Re: [Spam] neodome [Spam] back [Spam] to [Spam] the [Spam] same [Spam] shit.

A pretty much lying Fritz Wuehler user wrote:
> Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 25 Oct 2025, Radio Eriwan <[email protected]> posted some
> > news:[email protected]: 
> > 
> > > Fritz Wuehler once wrote, without thinking too much beforehand:
> > > > Radio Claashole <[email protected]> sent:
> > > > > A stupid YAMN user wrote:
> > > > > > Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 24 Oct 2025, Anonymous <[email protected]> posted
> > > > > > > some news:[email protected]:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > [Spam] same [Spam] censoring [Spam] shit [Spam] different
> > > > > > > > [Spam]. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Apparently it's okay for a particular sporging asshole to
> > > > > > > > destroy groups and services for all, but not okay to use YAMN
> > > > > > > > / neodome to counter the jerk.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > yamn is not so anonymous after all.  
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > what does that say about "anonymous messaging" hmm?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Tor is an unsecure real-time system.
> > > > > > Type I remailing fails to hide message size.
> > > > > > Only Type II remailing (Mixmaster / YAMN) is secure!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Did you know that YAMN/OmniMix users are the dumbest Usenet users?
> > > > 
> > > >   We just know that you, fascist Claas, and your buddy GabX are the
> > > > stupidest snake oil peddlers over here ignoring even the most basic
> > > > principles of secure anonymous remailing. Good luck to your victims.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ah, ok. So pseudonymous remailing with Mixmaster and YAMN, in your
> > > eyes, is secure 'anonymous' remailing. Mind you, you must use Tor or
> > > you would shit in your pants without it. So much for TypeII
> > > 'anonymous' remailing. 
> > 
> > It all works with Tor.   No Tor, no work.  
> 
> Remailers don't need Tor at all.  Tor was developed long after the
> invention of anonymous remailing in order to have something similar for
> from the anonymity perspective inherently problematic real-time (web)
> communication.
> 
> You send some packets to the entry remailer and nobody can figure out
> which mail message at some exit remailer they represent, if any, as you
> just may have sent dummy packets. That isn't pseudonymity, it's true
> anonymity no matter what shithead Claas tells you.
> 

I think you are the liar and real shithead! Why? Because these pseudonymous
remailers are publicity run and known as old fashioned TypeII clearnet smtp
networks where Eve and her friends only need to append the secret keys from
remailers, to decrypt the incomming messages at an entry.  This can be done
with gag orders. If you would know how the internals work from such old and
outdated TypeII technology you would not speak such rubbish. 

And secondly when looking at the pools Eve and her friends see in clear the remailer packets and the To: header, while messages at exits are held in an
decrypted state.

-- 
Из России с любовью.
https://radio-eriwan.ru