Frog's recent posting of IP information
Stray Cat
wrote:
>Hello group,
>
>My IP address was the one which Frog-admin reposted, alleging that I was
>"flooding".
>
>I was not flooding. I sent an e-mail with a very large file attachment, to
>several recipients who had REQUESTED THE ATTACHMENT IN QUESTION. Because
>the file was very large, and some remailers have a message size limit of
>around 50K, I set Jack B Nymble software to split the message into several
>parts. This resulted in hundreds of individual emails. But this is the
>way the software is designed to operate. How else am I supposed to remail
>large files?
>
>Thank you, Mr. Frog, for violating my privacy.
>
This will depend on how large the file is and how you are remailing it.
For example, if the file is a 1MB binary and you use mixmaster remailers, then
that file will be split up into over 100 individual message packets. If you send
them all at once, then that may look like a flood.
I suggest you create the messages as you normally do, but refrain from sending
them out all at once. You can configure JBN to add some random latency to
messages going into its Queue. This will spread the load out.
Anonymous
>Hello group,
>
>My IP address was the one which Frog-admin reposted, alleging that I was
>"flooding".
If you are the owner of 24.160.242.167 (cable account at roadrunner), why don't you post from that IP?
But you are not the owner of 24.160.242.167, you are some Frog-hater
>I was not flooding. I sent an e-mail with a very large file attachment, to
>several recipients who had REQUESTED THE ATTACHMENT IN QUESTION.
That is not Frog's story.
His various posts described how he was both the entry and the emerging point, and that the ouput was a mail-bombing with "I HATE JEWS / I HATE NIGGERS" and other unspecified characteristics which linked that attack with previous mail-bombings.
And guess whose story makes more sense?
xganon
Anonymous <anon...@anonymous.poster.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Anonymous <nob...@mix.winterorbit.com> wrote:
> >Hello group,
> >
> >My IP address was the one which Frog-admin reposted, alleging that I was
> >"flooding".
> >
> >several recipients who had REQUESTED THE ATTACHMENT IN QUESTION.
>
>
> > Because
> >the file was very large, and some remailers have a message size limit of
> >around 50K, I set Jack B Nymble software to split the message into several
> >parts. This resulted in hundreds of individual emails. But this is the
> >way the software is designed to operate. How else am I supposed to remail
> >large files?
>
> considerate of other users, and remailer operators, and not clog their
> systems. Hundreds of individual emails, all from the same user, in a short
> period of time, IS A FLOOD. What you were doing IS flooding. And rude, and
> highly inconsiderate to any number of individuals, users and remops.
>
> If you have to send a file that big, and you're worried about it, encrypt
> it and email it through your normal email address. Forte Agent can
> automatically break up and reassemble a large file sent by email. Or a
> bogus hotmail or yahoo account. Or FTP it.
Poor manners is not now nor has it ever been grounds making public a
users ip address. Source blocking, possibly. If bad manners were
grounds you should have been outed long ago, asshole.
disa...@saiknes.lv.no.spam.net
Hash: RIPEMD160
Anonymous wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Anonymous <nob...@mix.winterorbit.com> wrote:
> >Hello group,
> >
> >My IP address was the one which Frog-admin reposted, alleging that I was
> >"flooding".
> >
> >I was not flooding. I sent an e-mail with a very large file attachment, to
> >several recipients who had REQUESTED THE ATTACHMENT IN QUESTION. Because
> >the file was very large, and some remailers have a message size limit of
> >around 50K, I set Jack B Nymble software to split the message into several
> >parts. This resulted in hundreds of individual emails. But this is the
> >way the software is designed to operate. How else am I supposed to remail
> >large files?
>
> You're not supposed to remail large files.
he is supposed.
frog have "klen1024" in his capstrings - it means that it is ok to send 1MB files.
remops that does not want remail large files sets klen to smaller value.
> You are supposed to be
> considerate of other users, and remailer operators, and not clog their
> systems.
again, if the remop says "klen1024" he should be ready for that
__
Disastry http://disastry.dhs.org/
http://disastry.dhs.org/pgp <----PGP plugins for Netscape and MDaemon
^--GPG for Win32 (supports loadable modules and IDEA)
^----PGP 2.6.3ia-multi05 (supports IDEA, CAST5, BLOWFISH, TWOFISH,
AES, 3DES ciphers and MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA2 hashes)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Netscape PGP half-Plugin 0.15 by Disastry / PGPsdk v1.7.1
iQA/AwUBO9+TITBaTVEuJQxkEQOenQCfb5YRqKS06NRdOpqTsqH0IXBm5XwAn1bd
lfKaUkYL5dYNoH7Y2GAIAMDT
=pQLa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
disa...@saiknes.lv.no.spam.net
Hash: RIPEMD160
shouldn't the parts go through different chains?
if they all go through the same chain it makes traffic analysis possible, doesn't it?
