On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 22:20:28 +0000
Anonymous <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:

> Yamn Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Is Christmans Quicksilver open source?
>
> Similar to OmniMix for QSL
>
> - source code is available
> - in archive file format requiring an unpacker
> - hosted on private webspace
>
> <https://www.sec3.net/www.quicksilvermail.net/qslite/source/index.html>
>
> What a stupid discussion induced by an opponent of free speech.

That is not 'freely available' source code. If you have to download and
run an executable to get at the source it is a security risk and a red
flag.

Normal people bundle the source in a tarball or zip file, not a
self-extracting exe. The requirement to download and run a exe is an
intelligence test. If you take the test, you automatically fail.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 04:41:19 +0200 (CEST)
D <J@M> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:44:32 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
> wrote:
> >I found it easier to use
>
> OmniMix v2.6.8 (2022-12):

<snip>

The subject is a call for Bitmessage onion peers, not, let me change
the subject to OmniMix.

Let us know when you have set up a Bitmessage Onion service.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 20:55:31 -0400, Yamn Remailer
<remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:

>Fritz Wuehler wrote:

>>Microsoft also hides its code for health reasons.
>
>But OM doesn't. It's as transparent as it can be, as there's a setup
>program, which after a few clicks automatically installs its Freepascal
>Lazarus IDE, then used to compile the OmniMix executable file. Apart
>from the build timestamp that file is identical to the one installed
>with the OM setup program.

Full ACK.

Anyone here who compiled GPG or TOR from their sources and got a 1:1
copy of the distributed executables? That's scarcely to be expected.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:22:50 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 04:41:19 +0200 (CEST)
>D <J@M> wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:44:32 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
>> wrote:
>> >I found it easier to use
>>
>> OmniMix v2.6.8 (2022-12):
>
><snip>
>
>The subject is a call for Bitmessage onion peers, not, let me change
>the subject to OmniMix.
>Let us know when you have set up a Bitmessage Onion service.

only if it works with remailers . . . maybe "bitmessage" _does_ work with
mix/yamn remailers?. . . it could be interesting to learn more about this

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:34:28 +0200 (CEST)
D <J@M> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:22:50 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
> wrote:
> >On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 04:41:19 +0200 (CEST)
> >D <J@M> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:44:32 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
> >> wrote:
> >> >I found it easier to use
> >>
> >> OmniMix v2.6.8 (2022-12):
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >The subject is a call for Bitmessage onion peers, not, let me change
> >the subject to OmniMix.
> >Let us know when you have set up a Bitmessage Onion service.
>
> only if it works with remailers . . . maybe "bitmessage" _does_ work
> with mix/yamn remailers?. . . it could be interesting to learn more
> about this
>

Mailchuck
<https://github.com/PeterSurda/bitmessage-email-gateway>

BMWrapper
<https://github.com/Arceliar/bmwrapper>

There was a Bitmessage <=> Remailer gateway. No idea where source is.
<https://github.com/stefanclaas/mail2chan>

Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers. The interface
is simpler than standard email and NNTP clients. Reliability of delivery
is 100% on the Bitmessage protocol with 100% anonymity for all private
messages and secret channel messages.

The cryptography used in Bitmessage is the same cryptography used by
Bitcoin, with improvements. For the highly-paranoid, superencryption
with PGP prior to Bitmessage composition guarantees that any highly
unlikely bug in the crypto routines will not unmask sender or data.
Bitmessage has a powerful API that allows it to be used with custom
client software instead of the standard client bundle.

Uninformed or cult-like resistance to progress helps no one.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:34:28 +0200 (CEST) D <J@M> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:22:50 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 04:41:19 +0200 (CEST) D <J@M> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:44:32 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers> wrote:
>> >> >I found it easier to use
>> >> OmniMix v2.6.8 (2022-12):
snip

>Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers.

remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and without
using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity towards an external
observer" yes and "anonymity between the correspondents" yes, "latency"
medium and "reliability" medium, although based on my own experience of
daily posting latency and reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries;
but I never use email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.

On Tue 13 Jun 2023 1:20 am, Anonymous wrote:
> Yamn Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Is Christmans Quicksilver open source?
>
> Similar to OmniMix for QSL
>
> - source code is available
> - in archive file format requiring an unpacker
> - hosted on private webspace
>
> <https://www.sec3.net/www.quicksilvermail.net/qslite/source/index.html>
>
> What a stupid discussion induced by an opponent of free speech.
>

> induced by an opponent of free speech.

