What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

[arlen holder]

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

Advice for beginners in getting up to speed in minutes on VPN was posted
this morning where the question then came up of a "free Usenet proxy".
o How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc>

Mike Easter, always being purposefully helpful, suggested another POV:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc/lcJ5Jo8OEgAJ>

Specifically, Mike referred to this helpful article saying not to use a
public VPN service as a "glorified proxy"
o Don't use VPN services.
<https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29>

The article Mike kindly referred to suggests using a "specific proxy" instead:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc/oAPYdk4QEgAJ>

That's all well & good if you're posting to Usenet via a browser:
o TBB <https://www.torproject.org/projects/torbrowser.html.en>
o Opera VPN Browser <https://www.opera.com/computer/features/free-vpn>
o Epic Privacy Browser <https://www.epicbrowser.com/>
etc.

There's nothing wrong with the alternative POV of that article other than
the unanswered question, which is the question asked in this thread.

What proxy answers the specific problem set is of finding a reasonably fast
& reliable free proxy that allows the user to post to free news servers?

In summary, for _any_ common consumer platform (Win/Linux/Mac/iOS/Android):
Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> The article Mike kindly referred to suggests using a "specific proxy" instead:

That is not correct.

The gistgithub article is NOT 'favorable' to proxies; and it mentions
proxy in the par "So when should I use a VPN?" and then the usage is in
a larger context going in the direction of a personal VPN at a VPS. It
does repeat opining saying that VPNs are glorified proxies; but I don't
want to defend every word in the article, but instead to expose its
point of view.

It is definitely not an article pro-proxy anti-VPN, but more an article
reminding the reader that "A VPN provider specifically seeks out those
who are looking for privacy, and who may thus have interesting traffic.
Statistically speaking, it is more likely that a VPN provider will be
malicious or a honeypot, than that an arbitrary generic VPS provider
will be."

The article comes on a little stronger about that than I would be, but
if you explore the content of the TOPS* site you can sense that the user
who is encourage to be a VPN user and then goes hunting for the best VPN
will more likely be reading the wrong pages than the right ones.

*https://thatoneprivacysite.net/

--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 12:46:40 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> Mike Easter

Hi Mike,

None of what you wrote even remotely answers the question.
o I don't fear a thread that has no good answer.

Sometimes, an intelligent person provides a useful answer.
o If so, we _all_ benefit from that intelligent person's knowledge.

Sometimes nobody knows the answer to the question
o That's OK; then I don't need to respond to ignorant drivel as a result

The question is patently simple - which asks intelligent users simply...
Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

I have no interest in that question and I'm under no obligation to even
consider it worth discussing.

--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 14:29:54 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> I have no interest in that question and I'm under no obligation to even
> consider it worth discussing.

The question is actually very simple & rather easy to comprehend Mike.

Knowledgeable users who know the answer can add to our knowledge.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/02/2019 00.15, arlen holder wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 14:29:54 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> I have no interest in that question and I'm under no obligation to even
>> consider it worth discussing.
>
> The question is actually very simple & rather easy to comprehend Mike.
>
> Knowledgeable users who know the answer can add to our knowledge.

I hate your mania of saying that phrase.

>
> Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?
>

I don't have the foggiest idea what an nntp proxy would be in your
context, what would it be useful for.

An nntp proxy would just be an nntp server that forwards to another nntp
server - which by definition converts it into another nntp server, not a
proxy. It would not necessarily anonymize the user.


There is an nntp proxy, I use one - but it sits in my very own computer.
It is called leafnode - seek it up in the wikipedia. It is not used for
anonymity: its original creation purpose was for use with dial up modems.

A user would connect the modem and fire up the "fetch news cycle":
leafnode collects all new messages on the groups it follows (not all
groups). Then the modem would disconnect. The user or users would read
the posts, write answers using any normal nntp client software, which
for all purposes would think they were connected to a normal nntp server
on Internet. Finally, the machine would fire up the modem and send all
pending nntp posts in a few seconds of connection.

This would happen daily, hourly, or any period the admin would define
with cron. This was/is on Linux, maybe there were other tools for Windows.

The current advantage now that dial up modems are not used is that the
clients read posts much faster. It also allows automatic connection to
several upstream nntp servers: if one doesn't work, it goes to another.

I can also search for a text on a group or bunch of groups, because the
"server" is in my machine and I have access to its files.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Mike Easter]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> arlen holder wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>
>>> I have no interest in that question and I'm under no obligation to even
>>> consider it worth discussing.
>>
>> The question is actually very simple & rather easy to comprehend Mike.
>>
>> Knowledgeable users who know the answer can add to our knowledge.
>
> I hate your mania of saying that phrase.
>
>>
>> Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?
>>
>
> I don't have the foggiest idea what an nntp proxy would be in your
> context, what would it be useful for.
>

I believe he is deriving his concept of such a proxy from his
interpretation of an article which he believes suggested that specific
proxies for specific purposes could suit his idea of an alternate to his
purpose of using a VPN to access his nntp provider and thus conceal his
connectivity IP from the nntp admin OR perhaps because he believes that
the encryption of the directly connecting IP is too frail to suit his
idea of security from having his nntp connecting IP decryptable by
others who examine the NPH of the headers.

But; it is difficult for me to delineate just what security/privacy
issue he is actually debating. That is, it is unclear to me what he is
concerned about hiding from whom.

Personally I don't believe that the content of encrypted NPH is a
security risk because I don't believe that it is trivial to crack.

However, if one needed to conceal their connectivity IP from the nntp
admin, that is another matter altogether which has nothing to do with
cracking the encoded NPH or any changing of its algo.

Sometimes it is hard to focus arlen on which matters are agreed upon,
which matters are agreed to disagree, and which matters are important
only to him and not to other discussants.


--
Mike Easter

[Paul]

There aren't that many "account-free" newsservers.

AIOE is one.

The only reason you'd feel some advantage from
"hiding your address", would be for the purposes of
defeating Paolo's address filters. Which are his only
defense on an account-free server.

USENET is chaos, a peer-level network with simple transfer
protocol between nodes. A new entrant to USENET, contacts
administrators on the various servers to obtain "feeds". This
allows messages with World distribution, to be offered to
other nodes. It can take anywhere from seconds to 24 hours
for a message to reach some other server (depending on how
many hops it took).

A well-connected server might have 70 other feeds connected to it.

The message ID on each message, manages transfers, in that
if I offer you "message 1234" and you already have it, you
deny needing it.

OK, so what other properties does it have. Well, in effect,
there's a "Cabal". If you do something bad enough, your
account can be cut off. OK, well, what about a server administrator?
Yes, they make "evil" ones of those too. And the cabal can
communicate via email with one another, and arrange to "isolate"
a bad server. However, all it takes is one administrator to
offer an asshole a lifeline, to keep him connected.

Good administrators are aware of the need for being responsive
on abuse reports. For example, the AIOE admin wants to keep
his 70 feeds. He gets a bad name, every time one of his customers
has a freakout. I would think the general opinion was, it
wouldn't take much for the rest of the community to pull
the plug on him (they know he doesn't use Accounts to
ride herd on his users).

OK, now let's fit a proxy into the picture. The cloud side
of the proxy connects to a server using an account. Let's
say the proxy starts pumping abuse into its hosting server.
The server admin yanks the proxy account and the proxy is
dead in the water.

Lets say the proxy works with feeds. If word gets around
(as it likely would), about some "cowboy device" that was
making a nuisance of itself, the feeds would get yanked.
Especially if the feeds had just been set up, and the
operator of the proxy "was on probation". Some new admins
will inevitably be clueless (or appear so), and probation
means figuring out whether the server you granted
access, is an asshat or just a dumbo.

OK, so we got this great idea for a "proxy", whatever that
is. It's not leafnode, because leafnode uses a regular
account on the server it connects to. If "abuse" was coming
up the pipe from leafnode, that user would just get cut
off like that (account TOSsed).

There have been other devices, but at least some of them
have disappeared. There were some web to NNTP gateways
("leeches") that were invented. There's still a couple
of those running (the other ones must be well underwater,
as they no longer show up in google searches). The people
running the leech sites, had to add extra protection to
the Compose window, because some of their users were injecting
"signature spam", like using a four line .sig with Chinese
counterfeit shoe advert URLs. When that got shot down (message
dumped if .sig spam present), that cut down a lot on
the nuisance "+1" spam coming from them.

Basically, for every distortion, there is a response.

When there was a severe problem with a flood, it took
at least three months, maybe more, to fix it. Someone
set up a cancelbot, as part of the defense mechanism.
That required some amount of cooperation from Cabal
members. (Maybe even the assholes helped out.) As time
passes, and administrator interest in day to day ops wanes,
it's harder to get that kind of effort from the community.
But rest assured, it's like evolution. Fuck with it,
and be cast out. Think of it as being a kind of immune
system built out of software. You can't wall off every
pest, but you can certainly try.

The highest level of alert, is the UDP. And amazingly,
there's an article for the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet_Death_Penalty

And I'm not going to weaponize the OP by providing
any more "stories". The above are the basic mechanisms.
There was one other little incident about helping
someone, where blowback occurred. So enough said.

Where ever this hypothetical proxy is connected,
there will be trouble. The killer T-cells have
been dispatched.

Paul

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/02/2019 11.21, Mike Easter wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> arlen holder wrote:
>>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have no interest in that question and I'm under no obligation to even
>>>> consider it worth discussing.
>>>
>>> The question is actually very simple & rather easy to comprehend Mike.
>>>
>>> Knowledgeable users who know the answer can add to our knowledge.
>>
>> I hate your mania of saying that phrase.
>>
>>>
>>> Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?
>>>
>>
>> I don't have the foggiest idea what an nntp proxy would be in your
>> context, what would it be useful for.
>>
>
> I believe he is deriving his concept of such a proxy from his
> interpretation of an article which he believes suggested that specific
> proxies for specific purposes could suit his idea of an alternate to his
> purpose of using a VPN to access his nntp provider and thus conceal his
> connectivity IP from the nntp admin OR perhaps because he believes that
> the encryption of the directly connecting IP is too frail to suit his
> idea of security from having his nntp connecting IP decryptable by
> others who examine the NPH of the headers.

For hiding the IP the only recourse I'd see is some sort of VPN (even
TOR), because the IP you get on the computer is not the normal one. But
then you need an nntp access: there are some that do not require an
account, like aioe, but others require login/password, and thus the VPN
is defeated.

As Paul explains, an specific nntp "proxy" would just be some type of
nntp server, and thus the others would isolate the server if it behaves
badly. It would be just another nntp server and thus traceable.

> But; it is difficult for me to delineate just what security/privacy
> issue he is actually debating.  That is, it is unclear to me what he is
> concerned about hiding from whom.
>
> Personally I don't believe that the content of encrypted NPH is a
> security risk because I don't believe that it is trivial to crack.
>
> However, if one needed to conceal their connectivity IP from the nntp
> admin, that is another matter altogether which has nothing to do with
> cracking the encoded NPH or any changing of its algo.

Right.

> Sometimes it is hard to focus arlen on which matters are agreed upon,
> which matters are agreed to disagree, and which matters are important
> only to him and not to other discussants.

(chuckle)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Welcome to the club of "children(tm)", Mike. Cookies are on the table,
milkis in the fridge (including various non-dairy options, in the event
you happen to be lactose-intolerant).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxqvlcACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooGQQgf8CINlFGzc/XscvES1NUq10Aq+b8b1doYJbTa26KTZu9QyWmVnGtJDIm2h
FbmtL5+lw9pCC7+LeE/Cy2qTBN+OoeiDbxAAN44tEKfEQElqGNzQO8eldBeKjS6J
CLSnTip909QdtAH4rTg0hZTqQH2MFHWJcCF5LvfwgGy0StjZhbgbvT2B7IKxlCem
zAV/nxeDs9cRKw37/++hqc296JrqrYZG4SeCJknHNYtGDlG6GAmzyPBxmoUb0DvL
k8GNYbAlRzXwitj9/5cHNZWY1AYfIErml2ExMSqnnwld0PM5bZ+AnfgUgGyhoGNk
drcoqbvPgxqiHwI12Mc8C3mG7oYPZg==
=lxUT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 05:31:00 -0500, Paul wrote:

> There aren't that many "account-free" newsservers.
> AIOE is one.

Hi Paul,

I know you to be always purposefully helpful so I will "correct" you firmly
by saying outright that there are _plenty_ of registration free nntp news
servers which allow either read and/or write privileges, sans any
registration.
o But that's not the topic of this thread. :)

HINT: Mixmin, Netfront, Mozzilla, Dizum, Aioe, Blueworld, News4All,
Albasani, Sunsite, XSUsenet, etc. (that's just offhand, from memory).

I've spoken with _most_ of those server's admins over the years, Paul.
All those servers allow (or allowed, as some went defunct) either read
only, or read and write registration-free access to their nntp servers.

You just need to know the settings.
o But again, that's _not_ the topic of this thread.

The reason I want to stick to the topic is that I think this thread will be
a total and complete waste of time becuase there probably isn't ANY answer
ot the question.

That means EVERY answer is a waste of time for the purpose of garnering an
ACTIONABLE answer to this very simple question.