__
Disastry http://disastry.dhs.org/
http://disastry.dhs.org/pgp <----PGP plugins for Netscape and MDaemon
^--GPG for Win32 (supports loadable modules and IDEA)
^----PGP 2.6.3ia-multi05 (supports IDEA, CAST5, BLOWFISH, TWOFISH,
AES, 3DES ciphers and MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA2 hashes)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Netscape PGP half-Plugin 0.15 by Disastry / PGPsdk v1.7.1
iQA/AwUBO9+UwzBaTVEuJQxkEQNrnwCfZlF13Gewyh0WY8NtD4z8CZuaneYAnRyx
pQHVtvNe+dEsrWUeldfIu0SS
=HV+E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thomas J. Boschloo
disa...@saiknes.lv.NO.SPaM.NET wrote:
> Stray Cat wrote:
> > This will depend on how large the file is and how you are remailing it.
> >
> > For example, if the file is a 1MB binary and you use mixmaster remailers, then
> > that file will be split up into over 100 individual message packets. If you send
> > them all at once, then that may look like a flood.
> >
> > I suggest you create the messages as you normally do, but refrain from sending
> > them out all at once. You can configure JBN to add some random latency to
> > messages going into its Queue. This will spread the load out.
>
> shouldn't the parts go through different chains?
> if they all go through the same chain it makes traffic analysis possible, doesn't it?
If you use the mixmaster client software, you will probably agree with
me that you only choose a chain once.
And yes, I agree this could be used for traffic analysis. What probably
makes it worse is that e.g. 100 messages leave your account, the last
remailers waits till it has a 100 messages and then sends it on. It is
only a question of figuring out which other remailer send a hundred
messages to the last remailer recently and you know the last remailer!
In fact, by sending such large messages you are basically doing a
flooding attack on yourself (flooding as in overflowing the remailers
reordering buffers here).
Also, you can do this trick at every remailer hop. And by looking at the
first remailer you send to from your account, the almighty TLA's know
what resulting message size to look for.
I am not sure of how bad this is, but it may be wiser not to send such
large messages. Maybe remops _could_ even protect their user from
themselves by having small klen values set for the message size they
accept.
Regards to you and your fine programming skills!,
Thomas J.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
Comment: My homepage <http://home.tiscali.nl/~mwdabe90>
iQB5AwUBO+AsFAEP2l8iXKAJAQGp5gMeL3KTo92iENAO/1R6KEB9ydIlPsDKBj4Z
umL6ytC/qBCxsE6QQGNrToz4BJ5v/6BAkiezG3l5wcP9JfFhmjgN1kfRRh3Ii56U
jIQd9o8pgBX/8ejTqrqfrKOuDfmV0Q/XWuYLnA==
=Cva5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thomas J. Boschloo
> >again, if the remop says "klen1024" he should be ready for that
> Disastry, what bother me most is that you KNOW better than to make a
> stupid-ass statement like that.
>
> klen1024 does indeed mean 1mb files are OK. That would be 1 1mb file,
> meaning of course CPunk. But the person in question sent it MIXMASTER
> instead, resulting in "hundreds of individual emails.", or in other words,
> A FLOOD.
Frog2's caps string:
$remailer{"frog2"} = "<frogre...@frogadmin.yi.org> cpunk mix hybrid
pgp pgponly latent ek ekx esub cut hash post repgp remix reord ext max
test inflt50 rhop5 klen1024 to5 frname NoSpam";
says the remailer is both cypherpunk /AND/ mixmaster. What klen1024 says
is that it accepts outgoing messages of one megabyte in size, whether
that was recombined from individual mixmaster fragments or from a single
cypherpunk message.
I take no stand on who is right here, FA or the 'flooder'. But I want to
note that I agree fully with Disastry here.
Hi,
Thomas
Frog-Admin
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Anonymous <nob...@mix.winterorbit.com> wrote:
>My IP address was the one which Frog-admin reposted, alleging that I was
>"flooding".
