Bugfix: Size of Yamn Stats ListBox corrected.
Button to reset Tor status and thereby change the entry guard added.
Log list now also shows Tor startup parameters.
Tor updated to a modified version 0.4.8.0-alpha-dev (git-b733f9d6ace63c71)
custom build, which allows a variable circuit length from 2 to 9 nodes
(including respective OmniMix controls), and, in order to keep the TorIp
feature functional, removes IP address retrieval ('getinfo address')
restrictions now also providing client instances with their IP address.
Path to location of GeoIP/GeoIPv6 files added to Tor's torrc configuration
file, obsolete 'CircuitIdleTimeout' parameter removed.

https://danner-net.de/om/History.txt

Looks like a TOR can opener, doesn't it?

>
> Bugfix: Size of Yamn Stats ListBox corrected.
> Button to reset Tor status and thereby change the entry guard added.
> Log list now also shows Tor startup parameters.
> Tor updated to a modified version 0.4.8.0-alpha-dev (git-b733f9d6ace63c71)
> custom build, which allows a variable circuit length from 2 to 9 nodes
> (including respective OmniMix controls), and, in order to keep the TorIp
> feature functional, removes IP address retrieval ('getinfo address')
> restrictions now also providing client instances with their IP address.
> Path to location of GeoIP/GeoIPv6 files added to Tor's torrc configuration
> file, obsolete 'CircuitIdleTimeout' parameter removed.
>
> https://danner-net.de/om/History.txt
>
> Looks like a TOR can opener, doesn't it?

Good to see that Danner is still maintaining Omnimix.

In article <t8fbpc$1sfba$1@news.mixmin.net> "rmd"
<remedy@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:

> >
> > Bugfix: Size of Yamn Stats ListBox corrected.
> > Button to reset Tor status and thereby change the entry guard added.
> > Log list now also shows Tor startup parameters.
> > Tor updated to a modified version 0.4.8.0-alpha-dev (git-b733f9d6ace63c71)
> > custom build, which allows a variable circuit length from 2 to 9 nodes
> > (including respective OmniMix controls), and, in order to keep the TorIp
> > feature functional, removes IP address retrieval ('getinfo address')
> > restrictions now also providing client instances with their IP address.
> > Path to location of GeoIP/GeoIPv6 files added to Tor's torrc configuration
> > file, obsolete 'CircuitIdleTimeout' parameter removed.
> >
> > https://danner-net.de/om/History.txt
> >
> > Looks like a TOR can opener, doesn't it?
>
> Good to see that Danner is still maintaining Omnimix.

And great, that along the way he's maintaining Tor and GnuPG 1.4 as well.

With OM's Tor tweak I just made my Tor Browser switch to 6-node circuits.

A smooth experience. Love it!

But I'm afraid that with anonymous remailers disappearing one after
another there'll soon be no more need for even the best client software.

On 2022-06-16 12:12, Anonymous wrote:

> But I'm afraid that with anonymous remailers disappearing one after
> another there'll soon be no more need for even the best client software.
>

I have the same concern. But every remailer *is" going to go away. It's
only natural in any endeavour reliant on volunteerism. The lack of new
remailers - i.e new remops to replace them - is the real issue.

IMO, anyone with the capacity to master Omnimix also has the capacity to
run a remailer!

--
SEC3

YAMN Tutorials - https://sec3.net/yamnhelp

D <J@M> wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 23:52:32 +0100, Anonymous Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote
>in Message-Id: <20220615.235232.039ecac2@mixmin.net>:
>>Bugfix: Size of Yamn Stats ListBox corrected.
>>Button to reset Tor status and thereby change the entry guard added.
>>Log list now also shows Tor startup parameters.
>>Tor updated to a modified version 0.4.8.0-alpha-dev (git-b733f9d6ace63c71)
>> custom build, which allows a variable circuit length from 2 to 9 nodes
>> (including respective OmniMix controls), and, in order to keep the TorIp
>> feature functional, removes IP address retrieval ('getinfo address')
>> restrictions now also providing client instances with their IP address.
>>Path to location of GeoIP/GeoIPv6 files added to Tor's torrc configuration
>> file, obsolete 'CircuitIdleTimeout' parameter removed.
>>https://danner-net.de/om/History.txt
>>Looks like a TOR can opener, doesn't it?
>
>http://www.danner-net.de/om.htm
>http://www.danner-net.de/omom/index.htm
>http://www.danner-net.de/om/OmniMix_2.6.6_Uno_Setup.exe