The question came up because Mike advised to use a proxy instead of using a
VPN to change the IP address - which is a suggestion that I would LOVE to
use, but it requires the answer to this very very simple question, Paul:

*Q: Is there a free proxy that works with the free nntp servers?*

> The only reason you'd feel some advantage from
> "hiding your address", would be for the purposes of
> defeating Paolo's address filters. Which are his only
> defense on an account-free server.

I call bullshit on that statement Paul.
I already provided Mike with plenty of cites proving that's bullshit Paul.

Paul,
I'm going to be very blunt with you, since you made a claim out of sheer
and total ignorance.

First off, you were clearly WRONG on the number of servers.
That's OK. I don't EXPECT you to know what I know about NNTP servers.

However. ... then you went Dunning-Kruger on us Paul.
o Mike Easter did the same thing, Paul.

What's odd is that usually both of you guys are not normally DK.

You, Paul, _assume_ (completely out of ignorance) that the main server is
aioe, where, clearly, it's not.

The reason for privacy has NOTHING to do with Paolo Amoroso's crazy filters
(his filters are, in reality, very strange - but who cares? Not me.)

For example, Steve Crook doesn't use those crazy filters.
Wolfgang Weyland uses _different_ filters, Paul.
Steen Jensen doesn't seem to filter _anything_, Paul.
Neither does Roman Racine, as far as I know, Paul.
Daniel & Monika Weber & Benjamin Gufler filter _some_ things, Paul.
So does Alex de Joode, Paul.
Jesse Rehmer used to filter a _lot_ of things, Paul.

But filtering is a complete red herring here Paul.
o I'm seeking a general purpose solution that works for EVERYONE, Paul.

Your statements were _clearly_ made completely out of ignorance.

It's completely out of ignorance that ANYONE could defend a point of view
that anyone has to PROVE why they want privacy.

Do you want me to prove it Paul?
o I already provided Mike with a half dozen reputable cites. Paul.

It's just plain IGNORANT to claim that nobody has a right to privacy, Paul.
o And I don't have to DEFEND my right to privacy, Paul.

If you want to claim I have no right to privacy, Paul,
o Then I will respond that your claim is made out of sheer ignorance, Paul.

I realize I'm being VERY BLUNT with you Paul, but that's because you made
two successive completely ignorant statements.

I know you're a smart guy Paul.
I know you're a helpful guy Paul.

But you made two successively ignorant statements, Paul.

> OK, so what other properties does it have. Well, in effect,
> there's a "Cabal". If you do something bad enough, your
> account can be cut off. OK, well, what about a server administrator?
> Yes, they make "evil" ones of those too. And the cabal can
> communicate via email with one another, and arrange to "isolate"
> a bad server. However, all it takes is one administrator to
> offer an asshole a lifeline, to keep him connected.

Jesus Christ Paul.

We _all_ know EVERYTHING that you're stating Paul.
o Almost none of us are new to this rodeo of Usenet, Paul.

Do you know the answer to the question, or not, Paul?
o The question is a general purpose question, Paul.

Q: What is a free proxy that will work with free NNTP servers?

--
Please do NOT respond if you have no clue as to the answer to the question.
The question came up because Mike suggested using a proxy, where my
response is that I'd LOVE to use a proxy - if it exists. Does it exist?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:13:40 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> For hiding the IP the only recourse I'd see is some sort of VPN

Hi Carlos,
To clarify...

All I'm asking is for a free proxy that I can connect to first.
o And then I can connect to a free nntp server second.

I believe those are two completely separate actions, are they not?

I do that today, using VPN as a "glorified proxy".
o My intent is simply to change the NNTP posting host to an arbitrary IP.

All this thread asks is whether a "proxy" exists that works like this:
1. Connect to the proxy (to obtain an arbitary IP address)
2. Pull down Usenet messages (& disconnect from that proxy perhaps)
3. Respond to the Usenet messages offline (which is what I do today)
4. Reconnect to the proxy to SEND those messages.

I do that today using VPN.
o I don't need the encryption of VPN
o I just need the random IP address of VPN

Mike had posted an article that advised using a proxy instead of a VPN.
o I have _nothing_ against that advice.

Does that proxy exist?
o That is the question.

I'm always seeking a better general purpose solution, Carlos.
o Hence I ask this extremely simple question (which may have no answer).

Q: *Is there a free proxy that will work with the free Usenet servers?*

--
Note: if this free proxy doesn't exist, then the article was advising utter
and total bullshit, and I clearly hate bullshit since I'm ONLY about
general purpose actionable solutions.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 02:21:28 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> I believe he is deriving his concept of such a proxy from his
> interpretation of an article which he believes suggested that specific
> proxies for specific purposes could suit his idea of an alternate to his
> purpose of using a VPN to access his nntp provider and thus conceal his
> connectivity IP from the nntp admin OR perhaps because he believes that
> the encryption of the directly connecting IP is too frail to suit his
> idea of security from having his nntp connecting IP decryptable by
> others who examine the NPH of the headers.

Hi Mike Easter,
You are aware of the background, where this is a short summary:
1. I wrote a quickie to help _others_ get up to speed on VPN in minutes
2. Mike posted a helpful article which advised using a proxy instead of vpn
3. I'm simply trying to _find_ a proxy that works.

I'm _only_ and _all_ about actionable results, Mike.
o You and I both go way back.

I've _always_ been about general purpose solutions for everyone.
o I'm all about increasing our combined tribal knowledge Mike.

I have _nothing_ against proxies - and - in fact - I _love_ the idea.
o But if those proxies just don't exist ... the idea sucks, Mike.

That's the key question here:
o Does a proxy exist that will work for nntp traffic?

If yes, I'd _use_ it, as a proxy is all that I really need.
If no, then I'm _stuck_ with VPN, since VPN acts as a "glorified proxy".

It's really a very simple question that may have no answer.
Q: What free proxy works with the various free nntp servers today?

> But; it is difficult for me to delineate just what security/privacy
> issue he is actually debating. That is, it is unclear to me what he is
> concerned about hiding from whom.

Hi Mike,
I do not debate like you mean it since I'm a man of ACTION, Mike.
o I seek general purpose solutions that actually WORK, Mike.

I's all well & good that you told me I have no right to privacy, Mike.
o But I have NO INTENTION on "debating" that type of bullshit here Mike.

Particularly I'm sick of "keyword troll" bullshit, Mike.
o And your bullshit that I have absolutely no right to privacy, Mike.
(Some users will wonder why I say that - but Mike knows exactly why.)

i do not need to defend my right to privacy from keyword trolls, Mike.
o You told me, point blank, that I have absolutely no right to privacy, Mike.

Either own up to your own words, Mike, or provide some kind of support.
o I already explained that I don't have to defend the right to privacy.

All you're doing Mike, is continuing your KEYWORD TROLLING from before.
o Either answer the question, Mike, or don't bother wasting all our time.

I explained to Carlos what a "keyword troll" is, where I'll summarize
that if I mention "VPN", in the olden days, the keyword trolls would
immediately launch into a pre-prepared spiel on "how to roll your own" and
why "rolling your own" is the best way to go.

Those people don't even _look_ at the question.
o The keyword trolls simply launch into their pre-prepared spiel.

That's what you did Mike.

> Personally I don't believe that the content of encrypted NPH is a
> security risk because I don't believe that it is trivial to crack.

Mike,
Do you know the answer to the question or not?
If you don't know the answer to the question - why are you posting drivel?

>
> However, if one needed to conceal their connectivity IP from the nntp
> admin, that is another matter altogether which has nothing to do with
> cracking the encoded NPH or any changing of its algo.

Mike,
Stop this. Just stop it.

I provided _plenty_ of cites to you already that proved that your way of
thinking is utterly ignorant - and it's ignorant based on _lots_ of cites
that say your way of thinking is common among ignorant people.

I asked you for a single cite that backs up your claim.
o I told you to "name just one", and you can't find it, Mike.

I gave you a half dozen cites that argue I don't have to defend my right to
privacy to you Mike, - and yet - you INSIST on arguing that I have
absolutely no right to privacy, Mike.

You either _comprehend_ the question, or you're a _keyword troll_, Mike.
o Which is it?

If you comprehend the question, and if you're responding, then:
o What is a free proxy that works with all the free NNTP servers of today?

> Sometimes it is hard to focus arlen on which matters are agreed upon,
> which matters are agreed to disagree, and which matters are important
> only to him and not to other discussants.

Jesus Christ Mike.

The question is freaking SIMPLE Mike!
o Really really really freaking simple, Mike.

The reason YOU can't comprehend the question is you're a keyword troll.
o EVERY single mention of VPN on Usenet garners your same response.

You can't even "see" the question.
o All you see is the word "vpn", Mike.

The moment you see the word "vpn" Mike, you _launch_ into your pre-prepared
spiel. You do this EVERY SINGLE TIME you see the word VPN, Mike.

You think this is my first rodeo with you Mike?
o Generally you're a helpful guy

But when it comes to VPN keywords, your brain is like a cat with a mouse.
o You can only think of ONE THING Mike, when you see the word "VPN".

It doesn't matter if I am asking how to _spell_ VPN, Mike.
o The moment you see the VPN keyword, you launch into your pre-prepared spiel.

You do it EVERY TIME Mike.

The reason you find a trivially simple question hard is that your brain is
like a cat who sees a laser beam moving along the carpet.

That cat doesn't understand it's a laser beam.
o All that cat "sees" is "something moving" - which it POUNCES upon.

You're that cat Mike.

That's why you can't comprehend this trivially simple question, Mike:
o What free proxy exists today that I can test with the free nntp servers?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:49:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> There is an nntp proxy, I use one - but it sits in my very own computer.
> It is called leafnode - seek it up in the wikipedia. It is not used for
> anonymity: its original creation purpose was for use with dial up modems.

All I want, Carlos, is what I get with VPN, Carlos, but where I _accept_
that I'm using VPN as a "glorified proxy".

I just want to change my IP address at will, Carlos.
o Does this "leafnode" allow many different free IP address proxying?

Let me look it up.
<http://leafnode.org/doc_en/leafnode.8.html>

It's an NNTP server.
o Offhand, I don't think that will work, but let's delve deeper to see...

Maybe there is a clever way to use "leafnode" to change the IP address?

> A user would connect the modem and fire up the "fetch news cycle":
> leafnode collects all new messages on the groups it follows (not all
> groups). Then the modem would disconnect. The user or users would read
> the posts, write answers using any normal nntp client software, which
> for all purposes would think they were connected to a normal nntp server
> on Internet. Finally, the machine would fire up the modem and send all
> pending nntp posts in a few seconds of connection.

Hi Carlos,
I'm _only_ about _actionable_ solutions (i.e., real solutions).
o And, in general, I'm about _general_ purpose solutions.
(That is, solutions that work for everyone; not just for me.)

I like this leafnode idea, which I am unfamiliar with ... at the moment.

This "leafnode" might actually be useful - in a "modem" sort of way.
o Replace the word "modem" with "vpn" to get the idea...

I guess "one way" leafnode would work would be that we do this:
1. We connect to free public VPN of our choice
(a proxy would be better - but it has to exist!)
2. We use leafnode to connect to a free public nntp server of our choice
(we use leafnode to pull down all the traffic & disconnect from VPN)
3. We then use leafnode again to connect to the free public VPN.
(and we send all the articles that we composed offline)

In short, leafnode _can_ be used in a model where we replace the word
"modem" with the word "vpn", as a sort of workaround to the problems
inherent in using the free public vpn services.

However, that really only _minimizes_ the issue with VPN which is just as
easily minimized by simply doing what I do today anyway using the scripts
that were initially written by Marek Novotny years ago for this purpose.
1. I connect to a VPN (which takes a single command)
2. I pull down all the Usenet traffic from any desired set of nntp servers
3. I disconnect from VPN

At my leisure, like I am at this very moment, I compose my responses
(my "Usenet reader" is "vi" as it's just a bunch of editing scripts).

Then I connect momentarily to VPN to "send" my responses (where Marek and
others helped me write the daily wget ^ geolocate scripts that have
garnered about six or seven thousand different currently active IP
addresses which I randomly choose among with a randomizer script) as
needed.

In effect, Carlos, I like the leafnode use model so much that I'm _already_
using that leafnode use model, if I understand it correctly.

I'm just using "vpn" instead of "modem" & "vi" instead of "leafnode".

> This would happen daily, hourly, or any period the admin would define
> with cron. This was/is on Linux, maybe there were other tools for Windows.

The platform doesn't matter as long as it works on _both_ which is how all
my scripts are, which, essentially, are simple calls to "vi" & "telnet".

> The current advantage now that dial up modems are not used is that the
> clients read posts much faster. It also allows automatic connection to
> several upstream nntp servers: if one doesn't work, it goes to another.

If I had known about "leafnode" long ago, I likely would have explored it
as the use model seems similar to what I'm using now with "vi" & "telnet".

PULL:
1. Connect to any one of thousands of VPN IP addresses
2. Download Usenet messages using "telnet"
3. Disconnect from VPN...
....
Then, offline, compose responses in "vi" (or "vim" on Windows, to be clear)
....
PUSH:
A. Connect to VPN...
B. Upload Usenet messages using "telnet"
C. Disconnect from VPN...