LOL.

WARNING SHILL DETECTED!

TYPE: GASLIGHTER
TACTIC: DENYING FACTS AND REALITY
TACTIC: PROMOTING ADENDA DRIVEN "REALITY"
WARNING: DO NOT ENGAGE!

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 06:40:09 +0100
Anonymous Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue 13 Jun 2023 1:20 am, Anonymous wrote:
> > Yamn Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Is Christmans Quicksilver open source?
> >
> > Similar to OmniMix for QSL
> >
> > - source code is available
> > - in archive file format requiring an unpacker
> > - hosted on private webspace
> >
> > <https://www.sec3.net/www.quicksilvermail.net/qslite/source/index.html>
> >
> > What a stupid discussion induced by an opponent of free speech.
> >
>
> > induced by an opponent of free speech.
>
> LOL.
>
> WARNING SHILL DETECTED!
>
> TYPE: GASLIGHTER
> TACTIC: DENYING FACTS AND REALITY
> TACTIC: PROMOTING ADENDA DRIVEN "REALITY"
> WARNING: DO NOT ENGAGE!

Your training is complete, Padawan.

Beware of the counterfeit Pedo Juan.

My the source be with you.

Some Donkey Butt wrote:

> Normal people bundle the source in a tarball

Normal people don't even know in which sport a tarball is used.
But they know about email and running an executable file.

D <J@M> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers> wrote:

>>Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers.

No, with OM it no longer is. It's just about the complexity of
your run-of-the-mill email and Usenet client and how good it is
in hiding RFC standards like MIME from the user. And you,
you're confined to your Bitmessage world, your separate
ecosystem, without any sophisticated tool to break that barrier.

>
>remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and without
>using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity towards an external
>observer" yes and "anonymity between the correspondents" yes, "latency"
>medium and "reliability" medium, although based on my own experience of
>daily posting latency and reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries;
>but I never use email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.

A nym with acksend activated returns a reply with each message
confirming its delivery to the recipient's mail host. It's that
feedback, which makes nyms highly reliable.

On Tue 13 Jun 2023 12:23 pm, Hobbit wrote:
> D <J@M> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers> wrote:
>
>>> Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers.
>
> No, with OM it no longer is. It's just about the complexity of
> your run-of-the-mill email and Usenet client and how good it is
> in hiding RFC standards like MIME from the user. And you,
> you're confined to your Bitmessage world, your separate
> ecosystem, without any sophisticated tool to break that barrier.
>
>>
>> remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and without
>> using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity towards an external
>> observer" yes and "anonymity between the correspondents" yes, "latency"
>> medium and "reliability" medium, although based on my own experience of
>> daily posting latency and reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries;
>> but I never use email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.
>
> A nym with acksend activated returns a reply with each message
> confirming its delivery to the recipient's mail host. It's that
> feedback, which makes nyms highly reliable.
>
The last Bitmessage update was 2018. Not encouraging.

On Tue 13 Jun 2023 12:23 pm, Hobbit wrote:
> D <J@M> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers> wrote:
>
>>> Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers.
>
> No, with OM it no longer is. It's just about the complexity of
> your run-of-the-mill email and Usenet client and how good it is
> in hiding RFC standards like MIME from the user. And you,
> you're confined to your Bitmessage world, your separate
> ecosystem, without any sophisticated tool to break that barrier.
>
>>
>> remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and without
>> using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity towards an external
>> observer" yes and "anonymity between the correspondents" yes, "latency"
>> medium and "reliability" medium, although based on my own experience of
>> daily posting latency and reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries;
>> but I never use email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.
>
> A nym with acksend activated returns a reply with each message
> confirming its delivery to the recipient's mail host. It's that
> feedback, which makes nyms highly reliable.
>
The last time I looked BM had many pedo's posting shit.

grep@ass.key (Donkey Button) wrote:
> That is not 'freely available' source code. If you have to download and
> run an executable to get at the source it is a security risk and a red
> flag.
>
> Normal people bundle the source in a tarball or zip file, not a
> self-extracting exe. The requirement to download and run a exe is an
> intelligence test. If you take the test, you automatically fail.

People with security-interests use an unpacker to extract the archive.
Zip, tar or similar would be better, of course.

