Ola,

I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com

- new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
- added TLS support

Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work please ping me here.

Cheers,
Alex

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Alex de Joode
<usura@bsdtor.sx> wrote:

>Ola,
>
>I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com
>
>- new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
>- added TLS support
>
>Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work please ping me here.
>
>Cheers,
>Alex

Does this affect the simple use of QSL in someway - some changes in
what...?

In article <c522dilrdmtslvdg9qe87k96hap913s6gh@4ax.com>
maury!@Help!.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Alex de Joode
> <usura@bsdtor.sx> wrote:
>
> >Ola,
> >
> >I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com
> >
> >- new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
> >- added TLS support
> >
> >Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work please ping me here.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Alex
>
> Does this affect the simple use of QSL in someway - some changes in
> what...?

No, nothing to change in QSL.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 10:09:08 -0500, maury!@Help!.com wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Alex de Joode
><usura@bsdtor.sx> wrote:
>>Ola,
>>I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com
>>- new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
>>- added TLS support
>>Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work please ping me here.
>>Cheers,
>>Alex
>
>Does this affect the simple use of QSL in someway - some changes in
>what...?

Q: What does QSL do that Omnimix can't do better? Could it be that
QSL is old/obsolete enough to work with Windows XP, and that is
why questions about QSL have persisted here on a.p.a-s for many
years without resolution? Omnimix works great w/ Windows 11 & 7.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:12:33 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>In article <c522dilrdmtslvdg9qe87k96hap913s6gh@4ax.com>
>maury!@Help!.com wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Alex de Joode
>> <usura@bsdtor.sx> wrote:
>>
>> >Ola,
>> >
>> >I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com
>> >
>> >- new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
>> >- added TLS support
>> >
>> >Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work please ping me here.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >Alex
>>
>> Does this affect the simple use of QSL in someway - some changes in
>> what...?
>
>No, nothing to change in QSL.

Thanks. As a non tech type user, I wasn't sure.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:37:40 +0200 (CEST), D <J@M> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 10:09:08 -0500, maury!@Help!.com wrote:
>>On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Alex de Joode
>><usura@bsdtor.sx> wrote:
>>>Ola,
>>>I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com
>>>- new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
>>>- added TLS support
>>>Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work please ping me here.
>>>Cheers,
>>>Alex
>>
>>Does this affect the simple use of QSL in someway - some changes in
>>what...?
>
>Q: What does QSL do that Omnimix can't do better? Could it be that
> QSL is old/obsolete enough to work with Windows XP, and that is
> why questions about QSL have persisted here on a.p.a-s for many
> years without resolution? Omnimix works great w/ Windows 11 & 7.

No more XP compatibility?

On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:42:33 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:37:40 +0200 (CEST), D <J@M> wrote:
>>On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 10:09:08 -0500, maury!@Help!.com wrote:
>>>On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 11:50:59 -0000 (UTC), Alex de Joode
>>><usura@bsdtor.sx> wrote:
>>>>Ola,
>>>>I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com
>>>>- new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
>>>>- added TLS support
>>>>Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work please ping me here.
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Alex
>>>
>>>Does this affect the simple use of QSL in someway - some changes in
>>>what...?
>>
>>Q: What does QSL do that Omnimix can't do better? Could it be that
>> QSL is old/obsolete enough to work with Windows XP, and that is
>> why questions about QSL have persisted here on a.p.a-s for many
>> years without resolution? Omnimix works great w/ Windows 11 & 7.
>
>No more XP compatibility?

it might be with Windows 95, but XP is too advanced for this to work?

Alex de Joode <usura@bsdtor.sx> wrote in
news:uaqlr3$33f$1@poison.alphared.net:

> Ola,
>
> I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com
>
> - new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
> - added TLS support
>
> Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work
> please ping me here.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex

Working well here. Thanks!

D <J@M> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:42:33 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>>On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:37:40 +0200 (CEST), D <J@M> wrote:

>>>Q: What does QSL do that Omnimix can't do better? Could it be that
>>> QSL is old/obsolete enough to work with Windows XP, and that is
>>> why questions about QSL have persisted here on a.p.a-s for many
>>> years without resolution? Omnimix works great w/ Windows 11 & 7.
>>
>>No more XP compatibility?
>
>it might be with Windows 95, but XP is too advanced for this to work?

Omnimix with all its components (Hamster, GPG, Tor) still cooperates
nicely with Windows XP and now also runs in a Linux Wine environment.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 20:22:20 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>D <J@M> wrote:
>>On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:42:33 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 22:37:40 +0200 (CEST), D <J@M> wrote:
>>>>Q: What does QSL do that Omnimix can't do better? Could it be that
>>>> QSL is old/obsolete enough to work with Windows XP, and that is
>>>> why questions about QSL have persisted here on a.p.a-s for many
>>>> years without resolution? Omnimix works great w/ Windows 11 & 7.
>>>No more XP compatibility?
>>it might be with Windows 95, but XP is too advanced for this to work?
>
>Omnimix with all its components (Hamster, GPG, Tor) still cooperates
>nicely with Windows XP and now also runs in a Linux Wine environment.

hadn't used XP since Windows 7, so if Omnimix and all that really
works (comparable to more modern Windows versions, perhaps "Vista"
if anyone actually still uses it), then so much the better, though
why anyone would still be using XP is interesting; but as for QSL,
no one seems interested in discussing why QSL could possibly work
anywhere near as well as Omnimix; QSL gets complaints, while the
up-to-date Omnimix seems to do everything related to remailers...