That's my current use model, where "leafnode" would have fit.
But at this point in time, "leafnode" would simply be redundant.

This question is about a "proxy" instead of "vpn".

> I can also search for a text on a group or bunch of groups, because the
> "server" is in my machine and I have access to its files.

I generally search for "text" on a group using "grep" or "findstr".
I can also use the Usenet shortcuts I personally created years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/alt-os-linux
http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10
http://tinyurl.com/comp-sys-mac-apps
etc.

>> Knowledgeable users who know the answer can add to our knowledge.
>
> I hate your mania of saying that phrase.

Hi Carlos,

The _reason_ I tried to put off all the bullshit answers is that keywords
are involved.

I know Usenet as well as you do Carlos - where the keyword trolls
have a field day EVERY time certain keywords are mentioned.
o Mike Easter is normally an ok guy - but he's a keyword troll whenever the
keyword of "VPN" is involved.

He says the _same_ thing EVERY time the word "VPN" is involved.
o I could be asking how to _spell_ VPN, and he's _still_ say the same thing

Hence, the _reason_ I came down strong in the OP & on Mike is simple
o I'm trying to NOT waste everyone's time on these idiotic keyword trolls!

The keyword trolls don't even _read_ the question!
o They respond _only_ to the keyword.

And, they _always_ say the same idiotic things to those keywords.
o I am simply trying to _avoid_ the keyword trolls, Carlos.

You know me well, and you know that I'm about ACTIONABLE answers.
I'm not on usenet to waste my time (or yours) on keyword bullshit.

Many people on Usenet are "keyworded" bullshitters, Carlos - you know that.

The mere mention of a "keyword" brings out their trolls.
o They _always_ respond the _same_ to certain keywords!
o They don't add _any_ value because all they do is respond to keywords
o I could be asking how to _spell_ VPN, and they'd still respond the same.

Mike did that.
o In general Mike isn't a keyword troll
o But in this case, Mike fell into the _classic_ keyword troll trap.

In the "olden" days, the keyword trolls responded differently:
o Every time they saw "vpn", they'd respond to "roll your own".

Nowadays, the keyword trolls respond differently:
o Every time they see "vpn" they say it's not safe.

Mike, who generally is NOT a keyword troll, has interacted with me on this
VPN issue over the past year or two, and EVERY time Mike throws out his
keyword bullshit of the "its not safe".

OK. It's not safe. I get it.
o But that doesn't change the fact it's useful.

So Mike then throws out an article that says "use a proxy instead".
o But that article is bullshit - because there is no proxy.

Or is there?
o That's the reason for _this_ question, Carlos.

Is there a free proxy that works with free Usenet servers?

It's a simple question, Carlos - but I'll bet I'll waste my time on it.
o I'll bet _everyone_ will waste their time.

You know why, Carlos?
o Very few people are NOT keyword bullshitters, Carlos.

And...
o There may be no known proxies that can work with nntp servers Carlos.

In summary...
1. The question is easy to comprehend & difficult to answer.
2. The reason is that the answer may be that a proxy doesn't exist.
3. Very few (if any) of us, know the answer (not me either).

Everything else except the answer (or workaround) ... is a waste of time.

>> Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?
> I don't have the foggiest idea what an nntp proxy would be in your
> context, what would it be useful for.

Hi Carlos,

It's not an "nntp proxy"; it's a proxy ... that works with nntp servers.
(HINT: Most proxies are "web" proxies which are useless for nntp traffic.)

The question came up when Mike posted an article that said that people use
VPN as a glorified proxy when they shouldn't use VPN as a glorified proxy.

Specifically the article stated that people should use proxies.
All I'm trying to do is _follow_ that advice for NNTP traffic.

Remember Carlos, we all know _most_ (all?) proxies work with HTTP traffic.
o They abound in the hundreds, Carlos (everyone knows that).

This isn't about proxies that work with HTTP traffic, Carlos.
o This is about proxies which work with Usenet posts.

Specifically, this single simple question:
Q: Is there a free proxy that works with nntp servers?

> An nntp proxy would just be an nntp server that forwards to another nntp
> server - which by definition converts it into another nntp server, not a
> proxy. It would not necessarily anonymize the user.

That's not the question, Carlos, but thanks for taking a stab at it.

Remember, the article Mike posted says use a proxy instead of VPN
if all you want to do is change the IP address (e.g., change the country).

OK.

What free proxy works with free NNTP server traffic?
Q1: What free proxy works with Paolo Amoroso's free nntp server?
Q2: What free proxy works with Wolfgang Weyland's free nntp service?
Q3: What free proxy works with Steve Crook's free nntp server.
Q4: What free proxy works with Alex de Joode's free nntp server setup?
Q5: What free proxy works with Roman Racine's free nntp setup?
Q6: What free proxy would have worked with Jesse Rehmer' free nntp server?
Q7: What free proxy works with Steen Jensen's free nntp service?
Q8: What proxy works with Daniel & Monika Weber & Benjamin Gufler's server?

If the answer to any of those questions is that it doesn't exist,
o Then the article that Mike posted is sheer and utter bullshit.

You can _tell_ people to use a proxy
o But if the proxy doesn't work
o Then the article is advocating sheer & utter bullshit

To be clear, my intent is NOT to prove the article is bullshit
o Sure, I _think_ the article is bullshit, but that's not my intent

My intent is to _find_ a free proxy that works with those free nntp servers.
o The keyword trolls are having a field day with this _simple_ question.

In summary, these are the answers to your questions:
1. I wrote the OP to ask a simple question about proxies
2. We all know about proxies that work with HTTP but what about NNTP?
3. I know that keyword trolls abound - so I tried to STOP them proactively

Keyword trolls respond the _same_ every single time to a given keyword
o Unfortunately, for example, Mike _always_ responds the same to "VPN".
o Why?
o I don't know why. Ask him why.
o All I know is that he _always_ responds the same to the VPN keyword.

As for leafnode, it's _not_ a proxy, but it's a "nice idea".
o In fact, had I known about it years ago, I might have used it.

But my use model is, essentially, similar in action to what leafnode does
a. I connect to any of thousands of IP addresses (as a VPN but for a proxy)
b. I pull or push Usenet message
c. I then disconnect from the VPN (which I'm using like a proxy).

Hence, the only question asked in this thread is this simple question:
o What free proxy works with the various free nntp servers?
--
NOTE: I don't fear a question that has no answers; it would then be easy to
manage as it would have no responses to deal with that are off topic.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:17:58 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> In effect, Carlos, I like the leafnode use model so much that I'm _already_
> using that leafnode use model, if I understand it correctly.
>
> I'm just using "vpn" instead of "modem" & "vi" instead of "leafnode".

Correction FROM:

"I'm just using "vpn" instead of "modem" & "vi" instead of "leafnode"

Correction TO:
I'm just using "vpn" instead of "modem" & "_telnet_" instead of "leafnode".

Here is a summary of what this thread asks:
Q: Is there a free proxy that works with free nntp servers, or not?

Here's a summary of what this thread does NOT ask:
Q: Is it true what Paul & Mike opined that nobody has any right to privacy?
Or, more to the point of their veiled accusation:
Q: Is it true that everyone who wants privacy wants it for nefarious purposes?

Here's a summary of WHY this thread even exists?
1. I posted a purposefully helpful post of HOW to set up a free VPN.
2. Mike responded with a keyword-troll response
3. Mike's keyword-troll response is, essentially, "vpn sucks - use a proxy".
4. In addition, Mike essentially made the "right to privacy" claims above.

Here's my RESPONSE to Mikes' keyword troll on "VPN"...
A. I would be HAPPY to use a PROXY instead of a VPN!
B. But that proxy has to _exist_ first.
C. If that proxy does not exist, then Mike's advice is total ignorant bullshit.

Worse, here is my RESPONSE to MIke's privacy rant:
A. Mike essentially makes the claim that I have to DEFEND my right to privacy.
B. I respond, strongly, with cites, that this is a common ignorant statement.
C. When I ask Mike to provide cites backing up his ignorant claim, he can't.

Let's state the super obvious things here:
1. Nobody has to defend their right to privacy.
2. If you (Paul or Mike) want to claim otherwise, then back it up with cites.
3. Rest assured, I already provided Mike with cites proving my point of view.

That's because my point of view on privacy is what INTELLIGENT people say.
o If you disagree, then I'll provide cites to back up that claim
o Expect me to ask YOU to provide cites that back up YOUR claims.

This thread is NOT about privacy.
o the only reason privacy comes up is the igorance of keyword trolls

EVERY TIME VPN comes up (or a proxy), they act like a cat with a laser beam
o The keyword trolls POUNCE on that laser beam moving across the carpet

Nothing matters to that cat other than the laser beam is MOVING!!!!!!
o That's what the keyword trolls are doing here
o They are POUNCING on the word "VPN" with their pre-prepared spiel

Stop it. Just stop.
o If you don't know the answer to the question, just don't answer it.

I strongly suspect the proxy advice was sheer & utter ignorant bullshit anyway.

In short, the question is trivially simple to comprehend:
A. The suggestion is to use a proxy instead of VPN as a "glorified proxy".
B. I'd be HAPPY to use that suggestion - but a proxy has to exist.

Does it?

NOTE: If the proxy doesn't exist, then the suggestion is ignorant bullshit.
And I really hate ignorant bullshit because I'm a man of action.

[Rene Lamontagne]

What the hell are cites?

[Wildman]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 14:29:54 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Let the games begin.

--
<Wildman> GNU/Linux user #557453
The cow died so I don't need your bull!

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:59:51 -0600, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

> What the hell are cites?

Hi Rene Lamontagne,

The extremely simple question asked in this thread is...
*Q: Is there a free proxy that works with Usenet?*

The answer to your separate question is in this thread cited below:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc/N7knLiUdEgAJ>

Mike made a claim out of ignorance, where I simply asked Mike to back up
his claim with respectable cites that support his particularly ignorant
point of view.

Since Mike's claim is a very common ignorant claim, it took me all of ten
seconds to find respectable sites from which I provided Mike with cites.

Mike has _still_ not responded to the simple 3 word question I always use
to point out that people make claims based out of sheer & total ignorance:
o Name just one

In my case, to support my point of view that nobody has to defend their
right to privacy, I easily provided Mike with cites to sites that back up
my claim that the right to privacy does NOT need to be defended.

Using that Google web site, I will quote the cites as shown below:
Do you want _more_ cites from me proving your statement reeks of ignorance?

Here's a Guardian article explaining why your statement reeks of ignorance:
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/may/22/edward-snowden-rights-to-privacy-video>

Here's a Wikipedia page outlining YOUR blatant ignorant statement:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument>

Here's what the Democratic Underground said about your ignorant statement:
<https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028166414>

Here's a Business Insider page outlining YOUR blatantly ignorant statement:
<https://www.businessinsider.com/edward-snowden-privacy-argument-2016-9>

Here's a RightsAndDissent treatise explaining your ignorant statement:
<https://rightsanddissent.org/news/privacy-fountainhead-rights-ed-snowden-says-need-protect/>

Here's what the Wall Street Journal says about your igorant statement:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-after-months-of-nsa-revelations-says-his-missions-accomplished/2013/12/23/49fc36de-6c1c-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_story.html>

o In one quote, Snowden just destroyed the biggest myth about privacy
<https://mic.com/articles/119602/in-one-quote-edward-snowden-summed-up-why-our-privacy-is-worth-fighting-for#.ZH66T6m4O>
etc

Notice I cite a bunch of sites which support my point of view, Rene.

Paul and Mike essentially seem to be keywording on VPN, where they make
veiled accusations as to WHY everyone wants PRIVACY.

The intelligent point these cited articles make is that the person taking
away your right to privacy has the burden of proof to prove why they feel
you have absolutely no right to privacy.

It's not the other way around.

Mike Easter thinks this is a relatively minor difference in "point of
view".

If it is, and, if Mike is an adult, then he should be able to cite at least
a reasonable set of sites that support his "point of view".

My position is that this is not a "minor" difference in POV.
My position is that Mike's claims are CLASSIC of complete & utter ignorance.

My simple 3-word test of complete & total ignorance is thus:
o Name just one

Since I easily named a half dozen sites with cites that support my POV,
I simply asked Mike to provide a cite that supports his point of view.

In fact, I asked Mike to support his POV using this simple 3-word test
asking for him to find a single well-respected site that supports his POV.

I asked Mike:
o Name just one.

The fact that Mike (did NOT, could not, will not) "Name Just One"
supports my point of view that Mike was advocating complete and utterly
ignorant total bullshit.

If I'm not clear enough, Rene, let me know.
HINT: Site is used here as a web site.
DOUBLEHINT: Cite is used here as a URL to an article on that web site.

In summary, the question is:
*Q: Is there a free proxy that works with Usenet?*

If the answer is yes, I'll test it out for the team; and report back.
Everyone benefits from the addition of value to our tribal knowledge.

If no, then Mike's advice was, indeed, complete & total bullshit.
If it's merely philosophical, it's not actionable in this context.

