|
Home > Archive > Anonymous Servers > January 2006 > Script To Choose Exit Remailers With Custom From Headers
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 |
Script To Choose Exit Remailers With Custom From Headers
|
|
|
| Somebody posted a bash and Python script here several
weeks ago that make anonymous replies to usenet
postings very convenient - if you are using linux and
the Pan newsreader.
I tweaked them a bit to display a menu from which you
can choose which exit remailer you want, or, if you don't
want a custom From header, you can have it write out
your reply without a 'from' header, and the randomly-
chosen exit remailer will use its default header.
The scripts are at:
remop.150m.com/bash1
remop.150m.com/python1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The message above came through a remailer.
The original sender is unknown.
Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
Complaints? See the Comments in the headers.
****************************************
*
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-25, 2:49 am |
| admin wrote:
> Somebody posted a bash and Python script here several weeks ago that make
> anonymous replies to usenet postings very convenient - if you are using
> linux and the Pan newsreader.
>
> I tweaked them a bit to display a menu from which you can choose which
I wonder if the original author knows you changed the script's name and
not much else?
That script fails miserably on long headers. Fails to write subjects,
mucks up threading... etc.
You also broke something else so that now it apparently appends a bunch of
commas to the end of your Newsgroups: header, which pretty much outs you
on a couple other posts. Nice!
Anyways, I have a version here that fixes most of the header length
problems, eliminates the bash script, picks a random mid-chain remailer
from a configured list, picks a random exit from another list, randomly
varies the mixmaster 'chains=' directive across a defined range, randomly
chooses N-1 mail2news gateways from a list of N gateways, and randomly
selects between multiple versions of Mixmaster if you want.
Oh yeah, and it does a rudimentary check to see if it's actually looking
at a Usenet post so it doesn't blindly nuke files if it happens to misfire.
Anyone interested?
| |
|
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if the original author knows you changed the script's name and
> not much else?
>
> That script fails miserably on long headers. Fails to write subjects,
> mucks up threading... etc.
>
> You also broke something else so that now it apparently appends a bunch of
> commas to the end of your Newsgroups: header, which pretty much outs you
> on a couple other posts. Nice!
>
> Anyways, I have a version here that fixes most of the header length
> problems, eliminates the bash script, picks a random mid-chain remailer
> from a configured list, picks a random exit from another list, randomly
> varies the mixmaster 'chains=' directive across a defined range, randomly
> chooses N-1 mail2news gateways from a list of N gateways, and randomly
> selects between multiple versions of Mixmaster if you want.
>
> Oh yeah, and it does a rudimentary check to see if it's actually looking
> at a Usenet post so it doesn't blindly nuke files if it happens to misfire.
>
> Anyone interested?
You can but post, and let readers consider.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-25, 8:16 am |
| George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
[snip][vbcol=seagreen]
> Anyways, I have a version here that fixes most of the header length
> problems, eliminates the bash script, picks a random mid-chain remailer
> from a configured list, picks a random exit from another list, randomly
> varies the mixmaster 'chains=' directive across a defined range, randomly
> chooses N-1 mail2news gateways from a list of N gateways, and randomly
> selects between multiple versions of Mixmaster if you want.
>
> Oh yeah, and it does a rudimentary check to see if it's actually looking
> at a Usenet post so it doesn't blindly nuke files if it happens to misfire.
>
> Anyone interested?
Yes, please post.
Does it use cpunk or mix remailers? If mix, what is the advantage over
using 'mixmaster -ff $article'?
Thanks.
| |
| Edith Wharton 2006-01-25, 8:16 am |
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if the original author knows you changed the script's name and
> not much else?
That's what 'tweaked' means.
>
> That script fails miserably on long headers.
> Fails to write subjects,
That's a lie.
> mucks up threading... etc.
So is that.
>
> You also broke something else so that now it apparently appends a bunch of
> commas to the end of your Newsgroups: header, which pretty much outs you
> on a couple other posts. Nice!
That's another lie.
>
> Anyways, I have a version here that fixes most of the header length
> problems, eliminates the bash script, picks a random mid-chain remailer
> from a configured list, picks a random exit from another list, randomly
> varies the mixmaster 'chains=' directive across a defined range, randomly
> chooses N-1 mail2news gateways from a list of N gateways, and randomly
> selects between multiple versions of Mixmaster if you want.
>
> Oh yeah, and it does a rudimentary check to see if it's actually looking
> at a Usenet post so it doesn't blindly nuke files if it happens to
> misfire.
>
> Anyone interested?
Ordinarily I would be; but you are such a liar that I wonder what your
script really does.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The message above came through a remailer.
The original sender is unknown.
Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
Complaints? See the Comments in the headers.
****************************************
*
| |
| admin@nowhere.comm 2006-01-25, 8:16 am |
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if the original author knows you changed the script's name and
> not much else?
>
> That script fails miserably on long headers. Fails to write subjects,
> mucks up threading... etc.
>
> You also broke something else so that now it apparently appends a bunch of
> commas to the end of your Newsgroups: header, which pretty much outs you
> on a couple other posts. Nice!