On Tue 13 Jun 2023 7:18 am, Bitmessage wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:34:28 +0200 (CEST)
> D <J@M> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:22:50 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 04:41:19 +0200 (CEST)
>>> D <J@M> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:44:32 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I found it easier to use
>>>>
>>>> OmniMix v2.6.8 (2022-12):
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> The subject is a call for Bitmessage onion peers, not, let me change
>>> the subject to OmniMix.
>>> Let us know when you have set up a Bitmessage Onion service.
>>
>> only if it works with remailers . . . maybe "bitmessage" _does_ work
>> with mix/yamn remailers?. . . it could be interesting to learn more
>> about this
>>
>
> Mailchuck
> <https://github.com/PeterSurda/bitmessage-email-gateway>
>
> BMWrapper
> <https://github.com/Arceliar/bmwrapper>
>
> There was a Bitmessage <=> Remailer gateway. No idea where source is.
> <https://github.com/stefanclaas/mail2chan>
>
> Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers. The interface
> is simpler than standard email and NNTP clients. Reliability of delivery
> is 100% on the Bitmessage protocol with 100% anonymity for all private
> messages and secret channel messages.
>
> The cryptography used in Bitmessage is the same cryptography used by
> Bitcoin, with improvements. For the highly-paranoid, superencryption
> with PGP prior to Bitmessage composition guarantees that any highly
> unlikely bug in the crypto routines will not unmask sender or data.
> Bitmessage has a powerful API that allows it to be used with custom
> client software instead of the standard client bundle.
>
> Uninformed or cult-like resistance to progress helps no one.
>
Bitmessage is good but trying to keep up with the conversation as
hundreds of messages flash by on #General is a drag. Maybe for one
to one comms yes, but not for forum style interaction.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:23:23 +0100 (BST), Hobbit <hobbit@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>D <J@M> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers> wrote:
>>>Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers.
>
>No, with OM it no longer is. It's just about the complexity of
>your run-of-the-mill email and Usenet client and how good it is
>in hiding RFC standards like MIME from the user. And you,
>you're confined to your Bitmessage world, your separate
>ecosystem, without any sophisticated tool to break that barrier.
>>
>>remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and without
>>using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity towards an external
>>observer" yes and "anonymity between the correspondents" yes, "latency"
>>medium and "reliability" medium, although based on my own experience of
>>daily posting latency and reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries;
>>but I never use email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.
>
>A nym with acksend activated returns a reply with each message
>confirming its delivery to the recipient's mail host. It's that
>feedback, which makes nyms highly reliable.

thus the advantage of posting/replying to unmoderated newsgroups via
remailers w/tor: plain text, encrypted at entry, unencrypted at exit,
nothing secret, hence no need for private "sender/recipient" contact

D <J@M> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 10:23:23 +0100 (BST), Hobbit <hobbit@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>>D <J@M> wrote:

>>>remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and without
>>>using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity towards an external
>>>observer" yes and "anonymity between the correspondents" yes, "latency"
>>>medium and "reliability" medium, although based on my own experience of
>>>daily posting latency and reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries;
>>>but I never use email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.
>>
>>A nym with acksend activated returns a reply with each message
>>confirming its delivery to the recipient's mail host. It's that
>>feedback, which makes nyms highly reliable.
>
>thus the advantage of posting/replying to unmoderated newsgroups via
>remailers w/tor: plain text, encrypted at entry, unencrypted at exit,
>nothing secret, hence no need for private "sender/recipient" contact

You're right, Usenet conversations aren't the scenario that
requires a nym. But for email it's an absolute must-have.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 05:34:28 +0200 (CEST)
>D <J@M> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 20:22:50 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
>> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 04:41:19 +0200 (CEST)
>> >D <J@M> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:44:32 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >I found it easier to use
>> >>
>> >> OmniMix v2.6.8 (2022-12):
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >The subject is a call for Bitmessage onion peers, not, let me change
>> >the subject to OmniMix.
>> >Let us know when you have set up a Bitmessage Onion service.
>>
>> only if it works with remailers . . . maybe "bitmessage" _does_ work
>> with mix/yamn remailers?. . . it could be interesting to learn more
>> about this
>>
>
>Mailchuck
><https://github.com/PeterSurda/bitmessage-email-gateway>
>
>BMWrapper
><https://github.com/Arceliar/bmwrapper>
>
>There was a Bitmessage <=> Remailer gateway. No idea where source is.
><https://github.com/stefanclaas/mail2chan>
>
>Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers. The interface
>is simpler than standard email and NNTP clients. Reliability of delivery
>is 100% on the Bitmessage protocol with 100% anonymity for all private
>messages and secret channel messages.
>
>The cryptography used in Bitmessage is the same cryptography used by
>Bitcoin, with improvements. For the highly-paranoid, superencryption
>with PGP prior to Bitmessage composition guarantees that any highly
>unlikely bug in the crypto routines will not unmask sender or data.
>Bitmessage has a powerful API that allows it to be used with custom
>client software instead of the standard client bundle.
>
>Uninformed or cult-like resistance to progress helps no one.