*Q: Is there a free proxy that works with Usenet?*

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:16:56 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> Welcome to the club of "children(tm)", Mike. Cookies are on the table,
> milkis in the fridge (including various non-dairy options, in the event
> you happen to be lactose-intolerant).

Troll.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:10:19 -0600, Wildman wrote:

> Let the games begin.

Troll.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> [...]

> What the hell are cites?

Given the (redacted) context, I imagine we are in for a post implying
that you (and possibly Mike Easter) are too much of a "left side DK
scale(tm)" type to properly divine that he did indeed mean 'citations',
rather than any chance that arlen is simply poor at distinguishing
between homonyms.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxq3gkACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEiZAf+MuVCvcCzdJNfLoLlwUfOKm4JfY7WGfmj64Ae2vs+4pNK+UC7aTCTDELt
1HLA1j/7TxB82U/Ur26klR+Qw8O3bEXq/Tc7EJNCdPC2UrPmC7vlYAIq+TYdjOI2
FfMzktsb0vthAj51PWA0OkrpWHu5w+Kn/RN/gwBDTqxVUxpVv5XXnsNMOTIw/+8K
W8zJ+pA7hAnvsQa7/kW2q7FRW3Tp3rcPGv8HhEmS1DqVuGZ9pSt7pN+u3Xkcg5At
TwYKKzz8RfuOCgRndRFgYLv6ENLJc0EobCH/jCpCfsRXIvcdGFzTMp+HBzX/RzqI
Z4xI1oLmdekAYtVLCgAQ84RYrBpUuA==
=jwW9

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:32:09 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> Given the (redacted) context, I imagine we are in for a post implying
> that you (and possibly Mike Easter) are too much of a "left side DK
> scale(tm)" type to properly divine that he did indeed mean 'citations',
> rather than any chance that arlen is simply poor at distinguishing
> between homonyms.

Troll.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Now, now. I was speaking to my acquaintance Mike, and offering a bit of
compassion now that he's made it to your list of "children" and/or
"left-side DK scale degenerates." (whichever suits your narrative in
your forthcoming rant about Mike's character).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxq3/8ACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEsJQf+NMex0t26VmM4n5gAv0O4Wh1hZtX7YWJo9mzHEXHmFYl5PZANqJLK2A8D
o2peyMYe9r5mFBsrP5VKvgKo4EMoUa0jqteDUO1NKj6bujAq/ywW24JFXKx2pAry
z5WKxZlhsud8g8G8KxpE1+06y1fgDnRMf8P+3d6t/Xlp9THF/lM1wXzXvgu/TY6B
Ms2KKnyZeVVH5ryZftDgKjlZdnOWE5AmJLeX0mgyR9zKTT2vWoNMeVdA318lElsm
PBph1g4M6+qRzrOVIG66LxBohUW7Wss6CBOk3nZrbLTfJZlOQhgdF4gGKJ5wHKD5
+17uqmMUSx7JOIguETDrQjfabW2YsA==
=4aZw

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:40:31 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> Now, now. I was speaking to my acquaintance Mike, and offering a bit of
> compassion now that he's made it to your list of "children" and/or
> "left-side DK scale degenerates." (whichever suits your narrative in
> your forthcoming rant about Mike's character).

Troll.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mike Easter wrote:
> [...]

> Personally I don't believe that the content of encrypted NPH is a
> security risk because I don't believe that it is trivial to crack.

I think I missed it -- what do you mean by "NPH" here?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxq45IACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEDmgf/UD3boG614PBKxO9t/+ZMCpNark2/gb8TQKmxykgdhv7DwTzjGbl8oUEQ
9eEbE2MAtDEDYv97YtVDOypwiBTElKeXsO1W5yZQL40ScZIdsdX5mQkMDhOqM8VU
yRgGxaXpsS9tY/4MaheqBjL6Cka06LWvAyYEZvYXvWYrFN2qZQUmoGlwwwpRkPMd
v+RiRB4lb+/Cr59gAXtgYrcGvm72J9qgXi1SN+dIS+QpNg9+UruGX1Ds74lV3YS3
Uz6pWgahiWRFHZCTcXQYJ4WdRHnr6LoUHBraIhINa7cACPihLuDbtVB2CPVTGSiP
eClfu8YC54HJN/VE9gYv0/qk/H+RHA==
=pPzT

[she...@outlook.com]

On 18-Feb-2019, Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> > Worse, here is my RESPONSE to MIke's privacy rant:
> > A. Mike essentially makes the claim that I have to DEFEND my right to
> > privacy.
> > B. I respond, strongly, with cites, that this is a common ignorant
> > statement.
> > C. When I ask Mike to provide cites backing up his ignorant claim, he
> > can't.
> >


> > Let's state the super obvious things here:
> > 1. Nobody has to defend their right to privacy.
> > 2. If you (Paul or Mike) want to claim otherwise, then back it up with
> > cites.
> > 3. Rest assured, I already provided Mike with cites proving my point of
> > view.

> What the hell are cites?

References.

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> The question came up because Mike advised to use a proxy instead of using a
> VPN to change the IP address -

That (Mike advised) s not correct. That is how YOU interpreted part of
an article advising caution on VPN usage which I linked.

https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29

--
Mike Easter

[Rene Lamontagne]

Thanks, I was mistaking it for sites.

Rene

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Mike had posted an article that advised using a proxy instead of a VPN.

I don't believe that article even /considered/ VPN for nntp access. And
the article was more favorable to private VPN at a VPS than to proxies
for some things that have nothing to do with nntp access.


--
Mike Easter

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> 2. Mike posted a helpful article which advised using a proxy instead of vpn

That part is inaccurate.

arlen misread the article I posted.

--
Mike Easter

[Mike Easter]

Dan Purgert wrote:
>
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> [...]
>> Personally I don't believe that the content of encrypted NPH is a
>> security risk because I don't believe that it is trivial to crack.
>
> I think I missed it -- what do you mean by "NPH" here?

Sometimes a nntp server is configured to stamp an nntp-posting-host or
posting-host or a line with a header X-trace and I've abbreviated that
as NPH.

That NPH or trace is usually encrypted by the nntp admin software, but
sometimes it is open/unencrypted, showing the IP connecting to the nntp
server.

For many users that IP is their connectivity IP and serves to readily
trace them.

I'm not exactly sure what arlen and I are arguing about except that I
don't understand why he feels he needs to connect to his nntp provider
by VPN. I have never advocated doing that with a proxy either.

In the specific case of mixmin, which also provides access with
mail2news, it is accessible for reading and posting without
authentication. It stamps its headers with an Injection-info header
which contains an encrypted posting-host content.

arlen doesn't like that I don't understand why he feels a need to use a
VPN to access mixmin for ordinary conversations such as these and has
interpreted those questions as an attack on his right to privacy.

My only 'attacks' are on the careless use of VPNs on those who make
assumptions about VPNs which aren't valid.

I believe the TOPS site https://thatoneprivacysite.net/ is a valuable
resource for investigating VPNs, while the 'Don't use VPNs' site is more
valuable for the discussion it generates than its point of view which is
ambiguous.


--
Mike Easter

[William Unruh]

On 2019-02-18, arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:13:40 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> For hiding the IP the only recourse I'd see is some sort of VPN
>
> Hi Carlos,
> To clarify...
>
> All I'm asking is for a free proxy that I can connect to first.
> o And then I can connect to a free nntp server second.
>
> I believe those are two completely separate actions, are they not?
>
> I do that today, using VPN as a "glorified proxy".
> o My intent is simply to change the NNTP posting host to an arbitrary IP.

Aha. AGain someone who asks us to OK his particular solution to a
problem rather than stating the problem and asking for a solution.

And it is not at all clear what the purpose would be, except maybe to
hide that some one of a variety fo aliases is actually you-- ie to spam
the newsgroups.
Anyway, use a VPN.

>
> All this thread asks is whether a "proxy" exists that works like this:

Why is that a proxy?

> 1. Connect to the proxy (to obtain an arbitary IP address)
> 2. Pull down Usenet messages (& disconnect from that proxy perhaps)
> 3. Respond to the Usenet messages offline (which is what I do today)
> 4. Reconnect to the proxy to SEND those messages.
>
> I do that today using VPN.
> o I don't need the encryption of VPN
> o I just need the random IP address of VPN

So you have answered your question. Why do you care if it is encrypted
on the way or not. (It of course is encrypted via a Ceasar cypher-- A is
repreented by some bitpatterns that look nothing like A.

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:15:26 -0600, Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca>
wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, you are right, and the original post with the
word "cites" is wrong. "Cite" is a verb, not a noun. The noun is
"citation."

I'm sure I'm going to get arguments about this, telling me I'm an old
fuddy-duddy and I'm behind the times. So I'll repeat my first five
words in the paragraph above: "as far as I'm concerned."

[nospam]

In article <l50m6elstrrk5llkj...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake

<K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:

> >>
> >>> What the hell are cites?
> >>
> >> References.
> >
> >Thanks, I was mistaking it for sites.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, you are right, and the original post with the
> word "cites" is wrong. "Cite" is a verb, not a noun. The noun is
> "citation."

it's both. as a noun, it's short for citation.
<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cite>
<https://www.thefreedictionary.com/cite>

> I'm sure I'm going to get arguments about this, telling me I'm an old
> fuddy-duddy and I'm behind the times. So I'll repeat my first five
> words in the paragraph above: "as far as I'm concerned."

whatever you want to call it.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/02/2019 16.17, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:13:40 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> For hiding the IP the only recourse I'd see is some sort of VPN
>
> Hi Carlos,
> To clarify...
>
> All I'm asking is for a free proxy that I can connect to first.
> o And then I can connect to a free nntp server second.
>
> I believe those are two completely separate actions, are they not?
>
> I do that today, using VPN as a "glorified proxy".
> o My intent is simply to change the NNTP posting host to an arbitrary IP.
>
> All this thread asks is whether a "proxy" exists that works like this:
> 1. Connect to the proxy (to obtain an arbitary IP address)
> 2. Pull down Usenet messages (& disconnect from that proxy perhaps)
> 3. Respond to the Usenet messages offline (which is what I do today)
> 4. Reconnect to the proxy to SEND those messages.
>
> I do that today using VPN.
> o I don't need the encryption of VPN
> o I just need the random IP address of VPN

Then keep using VPN.

AFAIK the word "proxy" is used for "web proxy" only, and in that
protocol you don't write and send things.

Consider mail. There is no such thing as an anonymizer mail proxy, the
headers always trace to you. There are anonymizer mail servers.
Different thing.

Consider mail spammers. They can create fake delivery headers, but the
moment the mail hits a good server the headers are true and point back
to the true injection node.


Well, it is the same with nntp.

You can only use something that changes the IP of your machine or a
service/application on that machine. That is a full VPN or a tunnel.

>
> Mike had posted an article that advised using a proxy instead of a VPN.
> o I have _nothing_ against that advice.

Maybe he meant a web proxy for posting on usenet via web server.

>
> Does that proxy exist?
> o That is the question.
>
> I'm always seeking a better general purpose solution, Carlos.
> o Hence I ask this extremely simple question (which may have no answer).
>
> Q: *Is there a free proxy that will work with the free Usenet servers?*

Paul already explained why not.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/02/2019 16.17, arlen holder wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:49:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> There is an nntp proxy, I use one - but it sits in my very own computer.
>> It is called leafnode - seek it up in the wikipedia. It is not used for
>> anonymity: its original creation purpose was for use with dial up modems.
>
> All I want, Carlos, is what I get with VPN, Carlos, but where I _accept_
> that I'm using VPN as a "glorified proxy".
>
> I just want to change my IP address at will, Carlos.
> o Does this "leafnode" allow many different free IP address proxying?

Of course not.

>
> Let me look it up.
> <http://leafnode.org/doc_en/leafnode.8.html>
>
> It's an NNTP server.
> o Offhand, I don't think that will work, but let's delve deeper to see...

Actually, it is an nntp proxy server, but not what you think a proxy is.

>
> Maybe there is a clever way to use "leafnode" to change the IP address?

No.

>
>> A user would connect the modem and fire up the "fetch news cycle":
>> leafnode collects all new messages on the groups it follows (not all
>> groups). Then the modem would disconnect. The user or users would read
>> the posts, write answers using any normal nntp client software, which
>> for all purposes would think they were connected to a normal nntp server
>> on Internet. Finally, the machine would fire up the modem and send all
>> pending nntp posts in a few seconds of connection.
>
> Hi Carlos,
> I'm _only_ about _actionable_ solutions (i.e., real solutions).

Only after you really state the problem that you want to solve. When
that is known then we can offer solutions.

> o And, in general, I'm about _general_ purpose solutions.
> (That is, solutions that work for everyone; not just for me.)
>
> I like this leafnode idea, which I am unfamiliar with ... at the moment.
>
> This "leafnode" might actually be useful - in a "modem" sort of way.
> o Replace the word "modem" with "vpn" to get the idea...
>
> I guess "one way" leafnode would work would be that we do this:
> 1. We connect to free public VPN of our choice
> (a proxy would be better - but it has to exist!)
> 2. We use leafnode to connect to a free public nntp server of our choice
> (we use leafnode to pull down all the traffic & disconnect from VPN)
> 3. We then use leafnode again to connect to the free public VPN.
> (and we send all the articles that we composed offline)

The headers still trace you fully.