<https://api.prod.panini.cloud/pub/media/catalog/product/resized/1200/8/5/850250j.jpg>
<https://youtu.be/b_sxmf7K3Yo>

SEC3 <admin@sec3.net> wrote:

>On 2022-06-16 12:12, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> But I'm afraid that with anonymous remailers disappearing one after
>> another there'll soon be no more need for even the best client software.
>>
>
>I have the same concern. But every remailer *is" going to go away. It's
>only natural in any endeavour reliant on volunteerism. The lack of new
>remailers - i.e new remops to replace them - is the real issue.
>
>IMO, anyone with the capacity to master Omnimix also has the capacity to
>run a remailer!

Remember, first of all you need your own domain resp. a static IP address.

Unfortunately never an effort was made to migrate packet transport to Tor
hidden services, which would have made it easy for everybody to start a
preconfigured remailer VM without any prerequisites from wherever he lives.

> I have the same concern. But every remailer *is" going to go away.
It's
> only natural in any endeavour reliant on volunteerism. The lack of
new
> remailers - i.e new remops to replace them - is the real issue.

> IMO, anyone with the capacity to master Omnimix also has the capacity
to
> run a remailer!

True, but with only one Nymserver left, the options are limited, and
the
writings on the wall.

On 6/16/2022 5:04 PM, Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> True, but with only one Nymserver left, the options are limited, and
> the writings on the wall.

So true. Like it it or not, the remailer system seems on it's last legs
and is in a serious state of decline.

I thought we had 2 working nymservers remaining:

@nymph.paranoici.org

@nym.mixmin.net

Am I wrong?

"rmd" <remedy@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> Good to see that Danner is still maintaining Omnimix.

Christian, thank you so much.

D <J@M> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 15:55:03 +0100, Anonymous Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>On 6/16/2022 5:04 PM, Anonymous Remailer wrote:

>>> True, but with only one Nymserver left, the options are limited, and
>>> the writings on the wall.

We still have two of them.

>>
>>So true. Like it it or not, the remailer system seems on it's last legs
>>and is in a serious state of decline.
>
>still working fine afaict . . . still using omnimix 2.6.5 . . . every post
>gets through

But more and more I get

| Mixmaster Reply (Task 0):
| Error: No reliable remailers!

messages urging me to relax delivery rules.

> But I'm afraid that with anonymous remailers disappearing one after
> another there'll soon be no more need for even the best client software.

The US govern hates anonymous remailers.

On 6/18/2022 6:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:

>> But I'm afraid that with anonymous remailers disappearing one after
>> another there'll soon be no more need for even the best client software.
>
> The US govern hates anonymous remailers.
>

Remailers only handle two types of communication:
Usenet and email.

Neither of those represent much of a threat anymore.

In article <b0a7ae00fabfc9a5dc4ff779b3cd3d25@remailer.paranoici.org>
Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:

> > But I'm afraid that with anonymous remailers disappearing one after
> > another there'll soon be no more need for even the best client software.
>
> The US govern hates anonymous remailers.

All governments, whether left or right, hate anonymous remailers.

!!! So keep them running !!!

On 6/18/2022 6:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:

>> But I'm afraid that with anonymous remailers disappearing one after
>> another there'll soon be no more need for even the best client software.
>
> The US govern hates anonymous remailers.
>

There aren't many remailers left for them to hate.

D <J@M> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 13:45:32 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>D <J@M> wrote:

>>>still working fine afaict . . . still using omnimix 2.6.5 . . . every post
>>>gets through
>>
>>But more and more I get
>>| Mixmaster Reply (Task 0):
>>| Error: No reliable remailers!
>>messages urging me to relax delivery rules.
>
>The basic tor setup on 2.6.5 used with the few existing reliable remailers
>has been working 100% success rate thus far, but that's from sending only
>a few posts/replies per day on average, and using one to two random hops.