So I, one of the uninformed, tried to get some information:

Obviously, according to <https://github.com/Bitmessage>

| Popular repositories
|
| PyBitmessage
|
| Reference client for Bitmessage: a P2P encrypted decentralised
| communication protocol:

and <https://wiki.bitmessage.org/>, PyBitmessage is the reference
implementation of your Bitmessage system. And the first lines of the
Wiki's introduction page already come with a red alert about a major
security breach:

| A remote code execution vulnerability has been spotted in use against
| some users running PyBitmessage v0.6.2. The cause was identified and a
| fix has been added and released as 0.6.3.2 here. If you run PyBitmessage
| via code, we highly recommend that you upgrade to 0.6.3.2. Alternatively
| you may downgrade to 0.6.1 which is unaffected. .
|
| Bitmessage developer Peter Šurda's Bitmessage addresses are to be
| considered compromised.

On the right there's written

| Previous Version (Beta)
|
| 0.6.1
| Aug 21, 2016
| Changelog

and following the Changelog link
<https://wiki.bitmessage.org/index.php/Changelog> that list only covers

| PyBitmessage Changelog
|
| 0.6.2
|
| Usability:
[...]
| 0.1.0
|
| Initial release
|
| This page was last edited on 1 March 2017, at 12:38.

Then I followed the 0.6.3.2 link from above and had to read

| Feb 13, 2018
| PeterSurda
| v0.6.3
|
| Emergency release to fix an exploitable bug
|
| Version 0.6.2 has a bug that can be exploited for remote code execution.
| This is an emergency release, and 0.6.4 will be released in a couple of
| days with cleanup originally intended for 0.6.3, and full release notes.
| Everyone who uses 0.6.2 should upgrade (or, if upgrade is not possible,
| downgrade).
|
| Apart from the emergency fix, this release contains a new network
| subsystem which requires less resources (CPU and memory) and the
| Dandelion++ protocol extension for enhanced privacy.
|
| Windows and OSX binaries follow soon.

| Feb 13, 2018
| PeterSurda
| 0.6.3.2
|
| More strict exploit mitigation
|
| This version is an update on 0.6.3 with a more strict exploit mitigation
| code. Users of 0.6.2 should either upgrade to 0.6.3.2 or downgrade to
| 0.6.1.
|
| February 16th: Windows binary available, signed both with a code signing
| key and a GPG key. Note: there won't be a 64bit Windows binary for
| 0.6.3.2 due to a lack of time. The new network subsystem has
| significantly improved CPU and memory requirements so you shouldn't be
| running low on memory even with the 32bit binary.
|
| February 17th: OSX binary available, only GPG signed, will be released
| code signed in the near future.
|
| February 19th: OSX code signing delayed for a couple of days for
| technical reasons.
|
|
| Kay-kay2019 reacted with laugh emoji
| 1 person reacted

That's from early 2018 !!!!!!!!
And where's the announced 0.6.4 release ????????

At <https://github.com/Bitmessage> you find

| Bitmessage
|
| 12 followers - http://bitmessage.org

12 followers!

To sum it up, Bitmessage is dead, dead as a dodo.
And whether it's now safe, who will know?

PS:

Digging deeper I finally found an interesting thread at the Issues page

<https://github.com/Bitmessage/PyBitmessage/issues/1877>

| Will there ever be some stable tag released?

| PeterSurda commented Nov 9, 2021
|
| Thank you for your interest in the project. The problem isn't really
| stability. Stability is fine, much improved over the years. The problem
| is releasing binaries. There is currently no working method for
| generating binaries for macOS. 64bit version for Windows is also broken
| although the 32bit one is available and seems to work ok. Non-tagged
| binaries are built automatically and can be downloaded from
| https://appimage.bitmessage.org/releases/ (appimage for Linux) and
| https://download.bitmessage.org/snapshots/ (windows). It hasn't been
| announced broadly as the infrastructure is under construction and the
| location may change unpredictably.