...

Uff, the rest of your post is way to long for my patience. Skipping.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> There aren't that many "account-free" newsservers.
>> AIOE is one.
>
>
> I know you to be always purposefully helpful so I will "correct" you firmly
> by saying outright that there are _plenty_ of registration free nntp news
> servers which allow either read and/or write privileges, sans any
> registration.
> o But that's not the topic of this thread. :)

It is not appropriate to lump read only with posting privileges.

There are a lot more read only than non-authenticated posting privileges.

> HINT: Mixmin, Netfront, Mozzilla, Dizum, Aioe, Blueworld, News4All,
> Albasani, Sunsite, XSUsenet, etc. (that's just offhand, from memory).

Those are mostly read only. Mixmin and aioe allow posting without
authentication.

> The question came up because Mike advised to use a proxy instead of using a
> VPN to change the IP address -

No I did not.

--
Mike Easter

[Ken Blake]

Why do you want to help a troll? You should killfile him, not offer
him solutions.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Mike Easter wrote:

> Dan Purgert wrote:
>>
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Personally I don't believe that the content of encrypted NPH is a
>>> security risk because I don't believe that it is trivial to crack.
>>
>> I think I missed it -- what do you mean by "NPH" here?
>
> Sometimes a nntp server is configured to stamp an nntp-posting-host or
> posting-host or a line with a header X-trace and I've abbreviated that
> as NPH.

Ah that makes sense then.

>
> That NPH or trace is usually encrypted by the nntp admin software, but
> sometimes it is open/unencrypted, showing the IP connecting to the nntp
> server.
>
> For many users that IP is their connectivity IP and serves to readily
> trace them.

Meh, you'll never trace these posts from 127.0.0.1! :)

>
> I'm not exactly sure what arlen and I are arguing about except that I
> don't understand why he feels he needs to connect to his nntp provider
> by VPN. I have never advocated doing that with a proxy either.

Yeah, it mainly seems mis-attribution mixed in with a healthy dose of
misunderstanding on arlen's part. In other words, par for course.

>
> In the specific case of mixmin, which also provides access with
> mail2news, it is accessible for reading and posting without
> authentication. It stamps its headers with an Injection-info header
> which contains an encrypted posting-host content.
>
> arlen doesn't like that I don't understand why he feels a need to use a
> VPN to access mixmin for ordinary conversations such as these and has
> interpreted those questions as an attack on his right to privacy.

Not that there's any "loss of privacy" by not using a VPN. I mean, we
might as well compare the internet to a mall. Doesn't matter if he
cimes in the north or south entrance (VPN or not) -- mixmin's still
gonna inject it as "arlen holder(tm)" for the rest of us to see.

>
> My only 'attacks' are on the careless use of VPNs on those who make
> assumptions about VPNs which aren't valid.
>
> I believe the TOPS site https://thatoneprivacysite.net/ is a valuable
> resource for investigating VPNs, while the 'Don't use VPNs' site is more
> valuable for the discussion it generates than its point of view which is
> ambiguous.

Personally, I'm in the "theres no point" camp. Doesn't matter if I come
through a server here, or a vps or whatever, I still have my name on the
posts (or my gmail account or whatever).


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxrIp8ACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooE/tQf+J39mkhaY2xdETkqz6G02ylMRb2grJBcsuc4rDzOZlAMhc/HOo2EI/1dg
7UlBWaKliEi4rm99vdD6r/gM4RxTw4Y8tXLEEtuzFs2BDEFDbfxc7tZ80FAsyBt6
upIAGAoP25Pk2pKhZ7HCYzSL6B6O4hvlNremyac9nxrA4N4vLV938gHUfgQH+1bL
jG11CvXT88TCXbCFgjL+94NxfxbL4/4L3sj6CxdeDfdIWOoL2se/lr4Z1pT6xlZX
l0TJX2Mgcd8MVUUpd3xPJqPlb0BoN3EDV9BwjAZwYzioaIiz1JP4GoeNYiiOicyU
2Q7Lbauvqi3uOXUMpmPyz4dstCrSpA==
=VOCt

[Georg Schwarz]

arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

You could for example use a SOCKS proxy, but why would you want to do
that? Can't you connect directly to that free NNTP news server?

[Frank Slootweg]

Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/02/2019 16.17, arlen holder wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:13:40 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> >
> >> For hiding the IP the only recourse I'd see is some sort of VPN
> >
> > Hi Carlos,
> > To clarify...
> >
> > All I'm asking is for a free proxy that I can connect to first.
> > o And then I can connect to a free nntp server second.
> >
> > I believe those are two completely separate actions, are they not?
> >
> > I do that today, using VPN as a "glorified proxy".
> > o My intent is simply to change the NNTP posting host to an arbitrary IP.
> >
> > All this thread asks is whether a "proxy" exists that works like this:
> > 1. Connect to the proxy (to obtain an arbitary IP address)
> > 2. Pull down Usenet messages (& disconnect from that proxy perhaps)
> > 3. Respond to the Usenet messages offline (which is what I do today)
> > 4. Reconnect to the proxy to SEND those messages.
> >
> > I do that today using VPN.
> > o I don't need the encryption of VPN
> > o I just need the random IP address of VPN
>
> Then keep using VPN.
>
> AFAIK the word "proxy" is used for "web proxy" only, and in that
> protocol you don't write and send things.

A proxy can be used for all kinds of services/protocols, including
NNTP. But an NNTP proxy isn't what arlen thinks it is. It is what you
described, i.e. things like Leafnode, Hamster, but also general NNTP
caching servers, etc..

If arlen would Google 'NNTP proxy', he would see what it is and isn't.

For some general information about the different kinds of proxies:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server>

> Consider mail. There is no such thing as an anonymizer mail proxy, the
> headers always trace to you. There are anonymizer mail servers.
> Different thing.
>
> Consider mail spammers. They can create fake delivery headers, but the
> moment the mail hits a good server the headers are true and point back
> to the true injection node.
>
> Well, it is the same with nntp.
>
> You can only use something that changes the IP of your machine or a
> service/application on that machine. That is a full VPN or a tunnel.

Exactly. What he wants is an anonymizer, which anonymizes his IP
address.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymizer>

Finding a trustworthy VPN service is probably easier - FSVSVO 'easy' -
than finding a trustworthy IP-anonymizer service (if such an animal
exists at all).

[...]

[William Unruh]

English has the ability of making verbs into nouns. The Vancouver Sun
Run. Run is a verb, but in that context it is a nounified verb, ie a
noun. This happens, and has happened for hundreds of years, in English.

On the other hand, confusing sites and cites is like confusing any other
two homophones. to,two,too.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:32:34 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Maybe he meant a web proxy for posting on usenet via web server.

Mike said a _lot_ of ignorant bullshit, Carlos.
o But, Mike has cleaned up his act, and hence, it's water under the bridge.

Mike's _last_ post showed that he's back to posting adult content.
o Hence, I'm back to treating Mike like an adult.

To take his place, the ignorant trolls flocked to this thread.
o Ignorant trolls _always_ flock to keyword thread.

And there is no better keyword for keyword trolls than V-P-N!
o It's like a ball rolling on the floor in front of a cat

They _always_ pounce on it with their _instinctive_ spiel!

For example, like a cat that instinctively pounces on a laser beam, William
Unruh just keyword trolled into essentially claiming that anyone who wants
privacy is doing so for nefarious purposes.

The entire post of William Unruh (yet again), proved he's ignorant
o This isn't the 1st time William Unruh proved he's fantastically ignorant.

What's surprising is he has a PhD (in the sciences no less):
o Yet, what he wrote is _clearly_ the output of an utterly ignorant person.

Nobody has to defended their simple right to privacy.
o If William Unruh thinks that privacy is only for nefarious purposes....

Let's see William Unruh make an ADULT claim backed up with facts.
o HINT: He can't since William Unruh's argument is, yet again, of a child.

Let's see this ignorant William Unruh, prove that, with a factual cite or two.

For example, I posted plenty of articles stating I don't need to defend the
right to privacy

To William Unruh, who has written peer-reviewed papers himself (as have I):
o Name just one article that backs up your point, William Unruh.

Name just one.

This is my simple 3-word test, for ignorance, William Unruh:
o Name just one

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:24:47 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> Yeah, it mainly seems mis-attribution mixed in with a healthy dose of
> misunderstanding on arlen's part. In other words, par for course.

Troll.

[arlen holder]

On 18 Feb 2019 21:38:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

> If arlen would Google 'NNTP proxy', he would see what it is and isn't.

Hi Frank,

The question is so freaking simple that I have to ask you if YOU understand
the question.

Let me copy the subject line for you Frank...first:
Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, Frank.
1. Proxy.
2. Usenet.

What makes YOU think they're one thing, Frank?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:18:00 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> I'm not exactly sure what arlen and I are arguing about except that I
> don't understand why he feels he needs to connect to his nntp provider
> by VPN. I have never advocated doing that with a proxy either.

Hi Mike,

As you know, I "mirror" the implied intent of the post, where I infer this
question was made by you in good faith.

I _understand_ (I think) why you are so confused about the use of VPN.
o You're like a cat who is confused by a laser beam Mike.

You have a zillion pre-conceived notions, Mike, about VPN.
o ALmost all of which are wrong, when it comes to "my" use model, Mike.

Hence, even though I must have explained my use model a hundred time
(DISCLAIMER: The ignorant numbertrolls like Dan Purgert, Rene Lamantagne,
Wolf K, and especially Cybe(R) Wizard are gonna ask me to _prove_ I posted
it 100 times!). you still hold on to YOUR confusion about what VPN does.

I realize you're confused, Mike; so is William Unruh confused, Mike.

o The reason you're instinctively confused by VPN is the same reason that a
racist is confused by the mere existence of a black female doctor, Mike.

It's clear that William Unruh is likewise instinctively confused by VPN,
just as he would be by the existence of a Native American wearing a 3-piece
striped pinstripe suit.

To get directly to the point, where on earth do you get the idiotic idea
I "need to connect to the NNTP provider by VPN" (which I _already_ refuted
either last night or today and you STILL make this idiotic claim).

I'm sick and tired of explaining such a trivially simple use model, Mike,
where the ONLY reason you (and that moronic William Unruh) can't possibly
comprehend it is because it's like you trying to comprehend something that
you just can't possibly comprehend.

You can't comprehend, for example, that the PUBLICLY SHOWN NNTP posting
host is what I'm trying to change.

For some _strange_ innate inbred reason, that _simple_ concept, is utterly
(shockingly) completely beyond your comprehension Mike.

Mike: I don't have the people skills to explain something that horrifically
SIMPLE to you, MIke.

It's like explaining to you that, yes, Black Female Doctors actually exist,
Mike.

Until YOU wipe out your innate inbred instinctive bias against VPN, Mike,
you'll _never_ comprehend even the _simplest_ of the simplest of use models
that involve VPN.

I realize this is a hard pill for you to swallow, so I apologize for having
to be the one that has to tell you the blunt factual truth. I'm sorry.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:31:15 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> That part is inaccurate.
>
> arlen misread the article I posted.

DISCLAIMER: BLUNT FACTS BELOW.

Mike,

Notice what you just did, Mike.
o You just did what children do, Mike.

When you posted that article, I _summarized_ it for you.
o Remember that Mike?

Did you object _then_ to my summary, Mike?
o HINT: The answer is no.

What happened _next_ Mike?
o Did you throw completely ignorant veiled accusations Mike?
HINT: The answer is yes.

Then what, Mike?
o Did you then launch into this "nobody has a right to privacy" tirade, Mike?
HINT: Yes.

Only now, are you _claiming_ I didn't comprehend the article,
simply because YOU didn't comprehend the article.

It's not like I'm bringing up NNTP out of the blue, Mike.
o NNTP is the _only_ reason I'm using VPN, Mike.

And you knew that long before you now make this childish claim otherwise.
o The fact is simple, Mike.

1. You, Mike, are a keyword troll.
2. EVERY time the keyword VPN pops up, you respond the SAME Mike.
3. You are instinctive that way, Mike, like a cat pouncing on a laser beam.

You just didn't expect someone to COMPREHEND that your claims are complete
and utter bullshit Mike.

Then you compounded that error by then throwing thinly veiled accusations,
Mike.

Worse, you double compounded your error by then assessing, essentially,
that we have to DEFEND our right to privacy, Mike.

Understandably, I came down hard on you Mike, for all three errors.
o Take it like an adult Mike.

Take it like a man Mike.
o Apologize, or back up your ignorant claims.

Or, at least *ACT LIKE AN ADULT MOVING FORWARD MIKE*

Trust me, this isn't my first rodeo on Usenet - nor with you, Mike:
o All your ignorant bullshit is water under the bridge for me, Mike.

You're actually one of the more _intelligent_ of the posters here, Mike.
o You. Paul. Carlos.

Only if you CONTINUE to spew your ignorant bullshit will you hear from me.
o And just now, you spewed your ignorant bullshit.