>
> Anyways, I have a version here that fixes most of the header length
> problems, eliminates the bash script, picks a random mid-chain remailer
> from a configured list, picks a random exit from another list, randomly
> varies the mixmaster 'chains=' directive across a defined range, randomly
> chooses N-1 mail2news gateways from a list of N gateways, and randomly
> selects between multiple versions of Mixmaster if you want.
>
> Oh yeah, and it does a rudimentary check to see if it's actually looking
> at a Usenet post so it doesn't blindly nuke files if it happens to
> misfire.
>
> Anyone interested?
Don't be coy. Of course we are. Please post it here or give us a pointer to a website.
| |
|
| In article < 986530de0b894b1fe8f17815c161a095@mixmast
er.it>
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> admin wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if the original author knows you changed the script's name and
> not much else?
>
> That script fails miserably on long headers. Fails to write subjects,
> mucks up threading... etc.
>
> You also broke something else so that now it apparently appends a bunch of
> commas to the end of your Newsgroups: header, which pretty much outs you
> on a couple other posts. Nice!
>
> Anyways, I have a version here that fixes most of the header length
> problems, eliminates the bash script, picks a random mid-chain remailer
> from a configured list, picks a random exit from another list, randomly
> varies the mixmaster 'chains=' directive across a defined range, randomly
> chooses N-1 mail2news gateways from a list of N gateways, and randomly
> selects between multiple versions of Mixmaster if you want.
>
> Oh yeah, and it does a rudimentary check to see if it's actually looking
> at a Usenet post so it doesn't blindly nuke files if it happens to misfire.
>
> Anyone interested?
Please compile and send Windows binaries to me please.
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100 (CET), George Orwell wrote in
Message-Id: < 986530de0b894b1fe8f17815c161a095@mixmast
er.it>:
> You also broke something else so that now it apparently appends a bunch of
> commas to the end of your Newsgroups: header, which pretty much outs you
> on a couple other posts. Nice!
Ouch, I should have noticed that too. Apart from blowing your identity,
mixmaster counts the commas to work out how many groups are being
crossposted to. It doesn't care that there's nothing between the
commas.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBQ9dvt2oLu9HNUqmMAQq1pwf+JPpgdijm
pzAP8fv99QqZYD/ExZLNXc6D
wX3EmY035XebtJN/eWnxszlh6do/DOixcNpr4wGWquueYdPuHe9d5JzYWIbin4AZ
RtlNV5LXZkDPqrP21WVvTMquauRY0Ohb3whtG/9JloCjKhggOPLOwBE7fSQd2ouv
ss3HqGKDek+pR0uAlIztdYpJNTMPvb4mJ6kGrSC/Z4vZBMXWQ0Luc252ccaSeLwF
WAlMTOE36PBqOERQhequyZeAu6BCgF8nqs0jB2B//DCm6NfSUNhc/wyE6kK3Q3X6
u0fojRbD8Wffw75TX++3BPHIcT2y3YrMxeLVIDoN
n3kCQXW/mhAtKw==
=7aq5
-----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>
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>=20
> You also broke something else so that now it apparently appends a bunch=
of
> commas to the end of your Newsgroups: header, which pretty much outs yo=
u
> on a couple other posts. Nice!
>=20
You are definitely not lying about that. My apologies for allowing such a=
n
error to go through.
Since you are going to supply us with a better script, and are probably
the anonymous poster who provided the script that I tweaked (I would
have given you credit by name, but couldn't), there is no point in anyone
using my inferior script.
At least my efforts have resulted in somebody making available his
superior efforts. For those of us who post using Linux that is good news,
and I hope other people will be encouraged to join in your efforts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD13ZuEC+g9Qawm6QRAthUAJ9KLl6OHGqp
+rjPyNKa0S3+OT140gCgrSPy
DdNx6SIpYydCRqmS/QQU9OM=3D
=3DP2zk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| In article <RH444TYF38742.586712963@reece.net.au>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Please compile and send Windows binaries to me please.
You don't 'compile' scripts. Could you be any stupider?
| |
|
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>
> Anyways, I have a version here that fixes most of the header length
> problems, eliminates the bash script, picks a random mid-chain remailer
> from a configured list, picks a random exit from another list, randomly
> varies the mixmaster 'chains=' directive across a defined range, randomly
> chooses N-1 mail2news gateways from a list of N gateways, and randomly
> selects between multiple versions of Mixmaster if you want.
>
> Oh yeah, and it does a rudimentary check to see if it's actually looking
> at a Usenet post so it doesn't blindly nuke files if it happens to
> misfire.
It is good to see that someone who knows how to write these scripts
is actually speaking up, if anonymously, and making one available.
One of the things that is badly missing from the work that the
remailer gurus do, is a utility to make it possible for the average
guy to initiate or reply anonymously.
This script is a good example of what is needed. It's too bad that it
is for linux/Pan use only (I assume). The great majority of remailer
users or potential users are running windows.
People sometimes object that it is already easy to send anonymous
messages in windows - just use QS or JBN.
If you know something about computers and enjoy putzing around with
them, then, yes, it's easy. But for the average guy, it is not easy.
If you think that having a bigger crowd of remailer users is a good
thing, then you have to make it easier for people to get started and
to send anonymous messages at the click of a button, as often as they
want, without changing this and that for each send.