A few lines down on that page fgaz reported the same day, Bitmessage has
been removed from Linux distros.

Out of curiosity I downloaded
https://download.bitmessage.org/snapshots/20230116/Bitmessage_x64.exe
and
https://download.bitmessage.org/snapshots/20230116/Bitmessage_x86.exe
not knowing whether these files are setup programs or the applications
themselves. I also found no signature files verifying their origin.

According to my hex editor these may be setup files including a
Bitmessage_x64_0.6.3.2.exe.manifest resp.
Bitmessage_x86_0.6.3.2.exe.manifest file. So not even v0.6.4!?

Never ever would I risk to run such a piece of software.
Chapter closed.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 08:16:56 -0400
Yamn Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue 13 Jun 2023 12:23 pm, Hobbit wrote:
> > D <J@M> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers.
> >
> > No, with OM it no longer is. It's just about the complexity of
> > your run-of-the-mill email and Usenet client and how good it is
> > in hiding RFC standards like MIME from the user. And you,
> > you're confined to your Bitmessage world, your separate
> > ecosystem, without any sophisticated tool to break that barrier.
> >
> >>
> >> remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and
> >> without using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity
> >> towards an external observer" yes and "anonymity between the
> >> correspondents" yes, "latency" medium and "reliability" medium,
> >> although based on my own experience of daily posting latency and
> >> reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries; but I never use
> >> email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.
> >
> > A nym with acksend activated returns a reply with each message
> > confirming its delivery to the recipient's mail host. It's that
> > feedback, which makes nyms highly reliable.
> >
> The last Bitmessage update was 2018. Not encouraging.
>

FUD.

https://github.com/Bitmessage/PyBitmessage/commit/3d19c3f23fad2c7a26e8606cd95c6b3df417cfbc

Last commit was January 13th of this year. You using date from branch
master is dishonest ploy.

On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:19:31 +0200
Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202306.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
wrote:

> On Tue 13 Jun 2023 12:23 pm, Hobbit wrote:
> > D <J@M> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers.
> >
> > No, with OM it no longer is. It's just about the complexity of
> > your run-of-the-mill email and Usenet client and how good it is
> > in hiding RFC standards like MIME from the user. And you,
> > you're confined to your Bitmessage world, your separate
> > ecosystem, without any sophisticated tool to break that barrier.
> >
> >>
> >> remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and
> >> without using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity
> >> towards an external observer" yes and "anonymity between the
> >> correspondents" yes, "latency" medium and "reliability" medium,
> >> although based on my own experience of daily posting latency and
> >> reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries; but I never use
> >> email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.
> >
> > A nym with acksend activated returns a reply with each message
> > confirming its delivery to the recipient's mail host. It's that
> > feedback, which makes nyms highly reliable.
> >
> The last time I looked BM had many pedo's posting shit.
>

A thousand times as many pedos post on Usenet with NZB clients.

Are you saying pedos don't use remailers? Count the vids in your porn
collection then get back to me on that question.

Pedos also use Facebook, Twitter, Mastodon, and email. Pedos also shop
at Walmart and fuel up at your local gas station. Pedos also drive down
the streets of your neighborhood. Better stop buying groceries and gas!

What was your point?

More FUD crap from another anonymous cult parrot who doesn't know what
he's talking about.

On 6/13/2023 8:25 AM, Hobbit wrote:

SNIP

> You're right, Usenet conversations aren't the scenario that
> requires a nym. But for email it's an absolute must-have.

Agreed 100%!!