The suggestion to use a proxy instead of VPN is _nearly_ worthless Mike.
o It's nearly worthless because VPN browsers exist, Mike.
o It's nearly worthless because proxies are essentially only web based.

But it's completely worthless when use take my clearly stated use model.
o FACT + LOGIC, Mike.

All I speak is FACT & LOGIC.
o If a proxy existed that worked with my Usenet traffic, I'd _test_ it.
(Assuming it passed a few basic typical conditions, like being reliable.)

Let me ask you a YES OR NO question Mike:
o MIKE: Do you think if a proxy easily existed, that I would NOT test it?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:39:36 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh wrote:

> Aha. AGain someone who asks us to OK his particular solution to a
> problem rather than stating the problem and asking for a solution.

Troll.

The question is very simple to comprehend, William Unruh:
Q: What's a free proxy that works with the free nntp servers out there?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:30:21 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> I don't believe that article even /considered/ VPN for nntp access.

Hi Mike,

I mirror your intent, as always...

Thank you for showing that you comprehended the problem set.
o I'm a man FACT + LOGIC = ACTION

I also am blunt.
o You never have to worry about what I'm thinking about what you say, Mike.

I don't have social skills to play games or be coy or insincere, Mike.
o I simply tell you exactly what I think about what you write.

Fact is, if a proxy existed - I'd use it.
o But it doesn't appear to exist (at least not yet).

I wish it did exist.
o But if it doesn't exit, then recommencing it is total ignorant bullshit.

LOGIC:
If the purpose of using VPN is to change the IP address for nntp traffic...
o Then a "proxy" should work.

But, if a proxy doesn't exist that works on nntp traffic...
o Then we're back to using VPN to change the IP address.

Proxies do certainly work for _other_ things...for example:
o For browsers, "proxy-based-browsers" exist.
a. TBB
b. Epic
c. Opera

Even if a user didn't want to use _those_ three browsers (only two of which
work on Linux), they still have _plenty_ of proxies to choose from for
web-based traffic.

That is, if a user wanted to use, oh, say, IE or Edge or Firefox, we _all_
know that free web-based proxies exist in the, oh, I don't know, in the
thousands (although once I mention any "number", then the numbertrolls
like Rene and Dan and especially Cybe(r) perk up like a cat pouncing on
a laser beam) since all they _can_ do is troll.

But for NNTP traffic, which is _why_ I use VPN, saying to use a proxy
is worthless unless a proxy exists.

If that proxy existed - and if it was free and easy to set up, and
otherwise not unreliable ... I'd use it Mike.

But it has to exist first.
o Does it?

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:22:15 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> The suggestion to use a proxy instead of VPN is _nearly_ worthless Mike.
> o It's nearly worthless because VPN browsers exist, Mike.
> o It's nearly worthless because proxies are essentially only web based.

Quick correction, since the utterly worthless semantic trolls like Dan
Purgert exist in spades, on this ng... (people like Dan Purgert know they
add no value so they pounce on typos & thinkos like a cat pouncing on a toy
moving mouse as if they found something "meaningful" to say).

I meant "proxy" browsers (not "VPN browsers").

HINT: Opera "says" it's a VPN browser but it's really a proxy.

[Carlos E.R.]

We have already answered, but you don't like it and accuse people of
being trolls or whatever.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/02/2019 23.22, arlen holder wrote:

Already answered: *NO*.

Even more: it can not be done.

Why? It has already been explained by people you dismiss.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:13:49 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> That (Mike advised) s not correct. That is how YOU interpreted part of
> an article advising caution on VPN usage which I linked.

Mike,

I can only ask you the simple 3-word test of prove your statements, Mike.

Find a _single_ statement from me backing up your unsupported claim that I
misunderstood ANYTHING in that article, Mike.
o Name just one.

Remember, I SUMMARIZED the ENTIRE article for you yesterday, Mike.
o And you didn't claim that I got a _single_ thing wrong then, Mike.

It's only now, when I came down hard on your for ignorant statements
you keep making, Mike, that you now claim I misunderstood the article.

That's like telling me that I beat my wife, Mike.
o Your claim is wholly and completely unsupported by facts, Mike.

EVERY ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED BY FACT:

Here's the simple test, Mike:
o Name just one

That is, name just one statement in my summary of that article, Mike,
that is a "misunderstanding" of that article, Mike?
o Name just one.

Here is the cite to the summary, Mike:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc/oAPYdk4QEgAJ>

You see Mike, I'm not afraid of the "name just one" test, Mike.
o You have FAILED this "name just one" test a few times already, Mike.

Find a misunderstanding in that summary of the article Mike.
o Name just one.

Mike - stop acting like a child.
o It's clear to me WHY you are so confused Mike.

Very clear.
o Allow me ot use the example of a black female MD, Mike.

YOUR BRAIN is what's confused about the black female MD (example), Mike.
o It's not me who is confused Mike ... it's YOU who is confused.

Until you shake YOURSELF of the black-female-MD inbred instinct,
YOU Mike, will ALWAYS be confused about almost ANY VPN use model.

The reason YOU are confused Mike, is you harbor instinctively incorrect
ideas about VPN use models, Mike.

Explaining my trivially simple VPN use model to you, Mike, and hence, why
the recommendation to "use a proxy" instead of VPN for my use model is like
explaining to you that Black Female Doctors actually exist is what's going
on here, Mike.

YOU say I'm confused - but I haven't changed my logic and facts once, Mike.
o Meanwhile you're flailing and making incorrect statements left & right.

The problem Mike, is clear.
o You harbor instinctive ideas of a use model that is akin to harboring
instinctive ideas about black female doctors.

You're the one confused Mike.
o Not me.

Until YOU wipe out your innate inbred instinctive bias, Mike,

[Carlos E.R.]

On 18/02/2019 23.22, arlen holder wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:18:00 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

...

> You can't comprehend, for example, that the PUBLICLY SHOWN NNTP posting
> host is what I'm trying to change.

Yes we do. Long ago in this thread.

It has been already explained that you can not.

At worst, it would be replaced by, let's call it, the one of an nntp
proxy host. For all purposes, this is just another nntp server, lower in
the hierarchy. But that server has to feed the post to another server
higher in the hierarchy, for which he needs personal permission! That
proxy server is fully identified! And he knows you.

If you send enough rubbish, they will simply lock that proxy server, aka
plain nntp server, out. Or he will learn to block you, Arlen, so that
the server is allowed again with the crowd.

He might leave out the header line that identifies your IP, but that is
against his interests. If something happens, *he* will be blamed, and he
wants to know how to trace the post to you and blame you instead, somehow.

So no. An nntp proxy server is just another nntp server out there. And
they will not anonymize you because they want to know whom to blame is
shit happens.


If you want anonymous IP header in nntp, use VPN or a tunnel. But they
probably keep a log of your connection, anyway...

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 02/18/2019 4:43 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:13:49 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> That

Snip a huge load of Shit For Brains crap.

I see it's still here.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:24:50 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> It is not appropriate to lump read only with posting privileges.

Hi Mike,
That's an ignorant claim of yours (yet another of a long series of them).

I realize that explaining even my extremely _simple_ use model is like
explaining to you that black female doctors exist, when your brain
instinctively disallows the fact that black female doctors exist.

That's simply a metaphor, like my metaphor that you're confused by VPN like
a cat is confused by a toy mouse, but still the cat pounces on the toy
mouse as long as it's moving, where you pounce on any thread that has the
words VPN using your always-the-same innate inbred instinctive spiel.

Even though my use model is so simple that it's laughable, you _still_ will
_never_ comprehend it, just as a southern racist will never comprehend a
black female doctor.

It's not _me_ who is confused Mike. It's you.

For example, do you know that I _always_ use a _different_ NNTP server for
reading posts than for sending them?

And, do you know that I always _read_ with a different IP address than I
send? And, that each group gets a _different_ NNTP server mix?

Of course you don't know this, because you can't even imagine that black
female doctors can exist (figuratively speaking).

Until you shake YOURSELF of your innate inbred instinct about what VPN
does, you'll _never_ comprehend even the _simplest_ of use models, Mike.

I'm sorry that I have to be the person to break this simple fact to you,
Mike, as generally you don't post with such a series of ignorant bullshit.

While it may be ridiculous to explain to you Mike, even my laughably simple
use model, my main goal is privacy on the final post, but there _are_
easily added secondary goals of privacy during transit (e.g., encryption).

While it's a laughably simple use model Mike, you'll _never_ comprehend it
until you shake yourself of your innate inbred instinctively wrong concept
of what VPN accomplishes in a simple use model involving Usenet.

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 02/18/2019 4:52 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:24:50 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>

Chop Chop.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:24:50 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

>> HINT: Mixmin, Netfront, Mozzilla, Dizum, Aioe, Blueworld, News4All,
>> Albasani, Sunsite, XSUsenet, etc. (that's just offhand, from memory).
>
> Those are mostly read only. Mixmin and aioe allow posting without
> authentication.

Hi Mike,

The simple test of an ignorant statement is 3 words:
o Name just one

I'm going to (yet again) prove, in ten seconds, you FAILED that test!

Just like when Paul and William Unruh made completely erroneous claims out
of ignorance, your statement takes ten seconds to prove it's ignorant.

While it's not my goal to prove every statement from you is easily shown to
be that from an ignorant person, I really WISH you would just stop proving
you're ignorant of what you speak about.

Of the following free NNTP servers, which are "read only", Mike?
o Mixmin
o Netfront
o Mozilla
o Dizum
o Aioe
o Blueworld (Jesse gave up)
o News4All (likely defunct)
o Albasani
o Sunsite
o XSUsenet (likely defunct)

If we re move the defunct ones, we have about 7 in that ad hoc list.

Here's the simple test of your igorant statement, Mike:
You said: "Those are mostly read only".

Is that right Mike?
Most. Are read only, Mike?
Really?

Are you sure, Mike?
Or is that yet another of your spewing of ignorant bullshit, Mike?

Name just one of those 7 free NNTP servers which is "read only".
o Name just one.

Now, maybe you meant that they don't allow posting sans authorization,
which, as you know, is _trivial_ to obtain, so, even then, I know exactly
which of those in the list require authorization to POST.

Do you?

Since you said MOST, and since there are 7 in that ad hoc list that are
likely not currently defunct, most would be, oh, about four of them, right
Mike?

Well, guess what, as usual in this thread, you're DEAD WRONG again, Mike.
o I'm not trying to prove you wrong Mike
(Since it's trivial to prove you wrong - it's child's play, Mike.)

*I'm just trying to ask you to STOP SPEWING IGNORANT BULLSHIT MIKE*

You and Paul and William Unruh are, essentially, spewing ignorant bullshit
because you can't fathom any good reason that a black female MD should
exist (figuratively speaking).

It's YOUR BRAIN which is fucked up Mike - not mine.

Here's my simple proof that you spew completely ignorant bullshit, Mike:
o Name those four.

Yup.
Name those four.

HINT: You can't even get close to four!

Name the "most" of the following free NNTP servers that requires
authorization in order to post.
o Mixmin
o Netfront
o Mozilla
o Dizum
o Aioe
o Albasani
o Sunsite

Mike: My point isn't to prove you wrong, simply because it's literally
child's play to prove all your statements completely ignorant bullshit.

My intent is to ask you PLEASE STOP SPEWING IGNORANT BULLSHIT.

You can't even pass the simplest of ignorance tests, Mike.
o Name just one of those 7 that doesn't allow posting, and,
o Name the four of those 7 that requires authentication to post.

HINT: You fail.
I hate proving you spew ignorant bullshit because it's so easy to do.
Please Mike: Stop spewing your completely ignorant bullshit.

The least you can do is spew bullshit that doesn't take fewer than 10
seconds to PROVE it's ignorant bullshit for Christs' sake, Mike.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:33:28 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Already answered: *NO*.
>
> Even more: it can not be done.
>
> Why? It has already been explained by people you dismiss.

Hi Carlos,

Please act like an adult, Carlos.
o Do not ascribe YOUR confusion to me, Carlos.

I knew, at the time I originally asked the question, that it's LIKELY non
existent; but, I had to ask since Mike brought up the proxy use model.

Every time Mike or Dan or William or Frank or you spews your ignorant
bullshit, I _remind_ you of the topic of this thread.

The fact I remind you of the topic of the thread when you spew ignorant
bullshit, is NOT indicative that I "dismiss" the answer.

Remember, I was almost positive at the start that the proxy doesn't exist.

So please, Carlos, stop spewing ignorant bullshit.
o It's YOU who misunderstand; not me.

*I am simply REMINDING the ignorant posters of the TOPIC of this thread.*

Bear in mind, this thread _should_ have had only one post, because the
answer is that there are 0 proxies that do what Mike's article suggested.

Zero.
Hence EVERY post in this thread greater than 1 was a waste of all our time.

If the keyword trolls didn't exist, this thread would have only 1 post.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:30:24 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> We have already answered, but you don't like it and accuse people of
> being trolls or whatever.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:47:02 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> It has been already explained that you can not.

Carlos,
Please STOP proving you are an idiot.
Just stop it.

Do you think, for even a god damn second, that I believed it existed?

THINK Carlos.
THINK.