And I usually send through a chain of 6 random remailers with about 6
copies and Distance remaining at 20, which is why I obviously have to
trim back my demands. Success rate btw also nearly 100%.

On 6/18/2022 4:03 AM, Anonymous wrote:

> "rmd" <remedy@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Good to see that Danner is still maintaining Omnimix.
>
> Christian, thank you so much.
>

+1

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>On 6/18/2022 6:33 AM, Anonymous wrote:
>
>>> But I'm afraid that with anonymous remailers disappearing one after
>>> another there'll soon be no more need for even the best client software.
>>
>> The US govern hates anonymous remailers.
>>
>
>
>Remailers only handle two types of communication:
>Usenet and email.
>
>Neither of those represent much of a threat anymore.

E-Mail is dead? NOT!

On 6/18/2022 2:49 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

f those represent much of a threat anymore.
>
> E-Mail is dead? NOT!

Maybe in your world, but the rest of the world has migrated over to
messaging. That's fact.

Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>On 6/18/2022 2:49 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>f those represent much of a threat anymore.
>>
>> E-Mail is dead? NOT!
>
>
>Maybe in your world, but the rest of the world has migrated over to
>messaging. That's fact.

As a matter of fact the rest of the world doesn't care about privacy.
And TLAs are happy with that.

BTW, e-mail isn't messaging?

Characteristics of anonymous remailing:

- Everyone has an email address and thereby can be contacted.
- It uses standardized open-source cryptographic procedures.
- It's decentralized, everyone can set up a server.
- It provides distributed trust.
- It provides latency.
- No need to register.

Long story short, just a dozen independent enthusiasts living in
different countries / jurisdictions can easily set up a system providing
bullet-proof anonymous messaging for everyday usage.

With a

Me <-> Tor <-> Mixmaster / Yamn remailer network <-> nym account
and
nym account <-> Cypherpunk remailer network <-> Usenet <-> Tor <-> Me

routing nobody even knows that I'm exchanging messages, my communication
is completely hidden.

Which alternative "messaging" system at that level would you recommend?

On 6/19/2022 8:09 AM, Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>> On 6/18/2022 2:49 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>> f those represent much of a threat anymore.
>>>
>>> E-Mail is dead? NOT!
>>
>>
>> Maybe in your world, but the rest of the world has migrated over to
>> messaging. That's fact.
>
> As a matter of fact the rest of the world doesn't care about privacy.
> And TLAs are happy with that.
>
> BTW, e-mail isn't messaging?
>
> Characteristics of anonymous remailing:
>
> - Everyone has an email address and thereby can be contacted.
> - It uses standardized open-source cryptographic procedures.
> - It's decentralized, everyone can set up a server.
> - It provides distributed trust.
> - It provides latency.
> - No need to register.
>
> Long story short, just a dozen independent enthusiasts living in
> different countries / jurisdictions can easily set up a system providing
> bullet-proof anonymous messaging for everyday usage.
>
> With a
>
> Me <-> Tor <-> Mixmaster / Yamn remailer network <-> nym account
> and
> nym account <-> Cypherpunk remailer network <-> Usenet <-> Tor <-> Me
>
> routing nobody even knows that I'm exchanging messages, my communication
> is completely hidden.
>
> Which alternative "messaging" system at that level would you recommend?
>

You are absolutely right.

But the only type of bidirectional messaging for anonymous remailers are
Nyms.

Very secure, IMHO, but difficult to set up for most folks. And if you
pull a list of used Nyms, their adoption globally is very small, very
limited. It's probably not the future. It's email centric.

Email seems to be a generational thing. What I've observed, and YMMV, is
if one is over 50, email is still strong. If one is under 50, it's all
messaging. Definitely, like it or not, the world is changing. By it's
very nature, SMTP is very insecure and always will be that way.
People want something else.

For messaging, Signal is the gold standard. However, Signal focuses on
privacy and not anonymity. So it's limited. but it IS the most popular.
Signal has been challenged in court demanding access to it's records.
The only thing Signal has available is the account creation date, and
the last time the account was accessed. Nothing more. But Signal
requires a phone number and lots of people understandably don't like that.

