[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Anon remailer to USENET gate bogus
- To: Cypherpunks <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Anon remailer to USENET gate bogus
- From: [email protected] (Edgar W. Swank)
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 93 13:19:12 PDT
- Comments: Liberty!
- Organization: SPECTROX SYSTEMS (408)252-1005 Cupertino, Ca
Paul Ferguson wrote:
I have been experimenting the past few days with anon remailer to
USENET gateway systems to see what the results would be -- nada.
... My guess is that the usenet gateway at utexas refuses anon
e-mail. Anyone got any other suggestions? I haven't tried any
other gateways -- yet.
I had a similar experience with utexas. It worked the first time I
tried it, but failed on a subsequent attempt. I suspect that after
some complaint utexas was modified to reject anonymous input. Here is
my list of E-mail/Usenet gateways:
[email protected] * (blocked from non-bky sites)
[email protected] * (was working but now blocked???)
[email protected] * (Bounced to remailer)
Note that some of these require trans-literation of periods to dashes
in the newsgroup name; others do not. Ucbvax is supposed to block
mail from non-Berkely sites; it might work from these Cypherpunks
remailers (I haven't tried it):
1: [email protected]
2: [email protected]
3: [email protected]
Utexas see above, bull bounced to the (wimsey) remailer; I haven't
tried the others yet. But I'm afraid that the utexas story will be
repeated for any gateway that continues to allow anonymous posting to
I see the obvious solution is for the Cypherpunks remailers to support
direct anonymous posting. Certainly the programming should be
trivial. The "political" risk is something to consider, however. But
we are supposed to be the fearless leaders to crypto-anarchy.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
[email protected] (Edgar W. Swank)
SPECTROX SYSTEMS +1.408.252.1005 Cupertino, Ca