I *SUSPECT* that you are a LIAR
Everybody can wonder why you don't post from 24.160.242.167
>I was not flooding. I sent an e-mail with a very large file attachment, to
>several recipients who had REQUESTED THE ATTACHMENT IN QUESTION.
I *PROVE* that you are a LIAR
and everyone may check
I kept 495 messages with IDENTICAL ENCRYPTED BODY
The whole 495 messages is here:
http://frogadmin.yi.org/Trash/RoadRunner.zip
Infra are the headers for
1st message (61bde2aa.cnm)
495th message (260bae60.cnm)
I plan to open a new area on my WWW:
HallOfShame
dedicated to the spammers/flooders/remailer-killer-wannabe that I caught
with all the evidence at hand
the RoadRunner case will be along with "Crinkly"
so that I have a quick link to give the police in case they reopen the Titanic/Kennedy/Rosswell cases
And YOU, what is your agenda?
======================================================================
1) To REMOPS:
because in that case the bodies of the messages were identical,
they would have been deleted with MD5 control at entry
but transparent-remix would make that useless at second hop...
TURN MD5 on if you did not already do it
2) To USERS with large files:
I was already asked: do you mind *large* files?
My answer was and still is:
- -that is *very* polite of you to ask, but it was not necessary
- -Frog2 is klen1024, so it means that I accept that size as *legitimate* traffic
- -be aware though that the very SIZE of your message will make it an easy prey for anybody monitoring the global traffic: check your threat model
Actually, a user should take *extraordinary* precautions to fool global traffic analysis if he has such volume: cutting the mammoth to pieces and changing the injection remailer for each chunk is certainly the first thing to do ... but it is your securit
y
3) To USERS:
I don't like flooders and I always made it clear that I would OUT them if I caught one.
Generally, it is *not* possible to collect the evidence, and in such case:
I will keep my suspicions for myself
mail will go through
In all the (too few) cases where I OUTed a flooder
the flooder had done something *very* stupid
the conviction was based on irrefutable material evidence
======================================================================
61bde2aa.cnm
Return-path: <sugafa...@anonymous.to>
Received: from 808multimedia.com (64.132.88.21) by Frog's Mercury SMTP (Server) (Mercury/32 v3.30) ID MG009B96;
18 Oct 01 01:38:48 +0200
Received: from o-52en0zv285ijw ([24.160.242.167]) by 808multimedia.com ( IA Mail Server Version: 3.2.1. Build: 1082 ) ) ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:20:53 -0600
From: sugafa...@anonymous.to
Date: 17 Oct 2001 23:20:46 -0000
To: FrogRe...@frogadmin.yi.org
260bae60.cnm
Return-path: <sugafa...@anonymous.to>
Received: from 808multimedia.com (64.132.88.21) by Frog's Mercury SMTP (Server) (Mercury/32 v3.30) ID MG00B387;
18 Oct 01 02:11:28 +0200
Received: from o-52en0zv285ijw ([24.160.242.167]) by 808multimedia.com ( IA Mail Server Version: 3.2.1. Build: 1082 ) ) ; Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:37:11 -0600
From: sugafa...@anonymous.to
Date: 17 Oct 2001 23:37:04 -0000
To: FrogRe...@frogadmin.yi.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBO+Bdm4DgT488d3zFAQHm2QgAyraswyUzC3rLFR2fIT+QtU5sGoRoiV/p
4Gx8NzEjGUHBQtieY7eh9c66NV2ucBfwQV2BqbTCSA40UcJ5ce/vqcWX3IIARib3
Q57i8Cm1nknYwI6hTNDwHBpCQ5uJZ1T0YILWO3nA7LdTCvK81+rVnzRR1v/iN9S5
IvNr2OBtBSsU1QKZcdMIUoqZlx29mVtZAKkiKWlOTMc0YzCa+7F3YNv5Bq+0KV44
Vl6zr2Q1uP89sIzfY7SFntJz/Eb6TZwOtayJ06m17uHuvjc8w7LSf87xyYrTj9n/
dnML1eesfUfKG69o11i7KE9nUYSsKiFK4NEVY2EP1UaN862pCjlGjQ==
=f3qE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nomen Nescio
>>And guess whose story makes more sense?
>
>Frog's sure doesn't.
