Any word on an upgrade?

Thanks!

In article <s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>
Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>
> Any word on an upgrade?
>
> Thanks!

b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion

On 6/12/2021 1:55 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:

> In article <s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>
> Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> Any word on an upgrade?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
>

2021-06-12 02:15
Proxy: Tor
Account: Tor
Connecting to
b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
Connection failed! IdError: Request rejected or failed.
Ending message: 767990
No mail

On 6/12/2021 1:55 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:

> In article <s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>
> Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> Any word on an upgrade?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
>

That dog don't hunt.

On 6/12/21 12:23 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> That dog don't hunt.

What problems are you having?

I successfully connected to unencrypted ports 25, 587, 2525 and
encrypted port 465 without any problems.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/12/2021 12:38 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 6/12/21 12:23 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> That dog don't hunt.
>
> What problems are you having?
>
> I successfully connected to unencrypted ports 25, 587, 2525 and
> encrypted port 465 without any problems.

Hi Grant.

The original question was when will ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion be
upgraded to v3.

ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion is not a submission port but designated for
NNTP.

ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion listens on Port 119.

In reply to when ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion would be upgraded
the response was:

"> Any word on an upgrade?
>
> Thanks!

b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion."

So then the question becomes what is
b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion?

Based on your reply it must be a mail submission port not a
replacement for ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion.

On 6/12/21 5:03 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> Hi Grant.

Hi,

> The original question was when will ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion be
> upgraded to v3.

*nod*

> ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion is not a submission port but designated for
> NNTP.
>
> ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion listens on Port 119.

Okay.

> In reply to when ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion would be upgraded
> the response was:
>
> "> Any word on an upgrade?
>
> b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion."

Ah. I saw someone's reply about that.

> So then the question becomes what is
> b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion?

I personally have trouble recognizing TNCMM's .onion Tor Hidden Service
names and have to look them up.

So, when someone apparently tested TNCMM's .onion T.H.S. for NNTP, it
naturally failed. And they commented as such.

As I try to be a responsive RemOp, I checked to make sure that the
services that TNCMM offers over .onion T.H.S. worked. Not realizing
that there was a service change.

I suppose that I could consider offering some sort of redirect / tunnel
from a TNCMM .onion T.H.S. name to one of the open Usenet servers.
Though I would want to be very careful and coordinate with that Usenet
server's operator to avoid tarnishing my server's reputation. I'll
think about it.

> Based on your reply it must be a mail submission port not a
> replacement for ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion.

Agreed.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/12/21 5:03 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> Based on your reply it must be a mail submission port not a
> replacement for ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion.

Also, thank you for clarifying things.

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 6/12/2021 5:35 PM, Grant Taylor wrote:

> On 6/12/21 5:03 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> Based on your reply it must be a mail submission port not a
>> replacement for ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion.
>
> Also, thank you for clarifying things.
>
>

And thank you for you prompt reply, as always.
Much appreciated.

On 6/12/21 8:05 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> And thank you for you prompt reply, as always.

You're welcome.

I try to check in a.p.a-s and RemOps mailing list daily. Sometimes life
gets in the way and it's a little bit longer. If there's something
absolutely broken, you can always send me an email directly. (I use my
real email address.) That will get my attention sooner.

> Much appreciated.

I appreciate the comment. It lets me know that people care about and
appreciate what I do. :-)

--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

On 12 Jun 2021, Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> posted some
news:sa41vq$spe$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net:

> On 6/12/21 8:05 PM, Anonymous wrote:
>> And thank you for you prompt reply, as always.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> I try to check in a.p.a-s and RemOps mailing list daily. Sometimes life
> gets in the way and it's a little bit longer. If there's something
> absolutely broken, you can always send me an email directly. (I use my
> real email address.) That will get my attention sooner.
>
>> Much appreciated.
>
> I appreciate the comment. It lets me know that people care about and
> appreciate what I do. :-)

Thanks for your support!

In article <346e36b52677703a5c9f1ff3299324a3@dizum.com>
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/12/2021 1:55 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>
> > In article <s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>
> > Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Any word on an upgrade?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >
> > b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
> >
>
> 2021-06-12 02:15
> Proxy: Tor
> Account: Tor
> Connecting to
> b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
> Connection failed! IdError: Request rejected or failed.
> Ending message: 767990
> No mail

Using proxy 4a. Goes thru

In article <sa3jrn$o2l$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>
> On 6/12/21 5:03 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> > Hi Grant.
>
> Hi,
>
> > The original question was when will ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion be
> > upgraded to v3.
>
> *nod*
>
> > ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion is not a submission port but designated for
> > NNTP.
> >
> > ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion listens on Port 119.
>
> Okay.
>
> > In reply to when ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion would be upgraded
> > the response was:
> >
> > "> Any word on an upgrade?
> >
> > b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion."
>
> Ah. I saw someone's reply about that.
>
> > So then the question becomes what is
> > b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion?
>
> I personally have trouble recognizing TNCMM's .onion Tor Hidden Service
> names and have to look them up.
>
> So, when someone apparently tested TNCMM's .onion T.H.S. for NNTP, it
> naturally failed. And they commented as such.
>
> As I try to be a responsive RemOp, I checked to make sure that the
> services that TNCMM offers over .onion T.H.S. worked. Not realizing
> that there was a service change.

Zax needs to update his onion address to V3 as well.