A couple of things that occur to me that might be useful:
ENHANCE QS
or write a script/program, that allows it to run in the
system tray, and lets the user reply with his favorite news client
but that transfers the reply to a QS template and writes out his
reply via a chain of remailers.
Somebody will now say: he can already do that with a couple of mouse
clicks - just select all/copy/paste into the QS 'clipboard'.
Of course, the user has to make sure he turned on 'show all headers',
has to click on the QS 'clipboard' selection, then choose 'reply' or
'followup', then choose a template, etc.
The average guy is not going to do that.
It's like asking why you need a starter motor in your car; after all,
it only takes a few seconds to get out of the car and turn the crank
at the bottom of the radiator.
I wonder what the auto industry would be like today if all cars were
started by turning the crank at the bottom of the radiator?
CALL MIXMASTER DIRECTLY
Write a script that will, somehow, take the message that a user has
typed into his regular email client, and do what the anonymous
poster's script does - format the email message and the command line
for mixmaster.
I suppose the tough part is getting a copy, with headers, of the
message, without making the user do too much work.
In linux, with Pan, you just need to click on the 'send later'
button.
In windows, with, for example, Agent, you can save the message, but
it goes to a database of some kind, with an .idx (I think) file that
keeps track of it.
With other news clients, it will be some other scheme.
Admittedly, I know little about programming or scripting, but it is
obvious that sending anonymous posts through the existing remailer
network could be made far easier than it is now.
My guess is that the people that know how to make it easier don't
think it is worth doing, either because they don't think it will
help the cause of personal privacy, or because they think it is
already easy enough.
On the first point, it seems obvious to me that if sending email and
news posts anonymously were to become the standard, it would make
the security of all anonymous emails and usenet posts better; even
more, it might change the average man's attitude toward his own
personal privacy, and make him wonder if being bugged by his cell
phone, or the OnStar in his car, is really nothing to be concerned
about.
On the second point, this is the solipsistic attitude that too
many people have: it's easy for me, therefore it must be easy for
everybody; and if it isn't easy for someone he must be a mental
defective and why should I bother making it even easier for him?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD121IEC+g9Qawm6QRAjXrAKCe1br2td/eA2DPhI+G74cMWl/gtACg1VRP
wsdtjaA7JUmPNLp7nM5Jgq4=
=lpeZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
|
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:31:51 +0000, Zax wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100 (CET), George Orwell wrote in
> Message-Id: < 986530de0b894b1fe8f17815c161a095@mixmast
er.it>:
>
>
> Ouch, I should have noticed that too. Apart from blowing your identity,
> mixmaster counts the commas to work out how many groups are being
> crossposted to. It doesn't care that there's nothing between the commas.
Have you, or George Orwell, if you are there, George - have you guys seen
this happen as a result of running the scripts, or are you going by test
posts that I made, and that you somehow spotted on alt.test?
The reason I'm asking is that I am seeing the Newsgroups:
alt.privacy.anon-server,,,,
thing show up, sometimes, when I click the followup button in Pan, so, as
far as I can tell, it is a problem with Pan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFD169xEC+g9Qawm6QRAmlaAJ9c2gRSRFQO
wIeEkfgPUQi+y1YhXACcD+u5
eArzsigatOfkvsfIGTprcBU=
=dqPI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The message above came through a remailer.
The original sender is unknown.
Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
Complaints? See the Comments in the headers.
****************************************
*
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Thrasher Remailer wrote:
> In article <RH444TYF38742.586712963@reece.net.au>
> admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> You don't 'compile' scripts. Could you be any stupider?
Yeah, he could be running binaries send to him on his remailer server
computer. Does that seem far fetched?
[Mixminion was also written in Python btw]
Thomas
- --
Robert Heinlein: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and
shout"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQ9e1RgEP2l8iXKAJAQF/6AMfQAuinjbxKUsaV6QI3Zh+BK0ehaMCrzo4
Y3AiHVxcfNnFN3tLbOct6n0hHjB6oTKXJU4X01ST
qeeS8V4kG0BxBxLNUEpmk7Sb
1HAB5roCcYt1tShz7i7f20nFfDTACCaCgaf0qw==
=H7xu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>On the first point, it seems obvious to me that if sending email and
>news posts anonymously were to become the standard, it would make
>the security of all anonymous emails and usenet posts better; even
>more, it might change the average man's attitude toward his own
>personal privacy, and make him wonder if being bugged by his cell
>phone, or the OnStar in his car, is really nothing to be concerned
>about.
>
>On the second point, this is the solipsistic attitude that too
>many people have: it's easy for me, therefore it must be easy for
>everybody; and if it isn't easy for someone he must be a mental
>defective and why should I bother making it even easier for him?
Your obsessions are showing again, SecureBeer. Oops, I mean slugpunch.
Oops, eelbash. You are obsessed with dumbing down encryption.
XXXX off. If you can't make a slight effort to learn some painfully simple
concepts, then do without.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| In article < 986530de0b894b1fe8f17815c161a095@mixmast
er.it>
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> You also broke something else so that now it apparently appends a bunch of
> commas to the end of your Newsgroups: header, which pretty much outs you
> on a couple other posts. Nice!
