I've used sandbox programs on my desktop and laptop for years. I have
little use for those AV or "Security Programs" which are almost as big a
p.i.a. as being infected by malware. I do, of course, use a firewall.
The AV companies also have gotten greedy as hell with their prices.

Anyway, I want to protect my wife's phone. I hardly ever use mine except
to speak with her - we're old and retired, so I ain't too worried about
my own android. I usually never answer it anyway unless it's a call from
her. She does download apps, plus she has gotten occasional phishing
stuff sent to her. It's beginning to worry me a bit.

Any info?

Am 01.11.22 um 16:20 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
> I've used sandbox programs on my desktop and laptop for years. I have
> little use for those AV or "Security Programs" which are almost as big a
> p.i.a. as being infected by malware. I do, of course, use a firewall.
> The AV companies also have gotten greedy as hell with their prices.
>
> Anyway, I want to protect my wife's phone. I hardly ever use mine except
> to speak with her - we're old and retired, so I ain't too worried about
> my own android. I usually never answer it anyway unless it's a call from
> her. She does download apps, plus she has gotten occasional phishing
> stuff sent to her. It's beginning to worry me a bit.

For years you are trolling the Usenet and now you try to play the
innocent old man? Nice try!

You are still using an anonymous Troll server.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 01.11.22 um 16:20 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
> I've used sandbox programs on my desktop and laptop for years. I have
> little use for those AV or "Security Programs" which are almost as big a
> p.i.a. as being infected by malware. I do, of course, use a firewall.
> The AV companies also have gotten greedy as hell with their prices.
>
> Anyway, I want to protect my wife's phone. I hardly ever use mine except
> to speak with her - we're old and retired, so I ain't too worried about
> my own android. I usually never answer it anyway unless it's a call from
> her. She does download apps, plus she has gotten occasional phishing
> stuff sent to her. It's beginning to worry me a bit.
>
> Any info?

Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
remailer administrator at <abuse@dizum.com>.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 01.11.22 um 16:20 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
> > I've used sandbox programs on my desktop and laptop for years. I have
> > little use for those AV or "Security Programs" which are almost as big a
> > p.i.a. as being infected by malware. I do, of course, use a firewall.
> > The AV companies also have gotten greedy as hell with their prices.
> >
> > Anyway, I want to protect my wife's phone. I hardly ever use mine except
> > to speak with her - we're old and retired, so I ain't too worried about
> > my own android. I usually never answer it anyway unless it's a call from
> > her. She does download apps, plus she has gotten occasional phishing
> > stuff sent to her. It's beginning to worry me a bit.
> >
> > Any info?
>
> Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
> Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
> remailer administrator at <abuse@dizum.com>.

Wow! So the guy's name *isn't* 'Nomen Nescio'!? Who on earth would
have thought that!?

So what about that John Doe guy? He's real, isn't he!?

On 2 Nov 2022 16:34:42 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
>> Am 01.11.22 um 16:20 schrieb Nomen Nescio:
>> > I've used sandbox programs on my desktop and laptop for years. I have
>> > little use for those AV or "Security Programs" which are almost as big a
>> > p.i.a. as being infected by malware. I do, of course, use a firewall.
>> > The AV companies also have gotten greedy as hell with their prices.
>> >
>> > Anyway, I want to protect my wife's phone. I hardly ever use mine except
>> > to speak with her - we're old and retired, so I ain't too worried about
>> > my own android. I usually never answer it anyway unless it's a call from
>> > her. She does download apps, plus she has gotten occasional phishing
>> > stuff sent to her. It's beginning to worry me a bit.
>> >
>> > Any info?
>>
>> Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
>> It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
>> Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
>> remailer administrator at <abuse@dizum.com>.
>
> Wow! So the guy's name *isn't* 'Nomen Nescio'!?

It isn't. I don't know what his name is.

>Who on earth would
>have thought that!?
>
> So what about that John Doe guy? He's real, isn't he!?

On 11/2/2022 12:48 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

>>> Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
>>> It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
>>> Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
>>> remailer administrator at <abuse@dizum.com>.
>>
>> Wow! So the guy's name *isn't* 'Nomen Nescio'!?
>
> It isn't. I don't know what his name is.

It's even more poignant that the dumb doofus Joerg thinks it's a single
person since the remailer doesn't itself even know the name.

As I understand it, with these anonymous remailers, the remailer admin
himself doesn't know the name of the poster.

All get the same name of "I don't know the name" as I understand it.
Frank - you used to run a nntp server, didn't you?

Is that how these anon remailers work?
Everyone gets the same name and the nntp admin doesn't even know the name?

