Re: Anonymous Nymserver: anon.nymserver.com

[TruthMonger <an7575@anon.nymserver.com>]

Keely McCurry wrote:
> From: an7575@anon.nymserver.com
> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:47:31 -0700 (MST)
> 
> Kevin McCurry pretended to ask:
> 
> I would appreciate any information on the trustworthiness/security of the
> below named individuals and service. Please, friends, spare me the gratuitous
> remarks about Sameer, etc., that's not the issue inthis case.
> 
>   Why are you asking for information on these people and
> then stating that you don't want 'certain types' of
> information on Sameer and others?
>   Are you connected in some way to these people, perhaps,
> and just fishing for compliments that will be supplied
> by the prepared responses of others?

>   Firstly, remailers were developed by the cypherpunks as
> a method of monitoring supposedly private communications
> of others, in order to increase their own power and wealth.
> <<<<
> Well, that is food for thought. It's an angle I had not considered.

  The motivation behind the 'generosity' of others should always
be considered as a factor.

>   The communications passing through them remain private
> and anonymous only to those who aren't running them (or who
> haven't compromised the system).
> <<<<
> The system does involve trust on the side of the senders and integrity on the
> side of the remailers. That was my question: are there members of this list
> who can vouch [not swear] for or deny the integrity of the individual running
> the anon.nymserver.com nymserver?
> >>>>

  You are asking for opinions from people you don't personally know for
opinions as to the integrity of others whom you do not know, in order
to make decisions regarding placing your trust in someone else to 
guarantee your privacy and/or anonymity?

> Is the server I asked about controlled, or not?

Received: (from root@localhost) by shaman.lycaeum.org (Partyon/dude!)
  Judging from the (Partyon/dude!) in the headers from the server,
perhaps questions regarding 'controlled substances' might be more
pertinent.  
  As well, the new-user info they send out tells you how to hack the
accounts of others on the system, then tells you that the 'protection'
against this is defaulted to 'off'. It goes on to say that you should
turn it 'on' only if you are 'paranoid' of someone hacking 'your'
account.
  i.e. - if you don't notice or understand the implications of this,
then, by default, you are 'fair game' for hackers on their server.

>   Thirdly, the remailer owners only support compromised
> cryptography systems such as the newer versions of PGP
> produced by All-my-charges-mysteriously-disappeared-
> when-I-agreed-to-switch-to-a-new-system Zimmerman.

> What do you mean support? Which "newer versions?" Where does 2.6.2. stand in
> this hierarchy? Must we use the i versions? I use several versions including
> the international, and have noticed no difference in the ways the remailers
> process the versions.

  PGP 2.0-->2.3a were released outside of the U.S. and imported into
the country.
  The use of PGP=>2.5 suddenly became a 'non-issue' for use in the U.S.
because they use both the algorithm and sub-routines developed by the
NSA and the Military.
  Think about it.

TruthMonger

>def 2. one who attempts to stir up or spread something that is usually
>petty or discreditable

  Such as blind acceptance of remailers and iconic cryptographical
software?