Actually that's a problem with Amigo's mail2news server
mail2news@remailer.org.uk
It's recently been appending commas to all posts that exit through it.
I imagine it's a bug and will be fixed shortly.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| Edith Wharton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>
>
> That's what 'tweaked' means.
No you ignorant, misguided, slut... that's not at all what it means.
tweaked means "adjusted". Changing the name so that to outsiders it
appears to be your own work and giving no credit at all is outright
stealing.
>
> That's a lie.
ROTFL!
See the thread with the subject "none"? The script caused that, dumbass.
>
>
> So is that.
Someone pointed out exactly that right here in this group, dumbass.
>
> That's another lie.
LOL!!!!
Look at your XXXXed up headers, Helen of Eeltrash.
>
> Ordinarily I would be; but you are such a liar that I wonder what your
> script really does.
I hope the guy posts it so you can be burned on your incompetence AND we
have something useful to use. And the fact that you won't use it makes it
all the sweeter! Nobody wants you around to begin with!! 
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| admin wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 05:55:33 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>
>
>
> It is good to see that someone who knows how to write these scripts is
> actually speaking up, if anonymously, and making one available.
>
> One of the things that is badly missing from the work that the remailer
> gurus do, is a utility to make it possible for the average guy to initiate
> or reply anonymously.
Bullshit. You're an incompetent, self impressed idiot trying to look
important by ripping off someone else's stuff and making grandiose
speeches about it. Both JBN and QS accept messages from the clipboard with
a couple keystrokes or mouse clicks. And JBN will even serve as a
rudimentary news client itself. Either one probably runs under Wine.
Getting anonymous messages to Usenet is trivial. More trivial than even
understanding the mechanisms behind the scenes so you can make it highly
dependable without ax murdering your anonymity. Which is what too much end
user control produces at least some percentage of the time.
> This script is a good example of what is needed. It's too bad that it is
> for linux/Pan use only (I assume). The great majority of remailer users or
> potential users are running windows.
Precisely why you're a raving idiot.
<rest of masturbatory spew snipped unread>
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:17:51 -0700, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> Edith Wharton wrote:
>
>
> No you ignorant, misguided, slut... that's not at all what it means.
> tweaked means "adjusted".
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03):
Tweak. To change slightly....
That sounds about like what was done to the original script.
> Changing the name so that to outsiders it
> appears to be your own work and giving no credit at all is outright
> stealing.
Your perceptions are so distorted by hatred that you can't even read what
is written a few lines above:
****
Somebody posted a bash and Python script here several weeks ago that
make anonymous replies to usenet postings very convenient....
I tweaked them a bit.....
****
Since the 'somebody' was anonymous, as much credit was given as was
possible.
>
>
>
> LOL!!!!
>
> Look at your XXXXed up headers, Helen of Eeltrash.
Read the post that states the commas originate from the Amigo mail2news
service.
I think replying to this sort of insane trash may be worth less than
saying nothing.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> In article < 986530de0b894b1fe8f17815c161a095@mixmast
er.it> George Orwell
> <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> Actually that's a problem with Amigo's mail2news server
> mail2news@remailer.org.uk
there's been posts through it without those extra commas inbetween
eelbash's. eelbash just has that m2n in his template.
>
> It's recently been appending commas to all posts that exit through it. I
> imagine it's a bug and will be fixed shortly.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| Anonymous wrote:
> George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Yes, please post.
>
> Does it use cpunk or mix remailers? If mix, what is the advantage over
> using 'mixmaster -ff $article'?
dude! the advantages are listed above. it would solve the Winston Smith
problem if it exists and takes away some of the things normal posting can
have that out you. like certain mail2news selections in a certain order or
a set number of copies. using different versions of mixmaster would
probably help too.
POST IT!! :-)
>
> Thanks.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| Thrasher Remailer wrote:
> In article <RH444TYF38742.586712963@reece.net.au> admin
> <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> You don't 'compile' scripts. Could you be any stupider?
Ummm..... yes you can. In fact if you get right down to it, even normally
compiled source code files are "scripts". There's Python compilers, and C
interpreters, so the lines aren't as well defined as you seem to think. As
far as Python compilers go, Python ships with "freeze" for *nix, and
there's Py2exe for Win*. They both make (rather bloated for small
programs) executables out of Python scripts just fine.
That all said, yes the poster could be more stupid. He could actually try
RUNNING a compiled program sent to him by an anonymous nobody. ;-)
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-27, 9:02 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:23:28 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Your obsessions are showing again, SecureBeer. Oops, I mean slugpunch.
> Oops, eelbash. You are obsessed with dumbing down encryption.
>
> XXXX off. If you can't make a slight effort to learn some painfully simple
> concepts, then do without.
If you can't learn to hook up a 'B' cell and an 'A' cell, and tune half
a dozen dials on a radio receiver just to receive one station, and then do
it again to receive another, then don't listen to the radio.
There were people around 1920 who probably said that; fortunately, there
were lots of people who thought 'dumbing down' radio reception was a good
idea.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:24:17 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
> admin wrote:
>
>
> Bullshit. You're an incompetent, self impressed idiot trying to look
> important by ripping off someone else's stuff and making grandiose
> speeches about it. Both JBN and QS accept messages from the clipboard with
> a couple keystrokes or mouse clicks.
