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

Anonymous User wrote:
> On 26 Oct 2025, Radio Eriwan <[email protected]> posted some
> news:[email protected]: 
> 
> > 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.
> 
> That's okay because the originator remains unknown.  The weak link is
> the receiver.  A little waterboarding and they'll talk. 

Well, I think it depends on which patterns the originator leaves
regularly, when using Tor, prior it reaches the entry remailers.

And you are right about the receiver, because I doubt very much
that the vast majority of TypeII users are using a.a.m, which a
simple tests could reveal.

Regards
Stefan

-- 
https://tilde.club/~pollux/