Hi all!

I'm just trying to read more about anonymous remailing and wonder why
Wikipedia mainly stays tight-lipped on that topic, and what it presents
is way outdated ("Peter Palfrader is the current maintainer" of
Mixmaster? Where is Yamn?). Compared with other software topics,
particularly a multitude of detailed Tor articles (Tor (Network) / The
Tor Project / List of Tor onion services / Tor Mail / Tor2web / Torchat
/ Vidalia (software) / Orbot aso.) that's a shame.

Therefore my question: What's the reason for that lack of information?
Isn't remailing still the most secure method to communicate anonymously,
worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?

On 2022-11-02, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

> Therefore my question: What's the reason for that lack of information?

Tor is much more versatile than remailers and has a large number of users.

> Isn't remailing still the most secure method to communicate anonymously,

I'd doubt that. It all depends on who you're hiding from and why.

> worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?

It's a wiki. Click the edit button and have at it.

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> On 2022-11-02, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

> > Isn't remailing still the most secure method to communicate anonymously,
>
> I'd doubt that. It all depends on who you're hiding from and why.

I'm all ears.

Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> Therefore my question: What's the reason for
> that lack of information? > Isn't remailing still
> the most secure method to communicate anonymously,
> worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?

People who have no clue about remailer delete
additions / changes , see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.159.6.25>

> Tor is much more versatile than remailers and has a large number of users.

You really think the TorChat hack, final release 2012 (!),
with its numerous flaws is such a tremendous success that
justifies a separate article

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorChat>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorChat#Security>

while otoh OmniMix isn't mentioned anywhere?

Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>> Therefore my question: What's the reason for
>> that lack of information? > Isn't remailing still
>> the most secure method to communicate anonymously,
>> worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?
>
>People who have no clue about remailer delete
>additions / changes , see
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.159.6.25>

Wikipedia vs. anonymous remailing is a long story of contempt.

Wikipedia
Sep 30, 2021, 1:14:41 PM
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.privacy.anon-server/c/mu89397HJ3U/m/cZj7fLvlAwAJ>

Remailer software in Wikipedia
Nov 8, 2017, 12:47:08 AM
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.privacy.anon-server/c/enwLEPa2DQw/m/OvXLZF4ZCAAJ>

Wikipedia
May 25, 2017, 10:56:58 AM
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.privacy.anon-server/c/R4XMwSZLQHM/m/uQYBCMn6AgAJ>

Remailer client war against OmniMix continuing at Wikipedia
Dec 27, 2013, 4:47:22 AM
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.privacy.anon-server/c/usdoSDGyD6M/m/rSXSyf3d4_IJ>

Wikipedia fraud
Oct 9, 2010, 1:50:03 PM
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.privacy.anon-server/c/fGOSQI_-UgM/m/Lje1QEkGEGgJ>

Wikipedia remailer article garbled
Feb 22, 2009, 2:39:53 PM
<https://groups.google.com/g/alt.privacy.anon-server/c/Etb4fBJQtj4/m/k0nIM4wn9p0J>

And it's still unclear why Wikipedia reviewers operate on a double standard.

On 11/2/2022 1:49 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Therefore my question: What's the reason for that lack of
information?
> Isn't remailing still the most secure method to communicate
anonymously,
> worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?

Anonymous communication for whom and under what circumstances?

Remailers are very effective, but very constrained
in modern real world communication.

We have three scenarios for remailers:

1) A non-replyable one way standard remailer message to a recipient
email address.

Anonymity achieved for sender.

2) A remailer message sent with a pseudonymous remailer Nym.

Anonymity is achieved for the sender. But if the recipient
uses a standard email address to reply to a Nym user, then perfect
anonymity is not achieved, as now a social graph can partially be
determined in terms of "who is talking to whom." And that is valuable
metadata. Unless both parties to a conversation use remailer Nyms,
there is only limited anonymous communication.

3) Usenet

Usenet is from the VCR generation.

True anonymous communication occurs when the identities
of sender and receiver are concealed.

On 11/2/2022 1:49 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Therefore my question: What's the reason for that lack of
information?
> Isn't remailing still the most secure method to communicate
anonymously,
> worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?

Whoever said that Wikipedia was a reliable source of anything
resembling useful?
Especially concerning remailers.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 22:17:19 +0000, Anonymous Remailer
<remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/2/2022 1:49 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> Therefore my question: What's the reason for that lack of
>information?
>> Isn't remailing still the most secure method to communicate
>anonymously,
>> worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?
>
>
>Whoever said that Wikipedia was a reliable source of anything
>resembling useful?
>Especially concerning remailers.

Quit smearing them with a totally inclusive cloth of deceit because of
their deceitfful cultural and political agenda. The dang thing is one
of the most useful sources of info on the net.