You are an egotistical fool, reacting like a lab rat. Here is what the
article predicted somebody would say:
*****
Somebody will now say: he can already do that with a couple of mouse
clicks - just select all/copy/paste into the QS 'clipboard'.
*****
Congratulations! You are right on schedule.
The article also said:
*****
Of course, the user has to make sure he turned on 'show all headers',
has to click on the QS 'clipboard' selection, then choose 'reply' or
'followup', then choose a template, etc.
The average guy is not going to do that.
*****
And he won't. And anybody with any common sense and experience of what it
is like for a non-geek adult who encounters these programs, would know
that.
>
> Getting anonymous messages to Usenet is trivial.
It is trivial for you, you pathetically egotistical fool; it is not
trivial for the average man or woman.
> More trivial than even
> understanding the mechanisms behind the scenes so you can make it highly
> dependable without ax murdering your anonymity. Which is what too much end
> user control produces at least some percentage of the time.
The end user doesn't need control - bells and whistles - he needs ease of
use
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:17:51 -0700, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
> From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (27 SEP 03):
Hey! You gonna cite the passage where it says "change the name of
something"?
>
> Tweak. To change slightly....
I didn't think so, nut case.
> That sounds about like what was done to the original script.
>
>
>
> Your perceptions are so distorted by hatred that you can't even read what
> is written a few lines above:
I read the whole thing AND the source code. You changed a couple lines,
broke it more than it was before, put a different name on it, an now
you're acting like a child because someone called you on all of that.
And you wonder why NOBODY like you......
>
> Read the post that states the commas originate from the Amigo mail2news
> service.
Read the damned THREAD with the subject changed to "none" and all the out
of sequence replies! Read the posts where this was POINTED OUT AND
ACKNOWLEDGED you stark raving imbecile!!
>
> I think replying to this sort of insane trash may be worth less than
> saying nothing.
EVERYTHING you say or do is worth less than nothing. That's your
trademark, your claim to fame. You're incompetent and apparently PROUD of
it. You're a XXXXing snoop, you change posts, break everything you touch,
and your house smells like cat piss! Now go the XXXX away before I tell
people about your REALLY bad qualities.......
LOL!!!
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:23:28 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>If you can't learn to hook up a 'B' cell and an 'A' cell, and tune half
>a dozen dials on a radio receiver just to receive one station, and then do
>it again to receive another, then don't listen to the radio.
>
>There were people around 1920 who probably said that; fortunately, there
>were lots of people who thought 'dumbing down' radio reception was a good
>idea.
So go listen to the radio, smartass. Leave encryption and anonymity to your
betters.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>EVERYTHING you say or do is worth less than nothing. That's your
>trademark, your claim to fame. You're incompetent and apparently PROUD of
>it. You're a XXXXing snoop, you change posts, break everything you touch,
>and your house smells like cat piss! Now go the XXXX away before I tell
>people about your REALLY bad qualities.......
>
>LOL!!!
Oh, I'm sorry! I just came in on the end of this, and the above is all I
caught. Let me guess, Eelbash, right?
ROFLMAO!!!
| |
|
| On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:55:58 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
> So go listen to the radio, smartass. Leave encryption and anonymity to
> your betters.
If people wish to use both encryption and anonymity in their
communications, whether in email or on Usenet, so be it. But why link the
two so rigidly? In particular, why should encryption be used at all when
only anonymity is wanted, or use anonymity when only encryption is
required?
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| Thrasher Remailer wrote:
>
> You are an egotistical fool, reacting like a lab rat. Here is what the
> article predicted somebody would say:
<snip>
Yes, that's right, your attempt to derail the most glaring flaw in your
bombast failed miserably. All it really proves is the fact that you lack
conviction in your own arguments. You know they're wrong but you blubber
them anyway. No doubt for the attention, as someone astutely observed.
The simple fact of the matter is that the few minor "steps" required to
move a post from a news client to a remailer client are far from beyond
the capabilities of anyone smart enough to know why they might want to be
anonymous, or interested enough to care.
>
> It is trivial for you, you pathetically egotistical fool; it is not
> trivial for the average man or woman.
In your world maybe. But I seriously doubt anyone in your entire family
can tie their shoes without weeks of planning and the cooperation of 11
other other genetic defectives.
Fortunately for the fully evolved members of the human race, 3 or 4
keystrokes in conjunction with a mouse click or two isn't a process
that can't be fully mastered after practicing it for maybe... half a
minute.
>
> The end user doesn't need control - bells and whistles - he needs ease of
> use
Maybe. But your doubly broken scripts, lies, sock puppetry, and overall
hair brained schemes do absolutely nothing to further that end. Nor do
half baked solutions for operating systems with users that are generally
above and beyond "average", let alone anywhere near your amusingly low
"foundation" position in the food chain.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| Anonymous wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> Oh, I'm sorry! I just came in on the end of this, and the above is all I
> caught. Let me guess, Eelbash, right?
>
> ROFLMAO!!!