There are numerous other capable messengers, but the Briar Project is
garnering lots of positive attention in anonymity circles.

No registration, no user names, no phone numbers. Additionally, there
is no central server structure that can be compromised or attacked.
Briar is metadata and censorship resistant and uses Perfect Forward
Secrecy. It is worth a look. Briar has been audited and found to be very
capable. It is certainly worth a look for those folks who are privacy
aficionados.

We also have to recognize again, the world is changing and a significant
portion of the world is on mobile now. In Third World or developing
nations, people do not own computers. But everyone has mobile.
That is where the whole thing is going. You have to have a computer
to access Yamn or Mixmaster messages.

https://briarproject.org/how-it-works/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://briarproject.org/how-it-works/
https://briarproject.org/

It is Android only. But it does run on Linux on the desktop.

Briar uses Tor.

Briar uses the highly secure Bramble protocol as well:

https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar-spec/-/blob/master/protocols/BTP.md#:~:text=Bramble%20Transport%20Protocol%20(BTP)%20is,wide%20range%20of%20underlying%20transports.

Anonymous <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:

>But the only type of bidirectional messaging for anonymous remailers are
>Nyms.

Thinking of nymserv, haven't you seen what diversification means? Pure
confusion without any benefit.

>
>Very secure, IMHO, but difficult to set up for most folks.

Protocol designers have to take care of security, robustness and attack
resistance, then hiding from users what's going on under the hood has to
be the business of client software developers. It's as simple as that.

> And if you
>pull a list of used Nyms, their adoption globally is very small, very
>limited. It's probably not the future. It's email centric.
>
>Email seems to be a generational thing.

About 50 y old e-mail already survived two generations, still being the
most prevalent messaging protocol.

> What I've observed, and YMMV, is
>if one is over 50, email is still strong. If one is under 50, it's all
>messaging. Definitely, like it or not, the world is changing. By it's
>very nature, SMTP is very insecure and always will be that way.

What's insecure with encrypted and signed mail messages?

>People want something else.
>
>For messaging, Signal is the gold standard. However, Signal focuses on
>privacy and not anonymity. So it's limited. but it IS the most popular.
>Signal has been challenged in court demanding access to it's records.
>The only thing Signal has available is the account creation date, and
>the last time the account was accessed. Nothing more. But Signal
>requires a phone number and lots of people understandably don't like that.

Correct, Signal doesn't provide anonymity. It reveals who's
communicating with whom, how often and when. Easy to create a sociogram
of all its participants. And, as you may know, for surveillance
agencies those data make up 2/3 of what they're after.

>
>There are numerous other capable messengers, but the Briar Project is
>garnering lots of positive attention in anonymity circles.
>
>No registration, no user names, no phone numbers. Additionally, there
>is no central server structure that can be compromised or attacked.
>Briar is metadata and censorship resistant and uses Perfect Forward
>Secrecy. It is worth a look. Briar has been audited and found to be very
>capable. It is certainly worth a look for those folks who are privacy
>aficionados.
>
>We also have to recognize again, the world is changing and a significant
>portion of the world is on mobile now. In Third World or developing
>nations, people do not own computers. But everyone has mobile.
>That is where the whole thing is going. You have to have a computer
>to access Yamn or Mixmaster messages.

Why shouldn't the Mixmaster or Yamn protocol be fit for mobile devices?

>
>https://briarproject.org/how-it-works/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://briarproject.org/how-it-works/
>https://briarproject.org/
>
>It is Android only. But it does run on Linux on the desktop.
>
>Briar uses Tor.
>
>Briar uses the highly secure Bramble protocol as well:
>
>
>https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar-spec/-/blob/master/protocols/BTP.md#:~:text=Bramble%20Transport%20Protocol%20(BTP)%20is,wide%20range%20of%20underlying%20transports.

Written off e-mail still is omnipresent, whereas, who uses Briar??? It's
an isolated ecosystem on its own without any chance to address ordinary
people.