>
>If he observed posts at the entry point, he would have only been able to
>determine the origin, and the next remailer in the chain....not the
>content. At the exit point, he would only be able to determine the
>content, and the previous remailer in the chain.
>
>In short, how can Frog say that the messages in question, without a doubt,
>were the same messages?
Your stupidity is SOOOOOOOOOOO refreshing.
Did a lawyer ever contact you to sue your parents and your teachers?
And if you don't win (which I doubt), you should rent your image as a living advertisement for abortion.
disa...@saiknes.lv.no.spam.net
***[CB974D99] PGP Signature Status: bad
***[CB974D99] Signer: Frog-Admin
***[CB974D99] Signer Key ID: 0x80E04F8F3C777CC5
***[CB974D99] Signed: 01-Nov-2001 12:22:50 AM
__
Disastry http://disastry.dhs.org/
Frog-Admin
But I confirm that the text was authentic
in news:0PW3THNV3719...@frog.gilgamesh.org.
Something to do with too many "==" maybe, or lines too long?
I try reposting too
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBO+EJMIDgT488d3zFAQFOsggAmeP6Nt5PtawvISmuVO49aeseL/eLgdWw
6qR8z9bk/fpGEMDGuGYwtWfzQb5weSqMQeKU9vpfl0isv7tBRG30J3yKkIo8mt7f
1gHhnxfAVFCwf1QCK9QFYaNk6JBa2x5cECPxPPmSou+Jbd8WiVxX0BHOLyztiiT5
YEAOLkkWrSgXlOWeoVN5RzrTdHQz8CSV9HmQaBlQeM3xnwWgL/2a1tmfL6aylpzF
6OU9r+4SyXj3tUt8WdFxygESS10+3qZ03ZoiDhGwWLoZMpT4vT7N70SnV2OFsjsx
5uC5dURVKr3M/8xKbyC4lBaf2xO0alA2Puy0G9eP0zE3YB79XXmS4g==
=vgIA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frog-Admin
On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Anonymous <nob...@mix.winterorbit.com> wrote:
>My IP address was the one which Frog-admin reposted, alleging that I was
>"flooding".
I *SUSPECT* that you are a LIAR
Everybody can wonder why you don't post from 24.160.242.167
>I was not flooding. I sent an e-mail with a very large file attachment,
>to several recipients who had REQUESTED THE ATTACHMENT IN QUESTION.
I *PROVE* that you are a LIAR
and everyone may check
I kept 495 messages with IDENTICAL ENCRYPTED BODY
The whole 495 messages is here:
http://frogadmin.yi.org/Trash/RoadRunner.zip
Infra are the headers for
1st message (61bde2aa.cnm)
495th message (260bae60.cnm)
I plan to open a new area on my WWW:
HallOfShame
dedicated to the spammers/flooders/remailer-killer-wannabe I caught
with all the evidence at hand
the RoadRunner case will be along with "Crinkly"
so that I have a quick link to give the police
in case they reopen the Titanic/Kennedy/Rosswell cases
And YOU, what is your agenda?
======================================================================
1) To REMOPS:
because in that case the bodies of the messages were identical,
they would have been deleted with MD5 control at entry
but transparent-remix would make that useless at second hop...
TURN MD5 on if you did not already do it
2) To USERS with large files:
I was already asked: do you mind *large* files?
My answer was and still is:
*that is *very* polite of you to ask, but it was not necessary
*Frog2 is klen1024,
so it means that I accept that size as *legitimate* traffic
*be aware though that the very SIZE of your message
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBO+EK0IDgT488d3zFAQFDRwgAlrgmTEITUR/M06nb4PuMFlFIdV5HMWsl
6lJF1nip1Tj4hZP2jXaSI6grd9cGEW/HLZD74ZVYZ7HrIzfihOq7ahGI5MhhMYBI
Xb3rPNk71enqkRiDl2FckjdlLMD6tTMvrNagrjqXOLBSuqnSIj84YEOjJpYPLQFZ
2oq2qyfOkVU6C9GPo68XvGZu8x7O9alPYb+2fTxYq0cgUb5ms/ZATUJwd44UlemK
NYY9E3xbiYQiF65GzRUisJ9YFR4hcqNvwj5Q2plifZlC5M2wSJn3c9Vq0ccT7Pfl
9snLsUXrOcvNnrwt4WHif0gKc/07NYPred7EemM+0WqASMREBwu5sg==
=yseJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thomas J. Boschloo
disa...@saiknes.lv.NO.SPaM.NET wrote:
>
> Frog-Admin wrote:
> ***[CB974D99] PGP Signature Status: bad
> ***[CB974D99] Signer: Frog-Admin
> ***[CB974D99] Signer Key ID: 0x80E04F8F3C777CC5
> ***[CB974D99] Signed: 01-Nov-2001 12:22:50 AM
This can be solved by adding the 'y' to security on one of the lines.