In article <586ebc339fac94158837dafa05ca72dc@dizum.com>
D <J@M> wrote:

> QSL gets complaints

Cite.

On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 23:31:45 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>In article <586ebc339fac94158837dafa05ca72dc@dizum.com>
>D <J@M> wrote:
>> QSL gets complaints
>
>Cite

QSL is unmaintained . . . Omnimix does more and is maintained;
Omnimix works great and is apparently more versatile than QSL;
some QSL users are probably using both QSL and Omnimix, while
others may not have the time or interest in figuring out how
to use Omnimix, even with it's comprehensive on-line tutorial;
these are facts in evidence, not hearsay "gossip"; Omnimix is
better than QSL, and is said to work well on old XP computers;
Omnimix certainly works fine with Windows 11 and Windows 7, so
the mystery remains as to why anyone would still be using "XP"
or "QSL" for that matter, as such technologies are antiquated;
maybe there is some reason for this . . . but no one's talking

In article <b752f53babe42d8aa77addee005f9873@dizum.com>
D <J@M> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 23:31:45 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> >In article <586ebc339fac94158837dafa05ca72dc@dizum.com>
> >D <J@M> wrote:
> >> QSL gets complaints
> >
> >Cite
>
> QSL is unmaintained

Still, no complaints cited.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 09:48:15 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>In article <b752f53babe42d8aa77addee005f9873@dizum.com>
>D <J@M> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 23:31:45 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>> >In article <586ebc339fac94158837dafa05ca72dc@dizum.com>
>> >D <J@M> wrote:
>>QSL is unmaintained . . . Omnimix does more and is maintained;
>>Omnimix works great and is apparently more versatile than QSL;
>>some QSL users are probably using both QSL and Omnimix, while
>>others may not have the time or interest in figuring out how
>>to use Omnimix, even with it's comprehensive on-line tutorial;
>>these are facts in evidence, not hearsay "gossip"; Omnimix is
>>better than QSL, and is said to work well on old XP computers;
>>Omnimix certainly works fine with Windows 11 and Windows 7, so
>>the mystery remains as to why anyone would still be using "XP"
>>or "QSL" for that matter, as such technologies are antiquated;
>>maybe there is some reason for this . . . but no one's talking
>
>Still, no complaints cited

OmniMix 2.6.8 (2022-11-27):
https://www.danner-net.de/om.htm
https://www.danner-net.de/omom/index.htm
https://www.danner-net.de/om/OmniMix_2.6.8_Uno_Setup.exe

On 8/13/2023 12:48 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> In article <b752f53babe42d8aa77addee005f9873@dizum.com>
> D <J@M> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2023 23:31:45 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>> In article <586ebc339fac94158837dafa05ca72dc@dizum.com>
>>> D <J@M> wrote:
>>>> QSL gets complaints
>>>
>>> Cite
>>'ol
>> QSL is unmaintained
>
> Still, no complaints cited.

Mostly people right here on good 'ol apas
who have misconfigured QSL or have not properly updated it.

On Sun, 13 Aug 2023 09:48:15 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Still, no complaints cited

p.s.
wading through local a.p.a-s archives (since Jan 1998, 25 years), this
little gem appears to summarize why some QSL users don't like Omnimix:
Message-ID: <d1777c3bcced43ef26c07eac7c984387@foto.nl1.torservers.net>
Subject: Re: onion server with tor
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 09:36:09 -0400 (EDT)
Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server
snip
>> After reading these ridiculously complicated instructions for using
>> OmniMix for anon posting, I again thank Richard Christman for QSL.
>Takes me about 5 minutes tops to get OmniMix customized the way
>I want it to run after a brand new install.
>Use the mouse, Luke.
[end quote]

there were many pros and cons discussed about both QS/L and Omnimix,
mostly over headers, ports, configurations, etc., but the majority
of complaints about Omnimix being "too complicated" has come from
some QSL users; so that seems to be the primary issue, namely that
some, certainly not all, but some QSL users just don't like Omnimix;
and there has also been extensive trolling/spamming in a.p.a-s (not
unusual for any other busy unmoderated newsgroup) in which "QSL" is
used as a narrative for obstinance, and refusal to accept evidence
that Omnimix is clearly better, newer, and more versatile than QSL
(but as with any spammer, they just "yell and sell" till they drop)

On 07 Aug 2023, Alex de Joode <usura@bsdtor.sx> posted some
news:uaqlr3$33f$1@poison.alphared.net:

> Ola,
>
> I've made some changes to smtp.dizum.com
>
> - new ip addres: 45.66.35.219 instead of 45.66.35.221
> - added TLS support
>
> Things -should- work as expected, however if somethings do not work
> please ping me here.
>
> Cheers,
> Alex
>

August 15, 2023.

[Resolving smtp.dizum.com...]
[Contacting smtp.dizum.com [45.66.35.219]...]
[Connected]
[Timed out]
[Timed out]