On 6/20/2022 7:53 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Anonymous <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:
>
>> But the only type of bidirectional messaging for anonymous remailers are
>> Nyms.
>
> Thinking of nymserv, haven't you seen what diversification means? Pure
> confusion without any benefit.
>
>>
>> Very secure, IMHO, but difficult to set up for most folks.
>
> Protocol designers have to take care of security, robustness and attack
> resistance, then hiding from users what's going on under the hood has to
> be the business of client software developers. It's as simple as that.
>
>> And if you
>> pull a list of used Nyms, their adoption globally is very small, very
>> limited. It's probably not the future. It's email centric.
>>
>> Email seems to be a generational thing.
>
> About 50 y old e-mail already survived two generations, still being the
> most prevalent messaging protocol.
>
>> What I've observed, and YMMV, is
>> if one is over 50, email is still strong. If one is under 50, it's all
>> messaging. Definitely, like it or not, the world is changing. By it's
>> very nature, SMTP is very insecure and always will be that way.
>
> What's insecure with encrypted and signed mail messages?
>
>> People want something else.
>>
>> For messaging, Signal is the gold standard. However, Signal focuses on
>> privacy and not anonymity. So it's limited. but it IS the most popular.
>> Signal has been challenged in court demanding access to it's records.
>> The only thing Signal has available is the account creation date, and
>> the last time the account was accessed. Nothing more. But Signal
>> requires a phone number and lots of people understandably don't like that.
>
> Correct, Signal doesn't provide anonymity. It reveals who's
> communicating with whom, how often and when. Easy to create a sociogram
> of all its participants. And, as you may know, for surveillance
> agencies those data make up 2/3 of what they're after.
>
>>
>> There are numerous other capable messengers, but the Briar Project is
>> garnering lots of positive attention in anonymity circles.
>>
>> No registration, no user names, no phone numbers. Additionally, there
>> is no central server structure that can be compromised or attacked.
>> Briar is metadata and censorship resistant and uses Perfect Forward
>> Secrecy. It is worth a look. Briar has been audited and found to be very
>> capable. It is certainly worth a look for those folks who are privacy
>> aficionados.
>>
>> We also have to recognize again, the world is changing and a significant
>> portion of the world is on mobile now. In Third World or developing
>> nations, people do not own computers. But everyone has mobile.
>> That is where the whole thing is going. You have to have a computer
>> to access Yamn or Mixmaster messages.
>
> Why shouldn't the Mixmaster or Yamn protocol be fit for mobile devices?
>
>>
>> https://briarproject.org/how-it-works/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://briarproject.org/how-it-works/
>> https://briarproject.org/
>>
>> It is Android only. But it does run on Linux on the desktop.
>>
>> Briar uses Tor.
>>
>> Briar uses the highly secure Bramble protocol as well:
>>
>>
>> https://code.briarproject.org/briar/briar-spec/-/blob/master/protocols/BTP.md#:~:text=Bramble%20Transport%20Protocol%20(BTP)%20is,wide%20range%20of%20underlying%20transports.
>
> Written off e-mail still is omnipresent, whereas, who uses Briar??? It's
> an isolated ecosystem on its own without any chance to address ordinary
> people.
>

We're fellow travelers. I've maintained several nyms for over 8 years. .
It is one of the strongest models of security and anonymity anywhere. It
is amazing. It's very old technology, but still works. That's great news.

It's fact that the number of remailers and exits are at absolutely the
lowest point in our history. That does not bode well for Mixmaster. The
network is not growing. There is a story in that. People can draw their
own conclusions.

The complexity of setting up a nym is granted and obvious. This will
always hamper widespread adoption. Pull up a list of users from
list@nym.mixmin.net and list@nymph.paranoici.org. There probably aren't
500 users globally. It's sad for sure. One would think people with high
security needs would jump on board, but that seems not the case.

SMTP standard email by design is outdated and insecure. That is why we
don't see any new developments in anonymous email, because SMTP is
broken, leaky and insecure. That is another reason why people are
migrating to messaging. All the development in secure communication is
focused on messaging.

Beyond that, nym messages don't handle attachments. No file or image
transfers. But modern messengers definitely do. People want that. They
expect it. Technology supports it.