Am 03.11.22 um 10:19 schrieb knuttle:
> On 11/2/2022 12:48 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
>>>> Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
>>>> It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
>>>> Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
>>>> remailer administrator at <abuse@dizum.com>.
>>>
>>> Wow! So the guy's name *isn't* 'Nomen Nescio'!?
>>
>> It isn't. I don't know what his name is.
>
> It's even more poignant that the dumb doofus Joerg thinks it's a single
> person since the remailer doesn't itself even know the name.
>
> As I understand it, with these anonymous remailers, the remailer admin
> himself doesn't know the name of the poster.
>
> All get the same name of "I don't know the name" as I understand it.
> Frank - you used to run a nntp server, didn't you?
>
> Is that how these anon remailers work?
> Everyone gets the same name and the nntp admin doesn't even know the name?

Guess why the server *news.neodome.net* and the domain *dizum.com* are
in my killfile/blacklist. There are still some idiots using it who think
they have the right to participate in a serious discussion. Experience
shows that these idiots almost never get an answer concerning the topic
if they get one at all.

It is like in the real life: It is not smart to talk to or discuss with
masked people. They are Trolls by definition.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 03.11.22 um 11:55 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
> It is like in the real life: It is not smart to talk to or discuss with
> masked people. They are Trolls by definition.

BTW: The posting only popped up because I'm currently recalibrating my
filters.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

knuttle <keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 11/2/2022 12:48 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>
> >>> Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
> >>> It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software.
> >>> Please report problems or inappropriate use to the
> >>> remailer administrator at <abuse@dizum.com>.
> >>
> >> Wow! So the guy's name *isn't* 'Nomen Nescio'!?
> >
> > It isn't. I don't know what his name is.
>
> It's even more poignant that the dumb doofus Joerg thinks it's a single
> person since the remailer doesn't itself even know the name.
>
> As I understand it, with these anonymous remailers, the remailer admin
> himself doesn't know the name of the poster.
>
> All get the same name of "I don't know the name" as I understand it.
> Frank - you used to run a nntp server, didn't you?

Yes, I did, in a previous life, in some tiny 150K employee company.

I'm still running my personal/private small server, using Hamster (see
my User-Agent header).

> Is that how these anon remailers work?
> Everyone gets the same name and the nntp admin doesn't even know the name?

Yes, that's correct. And the news admin - and everyone else - doesn't
know anything else about the poster either, i.e. no IP address, etc..

It was originally meant to protect the identity of the poster, for
example in repressive regimes. Nowadays, at least in these technical
groups, it's mostly abused, not needed, etc..

For that reason, I've filtered anonymous pseudo-nyms like 'Nomen
Nescio', 'Anonymous', etc..

On 3 Nov 2022 14:30:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

> I'm still running my personal/private small server, using Hamster (see
>my User-Agent header).

If you don't mind explaining, can I ask why?

What the advantage of it over using one of the many public servers?

Is there a cost associated with doing it? What does it cost?

Do you use a separate computer for it? What is its configuration?

Should I, or anyone else consider doing the same thing? Why?

Am 03.11.22 um 16:36 schrieb Ken Blake:
> On 3 Nov 2022 14:30:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm still running my personal/private small server, using Hamster (see
>> my User-Agent header).
>
> If you don't mind explaining, can I ask why?
>
> What the advantage of it over using one of the many public servers?
>
> Is there a cost associated with doing it? What does it cost?
>
> Do you use a separate computer for it? What is its configuration?
>
> Should I, or anyone else consider doing the same thing? Why?

I did 20 years ago. Also the Hamster.
I stopped it because it had no added value for me. Only additional work.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2022 14:30:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm still running my personal/private small server, using Hamster (see
> >my User-Agent header).
>
> If you don't mind explaining, can I ask why?
>
> What the advantage of it over using one of the many public servers?

It's mostly a 'proxy' or 'cache'. It's not a replacement for the news
server of your News Service Provider (NSP), but an addition to it.

It sits between your NSP news server and your newsreader. To your NSP
new server, it acts like a newsreader. To your newsreader, it looks just
like any other server.

My main reasons for using it are:

- It transforms an online newsreader into an offline one, i.e. it stores
articles locally and is therefor much faster than an online reader.
IIRC, your Forte Agent is an offline reader. Thunderbird is also an
offline reader.

- Because it's a news server, it has much more functionality than a
regular offline (or online) reader.
For some groups, such as this one, I keep articles 'forever' (where
'forever' currently is 20 years (or the start of the group).
Keeping articles for a long time, means I can easily search for (very)
old articles.

- Hamster has very sophisticated filtering/scoring, much more than
Thunderbird, Forte Agent and most other newsreaders. Only Dialog comes
close.
So I can easily 'killfile' (called 'scoring') articles on all kinds of
- combinations of - conditions.

> Is there a cost associated with doing it? What does it cost?

There's no cost. It's free software.

> Do you use a separate computer for it? What is its configuration?