// Good signature from user "Frog-Admin".
// Signature made 2001/10/31 20:23 GMT using 2048-bit key, key ID 3C777CC5
//
// WARNING: Because this public key is not certified with a trusted
// signature, it is not known with high confidence that this public key
// actually belongs to: "Frog-Admin".
Some people would claim that Frog-Admin doesn't know how to sign a
message. Just like some trolls claim that I don't know how to verify a
signature. This message disproves both of them :-) The signature
verifies and I verified it. The message is genuine (as I suspected).
Of course, such a failed signature is clumsy, but he who has never
failed in correctly signing a message may cast the first stone.
Regards,
Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
Comment: My homepage <http://home.tiscali.nl/~mwdabe90>
iQB5AwUBO+FNlAEP2l8iXKAJAQHwmAMfYtprDJUNl4itxa+WpRWgcdgHqLnMvA/r
Cla1xRxW9p7WO8wGM32ENIrggmATUAMv7ub+PeVeuyitqPv2qo6CKwr4QfKkOIuW
P6wS0SCxunixhIV0WezKPhEl89Y1F2ExnI5G4g==
=D/G2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thomas J. Boschloo
Frog-Admin wrote:
> 3) To USERS:
> I don't like flooders and I always made it clear that I would OUT them if I caught one.
> Generally, it is *not* possible to collect the evidence, and in such case:
> I will keep my suspicions for myself
> mail will go through
> In all the (too few) cases where I OUTed a flooder
> the flooder had done something *very* stupid
> the conviction was based on irrefutable material evidence
Maybe it would be easier to catch flooders by having a central
depository of sending IP addresses. Or the MD5 hash of those addresses
(hmm, 32 bits, could be attacked by making a table of possible hashes).
These addresses could be posted daily in numerical order and merged
together at the central computer to detect who posted most. Individual
addresses could be dropped as there aren't enough remailers to
successfully flood a remailer this way. The actual remailers would be on
top and this 'central computer' could also serve as 'load statistics'.
And the most posted from IP addresses could be publicly posted to this
group daily or weekly to identify flooders based on some rule sets to
avoid false alarms.
[2] After some more thought, how about not using the senders IP, but
some valid Received header that wasn't added by the flooder to avoid
detection?
[3] How about going distributed and every remailer sending all their
logged data (or a top-100 of that) to every other remailer daily who can
then decide what to do with that information? (e.g. block flooders if
they are not valid remailers).
This way the only way to flood would be to start your very own remailer.
And that could only be applauded IMHO.
So what do ya think?
Thomas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
Comment: My homepage <http://home.tiscali.nl/~mwdabe90>
iQB5AwUBO+Fz6AEP2l8iXKAJAQFXIwMfaUDu60D0hYOxh0jDQlSGSG8TsUrSnoXn
I5VhYqEaSytgEVUMfaA3SG0zekeBt1ErcXdwf+HUi/f7q2weHyNjBm2J8QRIHqpl
mk6xnAPNMSXh7I3JT7dJ+ms2c9qArUkhlW16Jw==
=4AQE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frog-Admin
I created a new version of http://frogadmin.yi.org/Trash/RoadRunner.zip
Instead of zipping the 495 messages/10.4Mb to a 8Mb file,
I used RAR first, followed by ZIP, to a ... 37.444 bytes file
Because all message bodies were identical, more clever compression did marvels
Now EVERYONE can check for himself and make an educated opinion
uploaded to mirrors too:
http://www.privacyresources.org/frogadmin/Trash/RoadRunner.zip
http://www.chez.com/frogadmin/Trash/RoadRunner.zip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBO+G2rIDgT488d3zFAQHqkAf+J9fBHh46U6gM+S61rDHzB90A+xrzPnKk
qd5SkWVdhz+nrsVJM/uoe/yv/Xfm94v/bmPFizCdfK2wj8A0V7d9BzzhmACRoWfz
ns7iFwlY1scQfKGlSHCWpupkkc+Ls40sBpmzKa+5LzoHmb4bGpj+hVG1ea8So/78
m6XFgN8tGFs2q3pvk+qSzVoeQYOkx0mcpZN8gQXk4HeTuaev27nBcOwrMIF0jZS9
KtE+YzPFZgwZ3ZeY2ZXYx5cjH32bLorfjW5TrVJyXPq+6oPdAwWWBH+dCt3rA5xq
ZzwuWxic5Ecd8DEleRltb4hEYC2T1+KE1aWF2MeBVdSW2EaS4fHdFQ==
=p6jf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
DaveK
news:c3b955539eeacca2...@aarg.net...