There is absolutely nothing insecure with encrypted signed messages.
Longer keys and strong passwords are absolutely necessary. The only
possible criticism of PGP is that it is not forward secure.

Years ago, Adam Langley, cryptographer at Google developed the Pond
messaging system. It was totally alpha and experimental only. Pond
relied on Tor for the transport mechanism and provided anonymity and
plausible deniability. Pond had to be connected to Tor by default,
otherwise it would not work. It could not "fail open." The encryption
protocol was the Axolotl Double Ratchet which was brilliant. Langley
said publicly he wrote the Pond code, "For those people for whom PGP was
not good enough." Pond was a clear signal that secure messaging was
headed in a different direction. It was not mobile, however. Ran only on
the desktop on Linux.

Valid points about Signal. The social graph is definitely there. And
that is vastly more important than message contents.

You wrote: "Why shouldn't the Mixmaster or Yamn protocol be fit for
mobile devices?" Damned good question. It is not being developed. It
would be a total game changer if it would. I don't know if it's possible
to even port Mixmaster to mobile.

"Written off e-mail still is omnipresent, whereas, who uses Briar???
It's an isolated ecosystem on its own without any chance to address
ordinary people."

Briar is not the only viable solution out there. But it is a top
candidate as one of the most secure.

To say it does not address ordinary people just is not an accurate
statement as that is exactly what it does. Nothing complicated at all to
set up.

In the past several months, usage of Signal and Briar increased in the
Ukraine by people desperate for sending secure messages. Signal saw a
spike in it's user base, and Briar saw increased usage as well. These
are people who are not hobbyists, but had a real world need for
messaging security.

> I've maintained several nyms for over 8 years.

Yes, so have I, but none of my friends, associates or relatives would
ever bother to set up the software, or in one or two rare cases, have
the patience and knowledge to create a Nym and use it.

Now days I use Omnimix and/or QSL to either post to some newsgroups, or
on occasions I have the need to post an anonymous email, but I've long
since given up expecting to have a two way anon conversation via
participating Nyms.

On one occasion having that Nym and acting as a Whistleblower to a
Government Department saved my career when that Department shared my
email with the Company concerned. That company moved heaven and earth
to uncover my identity, even travelling to the Nym Server itself to
apply pressure.
I was safe, but protecting my anonymity then was a major priority.

But I am following this discussion with interest.

Thanks
Fred

> I've maintained several nyms for over 8 years.

Yes, so have I, but none of my friends, associates or relatives would
ever bother to set up the software, or in one or two rare cases, have
the patience and knowledge to create a Nym and use it.

Now days I use Omnimix and/or QSL to either post to some newsgroups, or
on occasions I have the need to post an anonymous email, but I've long
since given up expecting to have a two way anon conversation via
participating Nyms.

On one occasion having that Nym and acting as a Whistleblower to a
Government Department saved my career when that Department shared my
email with the Company concerned. That company moved heaven and earth
to uncover my identity, even travelling to the Nym Server itself to
apply pressure.
I was safe, but protecting my anonymity then was a major priority.

But I am following this discussion with interest.

Thanks
Fred

On 6/20/2022 6:29 PM, Anonymous wrote:

>> I've maintained several nyms for over 8 years.
>
> Yes, so have I, but none of my friends, associates or relatives would
> ever bother to set up the software, or in one or two rare cases, have
> the patience and knowledge to create a Nym and use it.
>
>
> Now days I use Omnimix and/or QSL to either post to some newsgroups, or
> on occasions I have the need to post an anonymous email, but I've long
> since given up expecting to have a two way anon conversation via
> participating Nyms.
>
> On one occasion having that Nym and acting as a Whistleblower to a
> Government Department saved my career when that Department shared my
> email with the Company concerned. That company moved heaven and earth
> to uncover my identity, even travelling to the Nym Server itself to
> apply pressure.
> I was safe, but protecting my anonymity then was a major priority.
>
>
> But I am following this discussion with interest.
>
>
> Thanks
> Fred
>

I totally respect and support the concept of nyms.

But nyms are way way above the average persons pay grade. Fact.