers, which
wouldn't make too much diff to you if your MINREL isn't something stupid
like 0. Really ought to ask Panta-Admin about that sometime...
Some say to pick a stats source which is close to you geographically. I
maintain that's a load of crap. Stats are generated from the remailers'
perspective in ALL cases and they have nothing to do with where you are
located. It makes more logical sense to me to use the stats from the first
remailer in your message's chain, that way at least the first random hop is
based upon something tangible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
|
|
|
|