Of course. The fukup "tweaks" something that was broken to begin with just
so he can break it some more, then gets all defensive when someone points
at him and laughs at the comedy show.
IOW, business as usual.
You almost have to wonder if the guy that posted the original script
didn't have this all in mind from the very beginning. ;-)
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:23:28 +0100, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
> If you can't learn to hook up a 'B' cell and an 'A' cell, and tune half a
> dozen dials on a radio receiver just to receive one station, and then do
> it again to receive another, then don't listen to the radio.
If listening to the radio and sending anonymous email had any relationship
at all you might have a point. A second one to compliment the one on the
top of your head.
>
> There were people around 1920 who probably said that; fortunately, there
> were lots of people who thought 'dumbing down' radio reception was a good
> idea.
There's still people who can't manage to program a universal remote or
comprehend the time settings on their car radio. Do they give up TV or
arrive late all the time? Why do you suppose they don't?
Concentrate real hard now...
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| >>There were people around 1920 who probably said that; fortunately, there
>
> So go listen to the radio, smartass. Leave encryption and anonymity to your
> betters.
I'm not sure what apes would want with encryption and anonymity?
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In article <4eb2534cad8fe7965cbd74a24c4e9215@pseudo.borked.net>
Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> Of course. The fukup "tweaks" something that was broken to begin with just
> so he can break it some more, then gets all defensive when someone points
> at him and laughs at the comedy show.
>
> IOW, business as usual.
>
> You almost have to wonder if the guy that posted the original script
> didn't have this all in mind from the very beginning. ;-)
>
Sir, you are a fish! Damn you cods and salmons and your eternal mocking!
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In article <43qoefF1o8ul6U1@individual.net>
NSA <nsa@nsa.com> wrote:
>
> If people wish to use both encryption and anonymity in their
> communications, whether in email or on Usenet, so be it. But why link the
> two so rigidly? In particular, why should encryption be used at all when
> only anonymity is wanted, or use anonymity when only encryption is
> required?
You can't be anonymous without encryption being involved. Without
encryption, the first node of your chain of remailers would know who
you are sending to and what you are saying.
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, NSA <nsa@nsa.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:55:58 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>
>
>If people wish to use both encryption and anonymity in their
>communications, whether in email or on Usenet, so be it. But why link the
>two so rigidly?
They are not. They are simply two related areas.
>In particular, why should encryption be used at all when
>only anonymity is wanted, or use anonymity when only encryption is
>required?
Encryption can ensure anonymity. The other question is a non sequitur.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| George Orwell wrote:
>
> Hey! You gonna cite the passage where it says "change the name of
> something"?
>
>
>
> I didn't think so, nut case.
In all fairness, I think the OP said "public domain" and he's anonymous
anyway, so the issue of theft is moot. It's not a real "nice" thing to
rename someone's work without due credit (it should be in the source code
or documentation), but technically this is a no-foul situation.
The bad *I* see is the way this was released with apparently no testing at
all. The original was bad enough but it *was* posted by someone who didn't
claim to be any sort of "authority". I think it was more of a "here's what
I use" thing, right? OTOH, a RemOp releasing a piece of "anonymity
software" apparently without any testing what so ever raises a few
questions. Especially in light of the fact that that RemOp claims to have
coded other "enhancements" to that impact the function of their remailer
directly.
The Pan "Send Later" script is probably a good or at least not too harmful
idea, but it needs to be done by someone with a bit more experience and
common sense or there will be major problems. We've already seen a couple
of them. 
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| > There's still people who can't manage to program a universal remote or
> comprehend the time settings on their car radio. Do they give up TV or
> arrive late all the time? Why do you suppose they don't?
>
> Concentrate real hard now...
Is it because the magical pixies program the remote and tell them the
time?
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| George Orwell wrote:
> EVERYTHING you say or do is worth less than nothing. That's your
> trademark, your claim to fame. You're incompetent and apparently PROUD of
> it. You're a XXXXing snoop, you change posts, break everything you touch,
> and your house smells like cat piss!
It ain't cat...
| |
| Fritz Wuehler 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In article <e428d13b518f5b2ce1f0d1a79cca3408@pseudo.borked.net>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> If you can't learn to hook up a 'B' cell and an 'A' cell, and tune half
> a dozen dials on a radio receiver just to receive one station, and then do
> it again to receive another, then don't listen to the radio.
Put down the whiskey, eelbash.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In article <RH444TYF38742.586712963@reece.net.au>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Please compile and send Windows binaries to me please.
Sent. When your firewall asks you if it can connect to various IP
addresses on port 31337, just select yes. That's part of the uh...
stats retrieving process.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In <8GH2MLF938743.2617824074@reece.net.au>, thrasher@reece.net.au wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:24:17 +0100, George Orwell wrote:
>
snip
>
>
>The end user doesn't need control - bells and whistles - he needs ease of
>use
Ease of use is all fine and dandy... I love having that as much as possible. But even with ease of use, it's important to your anonymity that you have at least some working understanding of HOW the mechanism works that you are using to achieve that anonym
ity. Without that understanding, you cannot hope to be sure that your anonymity solution truely is.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In < b4221a7173be93d7f7643af1e3ab840a@mixmast
er.it>, nobody@mixmaster.it wrote:
>Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>
>
>If listening to the radio and sending anonymous email had any relationship
>at all you might have a point. A second one to compliment the one on the
>top of your head.