Stop saying that "it has already been explained to me", since I was
practically sure of it _before_ I posted the question, Carlos.

All you're proving, by saying this idiotic statement now THREE TIMES in a
row, is that you're an ignorant idiot, Carlos.

Again, I never thought that it existed.
But I asked, just to make sure.

The reason I repeat the question, Carlos, is clearly that I'm reminding
those who are spewing ignorance (like Frank and Mike just did) of the
question.

Anything NOT answering the question, is NOT the topic of this thread.

That you, Carlos, now three times in a row PROVED your ignorance of that ex
extremely obvious fact is making me wonder if you're not just trolling
again, Carlos.

What part of this do you NOT understand Carlos?

It's like me explaining to you that the moon is NOT made of cheese, and
each time I tell you that, you keep telling me that the moon is not made of
cheese.

Just stop this Carlos.
This thread has no good answer.

The only reason there is so much garbage in this thread, is that the
ignorant fools like Frank Slootweg just proved he was, own a belief system
that is akin to one that can't comprehend that black female doctors can
exist.

The fact is that the answer to this question was ALWAYS zero.

Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

A: They don't exist.

And that was my FUCKING POINT, Carlos!
o Jesus Christ. You're too stupid to comprehend even something that simple.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:50:13 -0600, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

> I see it's still here.

troll.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:02:52 -0600, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

> Chop Chop.

troll

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:15:26 -0600, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

>>> What the hell are cites?
>>
>> References.
>>
>
> Thanks, I was mistaking it for sites.

idiot

[Carlos E.R.]

On 19/02/2019 00.26, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:47:02 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> It has been already explained that you can not.
>
> Carlos,
> Please STOP proving you are an idiot.
> Just stop it.

Ok, I stop reading, as you resort to insulting...

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 19/02/2019 00.14, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 23:33:28 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Already answered: *NO*.
>>
>> Even more: it can not be done.
>>
>> Why? It has already been explained by people you dismiss.
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> Please act like an adult, Carlos.
> o Do not ascribe YOUR confusion to me, Carlos.
>
> I knew, at the time I originally asked the question, that it's LIKELY non
> existent; but, I had to ask since Mike brought up the proxy use model.
>
> Every time Mike or Dan or William or Frank or you spews your ignorant
> bullshit, I _remind_ you of the topic of this thread.
>
> The fact I remind you of the topic of the thread when you spew ignorant
> bullshit, is NOT indicative that I "dismiss" the answer.
>
> Remember, I was almost positive at the start that the proxy doesn't exist.
>
> So please, Carlos, stop spewing ignorant bullshit.
> o It's YOU who misunderstand; not me.

There you are. When you don't like what we say you spew insults.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:35:20 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Ok, I stop reading, as you resort to insulting...

Carlos,
You make a baseless claim, and then you HIDE behind it
o You don't defend your baseless claim, since you can't.

It's no different than saying I beat my wife.

And then when I respond that yours is a baseless claim
o You hide behind the fact that I called your bluff.

THIS IS A FACT CARLOS:
o You made a baseless claim (multiple times).
o And then you hide behind it.

It's no different from me asking you...
*When are you going to stop beating your wife, Carlos?*

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:33:56 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> There you are. When you don't like what we say you spew insults.

Carlos,

[Ken Blake]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:44:11 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh
<un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2019-02-18, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:15:26 -0600, Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 02/18/2019 11:01 AM, she...@outlook.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 18-Feb-2019, Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Worse, here is my RESPONSE to MIke's privacy rant:
>>>>>> A. Mike essentially makes the claim that I have to DEFEND my right to
>>>>>> privacy.
>>>>>> B. I respond, strongly, with cites, that this is a common ignorant
>>>>>> statement.
>>>>>> C. When I ask Mike to provide cites backing up his ignorant claim, he
>>>>>> can't.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Let's state the super obvious things here:
>>>>>> 1. Nobody has to defend their right to privacy.
>>>>>> 2. If you (Paul or Mike) want to claim otherwise, then back it up with
>>>>>> cites.
>>>>>> 3. Rest assured, I already provided Mike with cites proving my point of
>>>>>> view.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What the hell are cites?
>>>>
>>>> References.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks, I was mistaking it for sites.
>>
>>

>> As far as I'm concerned, you are right, and the original post with the
>> word "cites" is wrong. "Cite" is a verb, not a noun. The noun is
>> "citation."
>>
>> I'm sure I'm going to get arguments about this, telling me I'm an old
>> fuddy-duddy and I'm behind the times. So I'll repeat my first five
>> words in the paragraph above: "as far as I'm concerned."
>
>English has the ability of making verbs into nouns.



I knew I would get an argument. Maybe more are coming.

You are certainly right. There are many, many examples of that. Some
of those have been around for a long time. Some of them started very
recently.

Making nouns out of verbs is only one example of the way English
changes. It also makes verbs out of nouns, and changes in many other
ways. Like all languages, English changes over the years. Today's
English isn't the same as Shakespeare's, and Shakespeare's wasn't the
same as Chaucer's. And Italian isn't the same as Latin.

I'm well aware of that. It's the nature of language. I can't object to
that; it's a fact of life. But I can object to it's happening very
quickly. To my way of thinking, because of television and the
Internet, these days it happens too quickly, much more quickly than it
used to. Too quickly, to me, means that it's very difficult for
everyone to keep up with it, and the result is that communication is
impeded.

So wherever possible, I personally avoid those "nouns" made of verbs.
I say (and write) "clean installation, " not "clean install,"
"invitation" not "invite," "citation" not "cite," and many other
examples that don't spring to the mind at the moment.

I know. I'm an old fuddy-duddy and I'm behind the times. So be it.

There's an office complex near my home that has a sign in front of it:
"If you officed here, you'd be home now." Besides making up the verb
"office" from the noun "office," the sign makes no sense.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:44:10 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Only after you really state the problem that you want to solve. When
> that is known then we can offer solutions.

Hi Carlos,

Will you please just STOP foisting your CONFUSION onto me.
o Please.

I was NEVER confused about the "problem", Carlos.
o Read the opening post of this thread, Carlos.

Do I have to _beg_ you to read the opening post of this thread, Carlos?
o Read it.

Does that opening post NOT state the question in the SUBJECT line, Carlos?
o Does that OP not state the question in the CLOSING LINE Carlos?

You have to be an utter and complete IDIOT to be confused, Carlos.

Read the opening post, Carlos.
o Read it again.
o And again.
o And again.

Carlos, read it one more time, please.
o Do you notice the Subject, Carlos?
o Do you notice the closing line, Carlos?

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?
A: (It's pretty clear I was almost completely sure the answer is no.)

Will you STOP with ascribing your confusion to me Carlos.
o You are confused.
o I'm NOT confused.

I was NEVER confused.
o Frank is confused. Mike is confused. Paul is confused.
o Rene is an idiot. So is Unruh an idiot. Purgert is a troll.

But I was never confused.
o My whole POINT was that the proxy very likely didn't exist.

So just STOP acribing YOUR confusion to me.
o The question is and always was, trivially simple to compreyhend.

The reason Paul, Mike, Frank, & you don't comprehend this simplest of the
simplest of the simplest of questions, is, I posit, the same reason that
the hypothetical southern hick can't comprehend that a Black Jewish female
doctor can exist.

The confusion is all yours, Carlos.
o I was never confused.

The question was asked in the assumption that the answer was zero.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:23:03 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

This thread is a CLASSIC example of what keyword trolls do.

They ascribe THEIR PREJUDICES upon ANY question involving a keyword.

A hundred posts, to answer this trivially simple question, where we _knew_
the answer when the question was asked (we just needed to make sure).

That's what adults do.
o They doublecheck their assumptions.

In the end, this thread should have been two posts.

The first asking this question:

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

And the second providing this answer:

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

A: no

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> You can't comprehend, for example, that the PUBLICLY SHOWN NNTP posting
> host is what I'm trying to change.

We are not talking about nntp servers which 'publicly show'
(unencrypted) NPH.

We ARE talking about nntp servers which do show NPH encrypted.

I do NOT believe that decrypting that information is trivial.

Use as examples mixmin, individual, and eternal-september. I name those
3 text nntp servers because you are using mixmin, I'm using individual,
and eternal-september is a popular free text nntp server.

Mixmin does not require authentication and it is free. e-s does require
authentication and it is also free. NIN does require authentication and
it is not free.

All of them allow posting and all of them encrypt the connecting IP.
Most nntp servers with a couple of exceptions which allow posting
require authentication.

You are saying, "I prefer to connect to mixmin using VPN." I am saying
"I don't yet understand why you prefer to do that."

That question in my understanding of what you are doing is NOT an attack
on privacy strategies in general, in spite of the fact that you choose
to mischaracterize it.

I am further saying or questioning, "I don't even know whether you are
preferring to access mixmin via VPN for purposes of concealing your
(personal) IP from the admin of mixmin or whether you are preferring to
access mixmin via VPN for purposes of concealing your *encrypted* IP
from the usenet header readers at large."

So, having this discussion with you is like trying to debate an
undefined point because you refuse to define your purpose in.

Further, you are not a civil discussant; you insult, belittle and act
rudely with ad hominem slurs. Those behavioral traits reflect badly on
you, not me, so you are the unfortunate and pitiable one for doing so.

--
Mike Easter

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 02/18/2019 5:08 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:24:50 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>

chop chop.

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 02/18/2019 5:55 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:23:03 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:
>

more chop chop.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:35:27 +0100, Georg Schwarz wrote:

>> Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?
>

> You could for example use a SOCKS proxy, but why would you want to do
> that? Can't you connect directly to that free NNTP news server?

Hi George,

Thanks for the SOCK suggestion.

I admit I haven't "played" with SOCKS since I had to get Mixmin encryption
to work with, oh, was it "Pan" before Pan allowed it natively, so it has
been _years_ since I touched SOCKS.

To answer your question, of WHY, it was explained in the OP.

Essentially, this is what happened:
1. I wrote a quick VPN basics for beginners
2. Mike Easter responded, essentially, advising the following:
o Don't use VPN services.
<https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29>
3. I immediately summarized Mike's article as the following:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc/oAPYdk4QEgAJ>

Mike Easter _continued_ to keyword troll the thread, in essence, ruining it
for beginners (which was, likely, Mike's intention from the start for all I
know, since nothing he said passed the simple 3-word ignorance test).

Many times I asked Mike to stop spewing ignorant bullshit.
o Almost nothing Mike wrote passed the simple 3-word ignorance test.

Mike kept spewing more and more and more ignorant bullshit.
o Mike couldn't comprehend that he couldn't comprehend.

Almost every post by Mike failed the 3-word ignorance test:
o Name just one

Since Mike refused to comprehend that the proxy doesn't exist,
I brought the question over here, and let Mike know I did that
(since I am an adult).

It's abundantly clear that I assumed the answer was "no", but, since I'm an
adult, I asked anyway, just in case the answer was not "no".

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

If the keyword trolls didn't exist, this thread would have remained on
topic, but keyword trolls are like the hypothetical southern hick who can't
comprehend the existence of a Black female Jewish doctor.

Everything BUT that simple question was covered by the keyword trolls,
almost all of which (if not all of which) was complete ignorant bullshit
that didn't even pass the three word ignorance test of:
o Name just one

In the end, this thread likely should have been two post, the first asking:

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

*Name just one.*

And the second providing the most likely answer:
Q: *Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?*
A: *no*

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:55:32 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> So, having this discussion with you is like trying to debate an
> undefined point because you refuse to define your purpose in.

Mike,

There is a simple 3-word test for ignorant bullshit, Mike:

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

A: *Name just one*

The obvious point is that you're not having a "discussion", Mike.
o You _never_ intended to have a "discussion" Mike.

And it's not a different "point of view" Mike.
o You're spewing unrelated off topic completely false statements Mike.

Read the opening post, please.
o Pretty please.

Mike, I _beg_ you to read the opening post.
o Please.

Please Mike, read the opening post.
o Specifically, read the SUBJECT line, Mike.
o And then read the closing line, Mike.

Is that opening post NOT extremely clear to you Mike?
o Seriously. What are you so CONFUSED about, Mike?

It's really an extremely SIMPLE question, Mike.

This is the extremely simple question in the OP, Mike, is it not?

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

*Name just one*

[Ken Hart]

On 2/17/19 6:15 PM, arlen holder wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 14:29:54 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> I have no interest in that question and I'm under no obligation to even
>> consider it worth discussing.
>
> The question is actually very simple & rather easy to comprehend Mike.
>
> Knowledgeable users who know the answer can add to our knowledge.

>
> Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?
>

Google is your friend.

I copied and pasted your question into Google; it came back with "About
481,000 results (0.78 seconds)"

The seventh result down the page was "25 Best Free Web Proxies for Safer
and Anonymous Surfing | SpyAdvice
https://spyadvice.com/free-web-proxies/"
While I didn't check out the cite/site, it does mention "It also
supports Usenet... posting..."



--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:18:00 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> I'm not exactly sure what arlen and I are arguing about except that I
>> don't understand why he feels he needs to connect to his nntp provider
>> by VPN. I have never advocated doing that with a proxy either.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> As you know, I "mirror" the implied intent of the post, where I infer this
> question was made by you in good faith.
>
> I _understand_ (I think) why you are so confused about the use of VPN.
>
> You have a zillion pre-conceived notions, Mike, about VPN.