Oh yes it does, as you will see, you are not in posession of all the
facts.
> If he observed posts at the entry point, he would have only been able to
> determine the origin, and the next remailer in the chain....not the
> content. At the exit point, he would only be able to determine the
> content, and the previous remailer in the chain.
That is entirely true. But what if he observed both? If X thousand
messages are sent by one IP and shortly later X thousand flood posts emerge
from the exit point, you don't need a degree in traffic analysis to work it
out.
> In short, how can Frog say that the messages in question, without a doubt,
> were the same messages?
Because the stupid nazi idiot flooder used Frog as both ENTRY AND EXIT in
one of his floods.
Proof positive.
See Message-ID: <310a5247b8e5414d...@remailer.privacy.at>
DaveK
--
Burn your ID card! http://www.optional-identity.org.uk/
Help support the campaign, copy this into your .sig!
Incognito Innominatus
>> it and email it through your normal email address. Forte Agent can
>> automatically break up and reassemble a large file sent by email. Or a
>> bogus hotmail or yahoo account. Or FTP it.
>
>Poor manners is not now nor has it ever been grounds making public a
>users ip address. Source blocking, possibly. If bad manners were
>grounds you should have been outed long ago, asshole.
You have no grounds to say that, you have no idea who I am. Calling me an
"asshole" cetainly demonstrates your own lack of manners, as well as a
diminshed vocabulary. Of course I won't mention that is a common side
effect of substance abuse, because that would be rude.
--10155.18428225--
Thomas J. Boschloo
Hermann Goering wrote:
> If you specify random remailers in the chain then yes, each part will
> follow a separate path. Except for the final, of course.
It seems you are correct:
// Choose the remailers you want to use in your chain.
// 0 means random remailer. Hit return when you are done.
// Enter remailer number: 0
// Enter remailer number: 0
// Enter remailer number: 0
// Enter remailer number: 0
// Enter remailer number:
// Please enter the name of the file to chain: mixmaste.as1
// Packet chain: privacy;mccain;athena;lcs;
// Succeeded.
// Packet chain: athena;swiss;privacy;lcs;
// Succeeded.
// Packet chain: lcs;squirrel;replay;lcs;
// Succeeded.
// Packet chain: athena;olymp;privacy;lcs;
// Succeeded.
// Packet chain: swiss;athena;squirrel;lcs;
// Succeeded.
Thanks for the info, I don't use these programs enough,
Thomas J.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.5.3i for non-commercial use <http://www.pgpi.com>
Comment: My homepage <http://home.tiscali.nl/~mwdabe90>
iQB5AwUBO+KhGgEP2l8iXKAJAQF9AAMgmCJZVXdiuzpiCJlMKw0spcvsVQPK56im
/0lhxyESSYM3J7k8ZLR+FDXHF0XxT8pq6LjFFwZJkti0up0AueOtX5L6xfJ2Xxcj
4Bczi/MgcoU7cahCPoB/xu0HBccC7xPPUT71QA==
=zvCG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frog2
>maybe, but maybe frog doesn't like kid-fuckers using his remailer
>to distribute thier filth, which, in my interpretation of what Frog-Admin
>has said, is what the case is here.
Certainly not.
FA said from the beginning that it was hundreds of *identical* messages, with *same* encrypted body. Nothing at all to see with a huge multimedia file which would have resulted in hundreds of *different* MIX packets. FA explicitly said he does not mind h
uge messages, but warns about their being easily traced because of their very volume.
see news:7H11DJ303719...@frog.gilgamesh.org
and you can even download the whole hundreds messages, packed to just a few Kb because there were all identical (need ZIP and RAR)