>
>
>There's still people who can't manage to program a universal remote or
>comprehend the time settings on their car radio. Do they give up TV or
>arrive late all the time? Why do you suppose they don't?
>
>Concentrate real hard now...
...Because operating a universal remote or a car radio, while no doubt important to the person(s) who cannot manage those tasks, they are not nearly as important as maintaining anonymity against potential threats.
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
|
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:59:29 +0000, Thrasher Remailer wrote:
> In <8GH2MLF938743.2617824074@reece.net.au>, thrasher@reece.net.au wrote:
> snip
>
> Ease of use is all fine and dandy... I love having that as much as
> possible. But even with ease of use, it's important to your anonymity that
> you have at least some working understanding of HOW the mechanism works
> that you are using to achieve that anonymity. Without that understanding,
> you cannot hope to be sure that your anonymity solution truely is.
I can't see it. For example, millions of people log on every day to one or
the other online vendor's website and enter credit card details feeling
confident that their information is safe, and do it without having much
idea of what is going on behind the scenes.
They may know that the little padlock in the lower-right corner of the
scrren should be in the locked position, or they may not.
Either way, they don't have a problem because the design of the encryption
was made for civilians like them. They don't have to know anything about
it to get it to work effectively.
Why couldn't a civilian who was running Agent, for example, learn that to
encrypt his message, he should click on 'send later' instead of sending
the message now, and when he is ready to send the message, he should click
on the big red button that says 'Encrypt'?
Those are just two things he has to learn, and the result is that
mixmaster writes out the message to a chain of 6 remailers, or whatever
the default is.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In <CBZ9B12V38744.3885532407@twistycreek.com>, anon@comments.header wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 04:59:29 +0000, Thrasher Remailer wrote:
>
>
>I can't see it. For example, millions of people log on every day to one or
>the other online vendor's website and enter credit card details feeling
>confident that their information is safe, and do it without having much
>idea of what is going on behind the scenes.
>
>They may know that the little padlock in the lower-right corner of the
>scrren should be in the locked position, or they may not.
>
>Either way, they don't have a problem because the design of the encryption
>was made for civilians like them. They don't have to know anything about
>it to get it to work effectively.
>
>Why couldn't a civilian who was running Agent, for example, learn that to
>encrypt his message, he should click on 'send later' instead of sending
>the message now, and when he is ready to send the message, he should click
>on the big red button that says 'Encrypt'?
>
>Those are just two things he has to learn, and the result is that
>mixmaster writes out the message to a chain of 6 remailers, or whatever
>the default is.
I'll put it this way. If you or any other user is comfortable using a blind "idiot light" way of doing things, then that's fine with me.
For myself, I don't like cars with "idiot lights", I want actual guages and digital readouts that present real information...oil & water temps and pressures, fluid levels, liters of fuel remaining, engine revs per min etc. etc. etc.
I don't want a "check engine soon" light, I want a diagnostic readout that actually tells me what is wrong and maybe even some idea WHY it is wrong.
The same goes for encryption and anonymity. I want to have some level of understanding of how the encryption software works, WHY and HOW it is secure, how to use it properly to maintain that security. This desire for understanding of the mechanism exten
ds to the anonymity aspect as well.
I use PGP 2.6.3 and JBN because I have the source code, I've spent a lot of time reading it and following how it works and then I compiled my own executables from that source code.
Don't get me wrong. I'll be the first to admit that there's a hell of a lot that I don't know, but I insist on knowing something about what I'm doing.
| |
| Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In article <CBZ9B12V38744.3885532407@twistycreek.com>
TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
> I can't see it. For example, millions of people log on every day to one or
> the other online vendor's website and enter credit card details feeling
SHUT UP EELBASH!
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Anonymous wrote:
> In article <RH444TYF38742.586712963@reece.net.au>
> admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Sent. When your firewall asks you if it can connect to various IP
> addresses on port 31337, just select yes. That's part of the uh...
> stats retrieving process.
A more clever attacker would of course use the ports already used by the
remailer...
I laughed hard and loud because of your post though. That is the spirit
we need in this group :-)
Thomas
- --
Robert Heinlein: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and
shout"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQ9pQdgEP2l8iXKAJAQEkUgMgm6MLHJND
ixfiIQxqlKZpaOF1PKLOQHiE
jW+rr/ bPf50xLwXiPAyR2ctiR2tNr5SmH1IBEirLSQsHLh
SyJFYgStdJChirE/8o
PqNhVmZ8klD4efGPGJv4x+8wf8xm9lWQH01prw==
=xgOL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
NSA wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:55:58 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>
>
> If people wish to use both encryption and anonymity in their
> communications, whether in email or on Usenet, so be it. But why link the
> two so rigidly? In particular, why should encryption be used at all when
> only anonymity is wanted, or use anonymity when only encryption is
> required?
You realize that is a incredibly stupid post don't you NSA? I will even
make it worse for you. You _NEED_ public key encryption in order to be
anonymous. Just symmetric encryption won't do at all...