On Tue 13 Jun 2023 11:45 pm, FUD Detector wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2023 14:19:31 +0200
> Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-202306.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue 13 Jun 2023 12:23 pm, Hobbit wrote:
>>> D <J@M> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 23:18:17 -0500, Bitmessage <bit@message.peers>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Bitmessage is much easier to use compared to remailers.
>>>
>>> No, with OM it no longer is. It's just about the complexity of
>>> your run-of-the-mill email and Usenet client and how good it is
>>> in hiding RFC standards like MIME from the user. And you,
>>> you're confined to your Bitmessage world, your separate
>>> ecosystem, without any sophisticated tool to break that barrier.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> remailing to newsgroups using Omnimix w/Tor is easy as pie, and
>>>> without using "whole message encryption" yields: "anonymity
>>>> towards an external observer" yes and "anonymity between the
>>>> correspondents" yes, "latency" medium and "reliability" medium,
>>>> although based on my own experience of daily posting latency and
>>>> reliability is > 90% success rate w/o retries; but I never use
>>>> email, pgp, nyms, etc, so "mileage may vary" for others.
>>>
>>> A nym with acksend activated returns a reply with each message
>>> confirming its delivery to the recipient's mail host. It's that
>>> feedback, which makes nyms highly reliable.
>>>
>> The last time I looked BM had many pedo's posting shit.
>>
>
> A thousand times as many pedos post on Usenet with NZB clients.
>
> Are you saying pedos don't use remailers? Count the vids in your porn
> collection then get back to me on that question.
>
> Pedos also use Facebook, Twitter, Mastodon, and email. Pedos also shop
> at Walmart and fuel up at your local gas station. Pedos also drive down
> the streets of your neighborhood. Better stop buying groceries and gas!
>
> What was your point?
>
> More FUD crap from another anonymous cult parrot who doesn't know what
> he's talking about.
>
>
> Pedos also use Facebook, Twitter, Mastodon, and email. Pedos also shop
> at Walmart and fuel up at your local gas station. Pedos also drive >
> down the streets of your neighborhood. Better stop buying groceries
> and gas!

You sure know a lot about pedos.

On Wed 14 Jun 2023 1:47 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> On 6/13/2023 8:25 AM, Hobbit wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> You're right, Usenet conversations aren't the scenario that
>> requires a nym. But for email it's an absolute must-have.
>

You're pretty hopefull. Everyone I know, and I mean everyone, doesn't
have the slightest interest in comsec and doesn't have a clue about
encryption - and they don't care. We're a tiny minority and the
encryption adoption battle was lost long ago. The last three years and
the "pandemic" proved that 90% of people are cattle to be herded.

Yamn Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed 14 Jun 2023 1:47 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> On 6/13/2023 8:25 AM, Hobbit wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>> You're right, Usenet conversations aren't the scenario that
>>> requires a nym. But for email it's an absolute must-have.
>>
>
>You're pretty hopefull. Everyone I know, and I mean everyone, doesn't
>have the slightest interest in comsec and doesn't have a clue about
>encryption - and they don't care.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I meant in comparison with normal
remailing.

> We're a tiny minority and the
>encryption adoption battle was lost long ago. The last three years and
>the "pandemic" proved that 90% of people are cattle to be herded.

Nowadays privacy is out of favour, as unlimited ways of
publishing make everyone a hero no matter what kind of sh*i he
comes out with. But these pipe dreams have an end some time and
more and more intense surveillance will be seen as a risk to
society. For those worse years to come we have to foster and
position our defensive tools. There will be war ...

On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:48:13 +0100 (BST), Hobbit <hobbit@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>Yamn Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>On Wed 14 Jun 2023 1:47 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2023 8:25 AM, Hobbit wrote:
>>> SNIP
>>>
>>>> You're right, Usenet conversations aren't the scenario that
>>>> requires a nym. But for email it's an absolute must-have.
>
>> We're a tiny minority and the
>>encryption adoption battle was lost long ago. The last three years and
>>the "pandemic" proved that 90% of people are cattle to be herded.
>
>Nowadays privacy is out of favour, as unlimited ways of
>publishing make everyone a hero no matter what kind of sh*i he
>comes out with. But these pipe dreams have an end some time and
>more and more intense surveillance will be seen as a risk to
>society. For those worse years to come we have to foster and
>position our defensive tools. There will be war ...

pacifists are powerless against activists

D <J@M> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2023 20:48:13 +0100 (BST), Hobbit <hobbit@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
>>Yamn Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Wed 14 Jun 2023 1:47 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2023 8:25 AM, Hobbit wrote:
>>>> SNIP
>>>>
>>>>> You're right, Usenet conversations aren't the scenario that
>>>>> requires a nym. But for email it's an absolute must-have.
>>
>>> We're a tiny minority and the
>>>encryption adoption battle was lost long ago. The last three years and
>>>the "pandemic" proved that 90% of people are cattle to be herded.
>>
>>Nowadays privacy is out of favour, as unlimited ways of
>>publishing make everyone a hero no matter what kind of sh*i he
>>comes out with. But these pipe dreams have an end some time and
>>more and more intense surveillance will be seen as a risk to
>>society. For those worse years to come we have to foster and
>>position our defensive tools. There will be war ...
>
>pacifists are powerless against activists

Pacifism is an ideology, in other words a mistake.
But activists with their communication wire-tapped
are also doomed to fail.