I use it on my main computer (laptop). It's very lightweight software.
My current article storage is 3GB, i.e. still peanuts after 20 years
(but growing faster due to high activity groups with bigger articles and
people not snipping).

> Should I, or anyone else consider doing the same thing? Why?

See above. I think most people are quite satisfied with newsreaders
like Thunderbird, etc. and will feel no need to add a thing like
Hamster.

Being very capable, it also means more complexity, more admin work,
etc,. Everything comes at a cost..

Being an ex-newsadmin, these things come naturally to me. To Joe User,
it might look like advanced rocket science! :-)

HTH.

On 3 Nov 2022 18:41:26 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2022 14:30:36 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm still running my personal/private small server, using Hamster (see
>> >my User-Agent header).
>>
>> If you don't mind explaining, can I ask why?
>>
>> What the advantage of it over using one of the many public servers?
>
> It's mostly a 'proxy' or 'cache'. It's not a replacement for the news
>server of your News Service Provider (NSP), but an addition to it.
>
> It sits between your NSP news server and your newsreader. To your NSP
>new server, it acts like a newsreader. To your newsreader, it looks just
>like any other server.
>
> My main reasons for using it are:
>
>- It transforms an online newsreader into an offline one, i.e. it stores
> articles locally and is therefor much faster than an online reader.
> IIRC, your Forte Agent is an offline reader. Thunderbird is also an
> offline reader.
>
>- Because it's a news server, it has much more functionality than a
> regular offline (or online) reader.
> For some groups, such as this one, I keep articles 'forever' (where
> 'forever' currently is 20 years (or the start of the group).
> Keeping articles for a long time, means I can easily search for (very)
> old articles.
>
>- Hamster has very sophisticated filtering/scoring, much more than
> Thunderbird, Forte Agent and most other newsreaders. Only Dialog comes
> close.
> So I can easily 'killfile' (called 'scoring') articles on all kinds of
> - combinations of - conditions.
>
>> Is there a cost associated with doing it? What does it cost?
>
> There's no cost. It's free software.
>
>> Do you use a separate computer for it? What is its configuration?
>
> I use it on my main computer (laptop). It's very lightweight software.
>My current article storage is 3GB, i.e. still peanuts after 20 years
>(but growing faster due to high activity groups with bigger articles and
>people not snipping).
>
>> Should I, or anyone else consider doing the same thing? Why?
>
> See above. I think most people are quite satisfied with newsreaders
>like Thunderbird, etc. and will feel no need to add a thing like
>Hamster.
>
> Being very capable, it also means more complexity, more admin work,
>etc,. Everything comes at a cost..
>
> Being an ex-newsadmin, these things come naturally to me. To Joe User,
>it might look like advanced rocket science! :-)

Thanks for the explanation. I think I'll pass. Despite my now
understanding its advantages, I don't want to get involved with extra
work.

Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

>>- Hamster has very sophisticated filtering/scoring, much more than
>> Thunderbird, Forte Agent and most other newsreaders.
>>
>> Only Dialog comes close.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I think I'll pass. Despite my now
> understanding its advantages, I don't want to get involved with extra
> work.

Agree with the poster who said regex filtering & onBeforeSendingMessage
scripy power of Dialog is famous as perhaps the best in all news readers

From my records you first install 40tude Dialog 2.0.15.1 and then you
extract the beta 38 directly on top of that original dialog.exe file

http://www.40tude.com/dialog/download.htm
http://dialog.datalist.org/index.html

Dialog 41 self-extracting archive 4d2b38.exe
Dialog 41 portable zip package dialog.41.zip

Check versions: 40TudeDialog: Help > About > Version 2.0.15.41 (Beta 38)
More at news.software.readers (look up Bernd or Vanguardlh posts)

Am 03.11.22 um 19:41 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> It transforms an online newsreader into an offline one, i.e. it stores
> articles locally and is therefor much faster than an online reader.
> IIRC, your Forte Agent is an offline reader. Thunderbird is also an
> offline reader.

This is wrong. TB is by default an online reader. The configuration can
be changed to an offline-reader.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 03.11.22 um 19:41 schrieb Frank Slootweg:
> > It transforms an online newsreader into an offline one, i.e. it stores
> > articles locally and is therefor much faster than an online reader.
> > IIRC, your Forte Agent is an offline reader. Thunderbird is also an
> > offline reader.
>
> This is wrong. TB is by default an online reader. The configuration can
> be changed to an offline-reader.

I didn't mean to imply that Thunderbird isn't *also* an online reader.

AFAIK, the default configuration is actually online *and* offline,
because by default it downloads articles and (AFAIK) doesn't discard
them after downloading.

Anyway, Thunderbird can indeed be used both in online mode and in
offline mode.