Even the public keys need to be public for it to work as I found I as I
drafted up my failed attempt at
<http://home.hccnet.nl/t.j.boschloo/...beta030218.html>
Wrote it while being manic btw. In case anyone is interested in
psychiatric ramblings.
hth (bidi),
Thomas
- --
Robert Heinlein: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and
shout"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQ9pSeQEP2l8iXKAJAQHZ3AMgojr0gZGh
Vm+b/1yY7MwJaigsjJA4S/hX
MMjeAm0N29/1VoQGv2aSSVGsDHDX/DIT8u2K1MuZKr6wv1npuDHw04sBjxcEmAmq
hBoK3VRZ2sqdbP7CR/WXtAZTCITvtD3OqImIaA==
=H1MG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Thomas J. Boschloo 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
[snip]
> If you can't learn to hook up a 'B' cell and an 'A' cell, and tune half
> a dozen dials on a radio receiver just to receive one station, and then do
> it again to receive another, then don't listen to the radio.
>
> There were people around 1920 who probably said that; fortunately, there
> were lots of people who thought 'dumbing down' radio reception was a good
> idea.
The concept of a gun is simple. Yet you need training to use one. Guess
some clever folks will point it in the wrong way and squeeze the
trigger. Well, too bad for them. Some problems go away by itself I
guess. Just keep using Eelbash and you will get what it coming to you.
Happy Regards,
Thomas
- --
Robert Heinlein: "When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and
shout"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQB5AwUBQ9pURwEP2l8iXKAJAQG5TgMgkGNbHA/IE9R4yvBcUG+9h6cWG7dwF+RA
f4C/BKlgkg/ dCwdPbiE7aSkpPLugzihSnBD6AQcR4KDSd2pRM8M
gAiyGSnLGftH2
S3v58+6V002GrTcIBww/kLhJ5BXqsl68PuoGLw==
=Atm4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| In article <43da53a6$0$11061$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
"Thomas J. Boschloo" <nospam@hccnet.nl> wrote:
>
>
> The concept of a gun is simple. Yet you need training to use one. Guess
> some clever folks will point it in the wrong way and squeeze the
> trigger. Well, too bad for them. Some problems go away by itself I
> guess. Just keep using Eelbash and you will get what it coming to you.
>
> Happy Regards,
> Thomas
That's a very good way to put it.
Have a nice day.
| |
| TwistyCreek 2006-01-27, 9:03 pm |
| On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>In article <43da53a6$0$11061$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>
>"Thomas J. Boschloo" <nospam@hccnet.nl> wrote:
>
>That's a very good way to put it.
>
>Have a nice day.
That was a cute one old buddy. I got a chuckle out of it.
Too bad we can't give formal classes and traing to new users of re-mailers.
I hate to see them learn the hard way. Shooting yourself in the foot is not
a good way to learn.
Maybe we should start each day with a reading from the Bluejay Eelbash
chronicles
Have a great day old friend.
| |
| George Orwell 2006-01-29, 8:49 pm |
| TwistyCreek wrote:
>
> I can't see it. For example, millions of people log on every day to one or
> the other online vendor's website and enter credit card details feeling
> confident that their information is safe, and do it without having much
> idea of what is going on behind the scenes.
If being anonymous and being not only identified but VERIFIED had any
relationship at all to each other in context, you might have a point.
As it stands, they're polar opposites so you've just shown your ignorance
again, Eelbash. A verified and secure connection CAN be made reliably
secure simply because it's a far less complex task and depends FAR less on
what a given user does. You can easily force the user to do the right
thing.
Anonymity depends in a large part on what the user does. How they "handle"
their anonymity. People like you, who don't understand it but try to
over-control it, end up exposing themselves regularly. If they're lucky,
their anonymity is exactly as important as yours and LIKE you, the worst
that happens is they are laughed at. A lot.
If they really need to be anonymous, they may have just committed suicide.
But little things like that don't concern you, do they Eelbash? As long as
you get some attention you're happy. Except this time around the attention
doesn't have a bit of sweetness to it, does it? You've made such a
complete fool out of yourself with this script business, I have to wonder
if you're not just about to unleash another vindictive little "mini flood"
on us.
Anyone wanna bet the $100 Eelbash owes Jeffrey on whether or not we'll see
one within the week?
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2006-01-29, 8:49 pm |
| TwistyCreek wrote:
> I can't see it.
Don't panic. You're just stupid, that's all.
By the way Helen of EELBASH, your script stupidity outed you again because
your reply is out of Reference: sync. Put your reply waaaaaay up under the
post that started the thread.
Way to go! :-)
| |
| Anonymous 2006-01-29, 8:49 pm |
| In article <711939a574731c6261d1fab43890992b@pseudo.borked.net>
Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
>
> Don't panic. You're just stupid, that's all.
>
> By the way Helen of EELBASH, your script stupidity outed you again because
> your reply is out of Reference: sync. Put your reply waaaaaay up under the
> post that started the thread.
>
> Way to go! :-)
Why did you have to tell him about his References header outing his
sock puppet posts? It was far more fun when he didn't know, and we
could laugh out loud at his 'anonymous' posts praising himself.
|
|
|
|
|