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

>> Tor is much more versatile than remailers and has a large number of users.
>
>You really think the TorChat hack, final release 2012 (!),
>with its numerous flaws is such a tremendous success that
>justifies a separate article
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorChat>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TorChat#Security>
>
>while otoh OmniMix isn't mentioned anywhere?

As OM already is a great Tor controller with unique Tor related
features, why not put the wolf in sheep's clothing and call it
TorMix, a member of the Tor herd within the Wikibadia ecosystem?

On 11/2/2022 5:43 PM, Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> As OM already is a great Tor controller with unique Tor related
> features, why not put the wolf in sheep's clothing and call it
> TorMix, a member of the Tor herd within the Wikibadia ecosystem?
>

Trail Mix or Chex Mix would be even better.

Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote:
>On 11/2/2022 1:49 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> Therefore my question: What's the reason for that lack of
>information?
>> Isn't remailing still the most secure method to communicate
>anonymously,
>> worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?
>
>
>Anonymous communication for whom and under what circumstances?
>
>Remailers are very effective, but very constrained
>in modern real world communication.

Face it, an e-mail address still is the most common personal identifier
and thereby best established delivery token on the Internet. Not a
Twitter username, not even your phone number used by WhatsApp or a few
Signal installations, but a simple x@y.z mail address.

>
>We have three scenarios for remailers:
>
>1) A non-replyable one way standard remailer message to a recipient
>email address.
>
>Anonymity achieved for sender.
>
>2) A remailer message sent with a pseudonymous remailer Nym.
>
>Anonymity is achieved for the sender. But if the recipient
>uses a standard email address to reply to a Nym user, then perfect
>anonymity is not achieved, as now a social graph can partially be
>determined in terms of "who is talking to whom." And that is valuable
>metadata. Unless both parties to a conversation use remailer Nyms,
>there is only limited anonymous communication.
>
>3) Usenet
>
>Usenet is from the VCR generation.
>
>True anonymous communication occurs when the identities
>of sender and receiver are concealed.

.... by using nym accounts, and the participants' message i/o isn't
detectable as it hides within a stream of further Tor data transfers.

On 11/3/2022 1:30 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:e

> ... by using nym accounts, and the participants' message i/o isn't
> detectable as it hides within a stream of further Tor data transfers.

To this day, nothing beats the security of bidirectional communication
between 2 nym accounts.

On 11/03/2022 09:30:40 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote:
>Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
>wrote:

>>Remailers are very effective, but very constrained
>>in modern real world communication.
>
>Face it, an e-mail address still is the most common personal identifier
>and thereby best established delivery token on the Internet. Not a
>Twitter username, not even your phone number used by WhatsApp or a few
>Signal installations, but a simple x@y.z mail address.

Estimated active users in 2022 (in millions):

Email 4,200
WhatsApp 2,300
iMessage 1,300
Weixin/WeChat 1,263
Facebook Messenger 988
QQ 574
Snapchat 557
Telegram 550
Signal 50
XMPP ?

<https://www.messengerpeople.com/global-messenger-usage-statistics/>
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/258749/most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps/>
<https://www.statista.com/statistics/255080/number-of-e-mail-users-worldwide/>
<https://www.radicati.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Email-Statistics-Report-2021-2025-Executive-Summary.pdf>
<https://www.emailisnotdead.com/>
<https://www.businessofapps.com/data/whatsapp-statistics/>
<https://www.businessofapps.com/data/telegram-statistics/>
<https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-statistics/>

In article <20221104.031025.b9401ad8@remailer.frell.eu.org> Fritz
Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
>On 11/3/2022 1:30 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:e
>
>> ... by using nym accounts, and the participants' message i/o isn't
>> detectable as it hides within a stream of further Tor data transfers.
>
>
>To this day, nothing beats the security of bidirectional communication
>between 2 nym accounts.

+1

OmniMix rulez. Bring it back to Wikipedia!

On 11/2/2022 4:26 PM, corky@here.now.com wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 22:17:19 +0000, Anonymous Remailer
> <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 11/2/2022 1:49 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> Therefore my question: What's the reason for that lack of
>> information?
>>> Isn't remailing still the most secure method to communicate
>> anonymously,
>>> worth being covered adequately also in Wikipedia?
>>
>>
>> Whoever said that Wikipedia was a reliable source of anything
>> resembling useful?
>> Especially concerning remailers.
>
> Quit smearing them with a totally inclusive cloth of deceit because of
> their deceitfful cultural and political agenda. The dang thing is one
> of the most useful sources of info on the net.

Wikipedia is always biased since the beginning.

It reminds me of my university days.

College professor hate references from Wikipedia.