> I suppose that I could consider offering some sort of redirect / tunnel
> from a TNCMM .onion T.H.S. name to one of the open Usenet servers.
> Though I would want to be very careful and coordinate with that Usenet
> server's operator to avoid tarnishing my server's reputation. I'll
> think about it.
>
> > Based on your reply it must be a mail submission port not a
> > replacement for ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die

In article <sa32fi$tsi$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>
> On 6/12/21 12:23 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> > That dog don't hunt.
>
> What problems are you having?

My guess is rectal / cranial inversion.

> I successfully connected to unencrypted ports 25, 587, 2525 and
> encrypted port 465 without any problems.
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die

In article <346e36b52677703a5c9f1ff3299324a3@dizum.com>
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/12/2021 1:55 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>
> > In article <s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>
> > Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Any word on an upgrade?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >
> > b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
> >
>
> 2021-06-12 02:15
> Proxy: Tor
> Account: Tor
> Connecting to
> b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
> Connection failed! IdError: Request rejected or failed.
> Ending message: 767990
> No mail

Using proxy 4a. Goes thru

Fcc: outbox
Host:
b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
From: anon@anonymous.com

Sending Message 1 of 1
Encountered mixmaster message
Mixmaster encrypting...
Mixmaster reports 3 chains:
redjohn,krautrelay,tncmm,middleman,austria
inwtx,paranoia,krautrelay,dizum,austria
banana,tncmm,redjohn,dizum,austria

Mixmaster Chain 1 of 3
Connecting...
220 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net ESMTP Sendmail
8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 17:50:32 -0500; (No
UCE/UBE) logging access from: tor(OK)-tor [169.254.254.169]
250 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net Hello tor [169.254.254.169],
pleased to meet you
250 2.1.0 <anon@anonymous.com>... Sender ok
250 2.1.5 <remailer@redjohn.net>... Recipient ok
354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
250 2.0.0 15DMoWGq031870 Message accepted for delivery
221 2.0.0 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net closing connection
Connection closed!

Mixmaster Chain 2 of 3
Connecting...
220 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net ESMTP Sendmail
8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 17:50:44 -0500; (No
UCE/UBE) logging access from: tor(OK)-tor [169.254.254.169]
250 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net Hello tor [169.254.254.169],
pleased to meet you
250 2.1.0 <anon@anonymous.com>... Sender ok
250 2.1.5 <mix@mixharbor.xyz>... Recipient ok
354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
250 2.0.0 15DMoil7031880 Message accepted for delivery
221 2.0.0 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net closing connection
Connection closed!

Mixmaster Chain 3 of 3
Connecting...
220 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net ESMTP Sendmail
8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3; Sun, 13 Jun 2021 17:50:55 -0500; (No
UCE/UBE) logging access from: tor(OK)-tor [169.254.254.169]
250 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net Hello tor [169.254.254.169],
pleased to meet you
250 2.1.0 <anon@anonymous.com>... Sender ok
250 2.1.5 <banana@mixmaster.mixmin.net>... Recipient ok
354 Enter mail, end with "." on a line by itself
250 2.0.0 15DMote1031939 Message accepted for delivery
221 2.0.0 tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net closing connection
Connection closed!

All mail sent
Session finished

In article <20210612.192331.cbf2e444@mixmin.net>
Anonymous <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 6/12/2021 1:55 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>
> > In article <s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>
> > Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Any word on an upgrade?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >
> > b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
> >
>
>
> That dog don't hunt.

You need to shoot that dog because I post using this V3 onion
addy all the time. Ever since it was so kindly added. This
post will come via
b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion.

I also blast his mail server from OmniMix.

Works like a champ in both cases.

The only thing that happens - and it was smart of the operator
to do this, is rate limiting. If you try and send a flood of
posts, not going to happen. After a certain number, the rest
get bounced.

Like I said, smart.

On 6/13/2021 6:30 PM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:

> In article <20210612.192331.cbf2e444@mixmin.net>
> Anonymous <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/12/2021 1:55 AM, Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>
>>> Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any word on an upgrade?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
>>>
>>
>>
>> That dog don't hunt.
>
> You need to shoot that dog because I post using this V3 onion
> addy all the time. Ever since it was so kindly added. This
> post will come via
> b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion.
>
> I also blast his mail server from OmniMix.
>
> Works like a champ in both cases.
>
> The only thing that happens - and it was smart of the operator
> to do this, is rate limiting. If you try and send a flood of
> posts, not going to happen. After a certain number, the rest
> get bounced.
>
> Like I said, smart.
>

So this thread started like so.
Read on and be thou enlightened:

Message ID:
<s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>

Subject Line:

Message:

"Any word on an upgrade?

Thanks!"

OP is referring to ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion
That's NNTP.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------

Here comes the genius reply that started this whole fiasco:

Message ID:
<591ac1381946eec976d63cc8d85cfced@remailer.privacy.at>

Subject Line:

Message:

"In article <s9p447$no5$1@news.mixmin.net>
Anonymous <none@example.net> wrote:
>
> Any word on an upgrade?
>
> Thanks!

b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion."

--------------------------------------------------------------------
-

That's where this whole thread went totally off the rails.

b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
is NOT a v3 upgrade from ruxuklsvo4pk74m5.onion

Zax has not yet upgraded his NNTP service to v3 yet.

But you read the reply to the original post and you think
b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion is
the v3 upgrade. Because that is what the respondent wrote.

So as an NNTP service
b42o7yhesx3fon7bzak4rkq7ax2yoanzapykqpzyznil6obcybe3zlyd.onion
is a dog that still won't hunt. Because it's not supposed to.

But it sends mail just fine.

Get it now?