So I pulled up the earliest post I could find, namely

MID - <q4cfr6$e8h$1...@news.mixmin.net>

The message being posted to a.o.l. on Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:23:03 -0000
(UTC) by our good friend arlen.

It asks the question

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

(Answer -> a resounding "no".)

Weird thing is that it links to a GoogleGroups posting about VPNs -
which is honestly a completely different topic. It continues on to say
that Mike Easter has a differing opinion on the topic of VPNs.

In reading the linked "proof" of Mike's dissent (MID
<gctnkh...@mid.individual.net>, posted on Sun, 17 Feb 2019 10:31:45
- -0800, to comp.mobile.android, alt.comp.freeware, alt.cellular,
misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.ipad); Mike simply states:

| The vast majority of people do not need a VPN service and shouldn't be
| using one.
| There is a lot more popular interest in VPN than there should be.
|
| Here's an article with a 'contrary' POV.
| https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29 Don't use VPN
| services.

(above copy/pasted, so editing errors are likely mine).


In further (quick) perusal of said GG thread, it would seem that Mike
continues to have measured and accurate responses concerning the use of
Virtual Private Networks and their actual role in networking (read: that
using them as a glorified proxy is not necessarily of benefit to the
user.)



> Hence, even though I must have explained my use model a hundred time
> (DISCLAIMER: The ignorant numbertrolls like Dan Purgert, Rene Lamantagne,
> Wolf K, and especially Cybe(R) Wizard are gonna ask me to _prove_ I posted
> it 100 times!). you still hold on to YOUR confusion about what VPN does.

I don't see a single post in said linked GG thread wherein you actually
explain your use model. But that's par for course when you start
attacking people, arlen.

Given the context in this thread (either this post, or elsewhere), I
*imagine* that you think there's some kind of "extra privacy loss(tm)"
caused by the one-way(?) hashes used by mixmin or other services, and
that you somehow need to protect yourself from nefarious admins (or ...
maybe some lucky user who cracks said hash).

The funny thing is, given that you apparently have a WISP, rather than a
more "traditional" landline based ISP, such as Ma Bell, one of the CLECs
or cable companies, chances are moderately good that you're actually
behind CGNAT and sharing your "public IP" with up to 200 of your fellow
WISP-customers. So, even if someone broke the hash, they'd only get as
far as the WISP.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxrTYoACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooEsxAgAhDgiG0LVMLZZPqrtIJ6L/SByLdtARozSik1MUHfjxv/gnOB8r2oWNKSi
eQX8+F5PNI+Ya3IfE+6+4KAP7ZiWGoHFhJXOIZaXcO3KDnQG35v/NX5mucSSLRC0
vUREGZ4TnMa7iYbXdqA3pL7G2MxltyUgPQVqYybAnaovKeslapQAU8Sna0ePbbTg
mfiIRBfl1dPArjDJovi5aBvufo6svifHgcgx+RJNHUcASy3qfbIkpCfE+LhZ6xxu
NQkwwy2JDQINkF88ntwf1WkpL3UbqyjXAXtLMw2Rkq74NZn2tPqkAX0LXzZtfIbM
xAOg00KpTU+5bePQJEvRseidoJxYPw==
=XCTs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_|
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

arlen holder wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:55:32 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> So, having this discussion with you is like trying to debate an
>> undefined point because you refuse to define your purpose in.
>
> Mike,
>
> There is a simple 3-word test for ignorant bullshit, Mike:
>
> Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?
> A: *Name just one*

Apparently "Mixmin". Also, Eternal-September.

However, do note that your use of the word "proxy" in this instance is
somewhat incorrect, and that may be leading you down the wrong paths,
arlen.

So, before going further, I suggest that perhaps you take a step back,
and find a different word than "proxy", as NNTP transfer is more akin to
SMTP than one of the various protocols that can be (and are) proxied,
such as HTTP.

> [...]

> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Technically, you didn't send an email. Might wanna remove this sig from
NNTP postings.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxrT4cACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooH+fgf+OmPeqst7uh+K4D5Jg+ext+1P69cAJ1/eP6k2o6fqWFcn0XccaFxivhWn
Q6EDNr8vYH1iee33b0grFn1uWdtGLVhrw7s8QPQwtrrFzsjq4Wo/akSoiJ9uu3xV
G1t6HL/Fri7oO0CoE1qDdEZtDc+Z+T1/1/eQl4PU8pdFfu7KVak37WKNqL7k070l
n3wDB2M2/tfeV8tSVRDJQ547fW4cmPPiulXBR9Xqe79CxXl3qcqcZcqvYN7vTUci
RlkRGg+Qi/OmoW2YBRI3c5l2WFXdBU+SYCHyuXajUO8VY8DoCwfQBcsnFxB1J3cF
1Mw/h3G4CuWORWHexEir5XRVNC6KMQ==
=65E3

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:55:32 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> You are saying, "I prefer to connect to mixmin using VPN." I am saying
> "I don't yet understand why you prefer to do that."

Hi Mike,

I know that normally, you are a civil adult and not generally an idiot.
You're normally helpful, and you don't normally make baseless claims.

But ...

There are "some topics" that you become an "instant keyword troll" on.
I know this because this isn't my first rodeo with you, Mike.

Particularly on VPN.
(Remember, I've been asking VPN questions for _years_ Mike.)

ASIDE: I was going to make a guess as to how many years, but then I
realized a hundred posts from Cybe(r) Wizard would ensue for me to _prove_
it's exactly that many years.

Remember Marek?
o He became a keyword troll once too.

I asked a question about "Opera VPN" (which is really a proxy, as you
know). Well Marek went keyword-troll ballistic on me. Obviously this is
years ago, but I remember that Marek wasn't normally a keyword troll like
you are with VPN.

Yet, Marek went ballistic.
o Later, he apologized in that thread, and he even HELPED me figure out HOW
to wipe out the fingerprint that Opera puts into EVERY VPN sesson!

So Marek acted like an ADULT.
o He didn't apologize, per se, which is fine, as I'm an adult too.
o I don't need an apology.

All I asked in that thread was how to defeat the fingerprinting of the
Opera VPN, and, Marek, bless his heart, FOUND the answer.

I'm using that answer EVERY SINGLE DAY OF MY LIFE SINCE THAT DAY!

My point to you, Mike Easter, is that you have a problem just like an
alcoholic has a problem. It's the same "instinctive" problem that a cat has
who follows a laser beam off a cliff, Mike.

You don't think when you see the words VPN.

Think about the veracity of what I'm explaining to you Mike.

Do you remember how this whole charade started, Mike?
I do.

1. On the Android ng _this_ question was asked:
o What are the most popular and safe VPN apps?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/cWh9F_2Njck>

2. I _helpfully_ tried to answer that question, and, in doing so, I did
some research that I respectfully and helpfully posted here, Mike:
o How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on Android or iOS
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc>

3. Then you posted _this_, Mike:
o Don't use VPN services.
<https://gist.github.com/joepie91/5a9909939e6ce7d09e29>

4. To which I responded with _this_ detailed summary, did I not Mike?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc/oAPYdk4QEgAJ>

From there, you brought that thread to sheer hell, Mike.
o You made false (do you still beat your wife) like accusations
o You made ignorant claims about privacy needs
o You even made veiled accusations of nefarious intent, Mike.

I called you each accusation, all of which failed the simple 3-word
ignorance test which is a standard test of complete & utter bullshit, Mike:
o Name just one

Yet, there was absolutely no talking sense into you.
o You proved, beyond any doubt, that you're an inveterate keyword troll

The keyword "VPN" is like a laser beam to a cat.
o Your instincts kick in where you POUNCE on anything said about VPN

I could have asked how to "spell" VPN for Christs' sake Mike,
o And your response would have been (and always is) EXACTLY the same!

From there, you went deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper
into bullshit, Mike. All because you have this keyword troll problem with
the keyword "VPN", Mike.

It's not MY problem, Mike.
o I'm not the one who is confused, Mike.

It's YOUR problem, Mike.
o You went off the cliff, so to speak, with increasingly baseless claims.

To put a STOP to your increasingly baseless claims, I came here to open
THIS post, Mike, where it's transparently clear I ASSUMED the answer is
"no", Mike:

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

Guess what?
o This thread _should_ have been something like a few posts, right?

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

A: No

But this thread, due purely to keyword trolls, turned into a morass.

And guess what the final answer was, after that horrific morass?

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

A: no

Do you even comprehend that the keyword trolls did it, Mike?
o I was never once confused as to what the most likely answer was, Mike.

My entire point, to you specifically, Mike, was this 3-word test:

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

A: *Name just one.*

While I've been accused by Carlos, you, and even Frank Slootweg (of all
people), of "being confused", I was never once confused about the answer to
the question, Mike.

The entire POINT of ASKING the question was the answer was likely "0"!

For you and Carlos and, of all people, Frank, to accuse me of "being
confused", simply reeks of the fact that I'm the only one here NOT
confused.

And yet, the question was patently simple.

Do you know why you _still_ don't seem to comprehend the question, Mike?
I do.

You're instinctively a "VPN" keyword troll.
o It doesn't matter WHAT question is asked.

If the word "VPN" is in the question, you respond the same
o Year after year, thread after thread, post after post.

You're a keyword troll, Mike.
o I'm very sorry that I have to be the one to break the truth to you, Mike.

Here's what I suggest moving forward because an APOLOGY from you, I
realize, is most likely out of the question.

Moving forward, Mike, all I ask of you is this simple request.
SIMPLE REQUEST OF MIKE:
o If you see the word "VPN" in a future post, please _read_ the post, Mike.
o Please read the post, Mike, and try to _comprehend_ what it asks, Mike.

Please do not respond to a simple purposefully helpful post like this:
o How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on Android or iOS
With scores of idiotic baseless claims, none of which pass the simple
3-word ignorance test of "name just one", Mike.

Please Mike?
o Please _read_ & _comprehend_ any thread that uses the keyword "VPN", Mike.
o BEFORE you respond, Mike.

Deal?

[Mike Easter]

arlen holder wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> You are saying, "I prefer to connect to mixmin using VPN." I am saying
>> "I don't yet understand why you prefer to do that."
>
> Hi Mike,

I ask a simple question and all you do is put up a word wall.

After Hi Mike follows 160 lines and over a thousand words and no answer
to the simple question.


--
Mike Easter

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:27:56 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> The funny thing is, given that you apparently have a WISP, rather than a
> more "traditional" landline based ISP, such as Ma Bell, one of the CLECs
> or cable companies, chances are moderately good that you're actually
> behind CGNAT and sharing your "public IP" with up to 200 of your fellow
> WISP-customers. So, even if someone broke the hash, they'd only get as
> far as the WISP.

Troll.

Wrong, As always.

Idiot.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:48:28 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

> After Hi Mike follows 160 lines and over a thousand words and no answer
> to the simple question.

Hi Mike,

1. You're a keyword troll who responses only to the keyword VPN,
much like an alcoholic or racist responds only to certain keywords.

2. The question is, and was always _this_ utterly trivially simple:

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:01:12 -0600, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

> chop chop.

Troll.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:36:23 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert wrote:

> Apparently "Mixmin". Also, Eternal-September.

Troll.

Idiot.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:24:50 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

>> The question came up because Mike advised to use a proxy instead of using a
>> VPN to change the IP address -
>
> No I did not.

EVERY ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED BY FACT:

Here's the simple test, Mike:
o Name just one

That is, name just one statement in my summary of that article, Mike,
that is a "misunderstanding" of that article, Mike?
o Name just one.

Here is the cite to the summary, Mike:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc/oAPYdk4QEgAJ>

You see Mike, I'm not afraid of the "name just one" test, Mike.
o You have FAILED this "name just one" test a few times already, Mike.

Find a misunderstanding in that summary of the article Mike.
o Name just one.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:47:21 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> There's an office complex near my home that has a sign in front of it:
> "If you officed here, you'd be home now." Besides making up the verb
> "office" from the noun "office," the sign makes no sense.

I very much appreciate that the point was brought up, as I strive to speak
(Am)English correctly, even as Usenet is a "casual" ad hoc medium.

The folks like Cybe(r) Wizard and Dan Purgert, et al., have found that I
thank them, and appreciate when my English is corrected, when done so with
a helpful intent.

In the case of Rene Lamontagne, it's not lost on anyone that his
contribution (as has been that of Dan Purgert) to this thread has been
negative value added, hence, Rene was, likely ecstatic that he _thought_ he
found an "error" in my facts, much like Snit used to revel in his
accusations that my facts are wrong.

HINT: Watch this hilarious Snit video on the YouTube web site about me.
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> (Snit video)

DOUBLEHINT: Snit posted that cite to that site hundreds of times.
TRIPLEHINT: He _thought_ he _finally_ found my facts wrong.
QUADRUPLEHINT: He was so _sure_ of himself, just like Mike Easter was.

And yet, Snit never even _once_ comprehended the Y axis.

Notice, the similarity to what Mike Easter and Carlos and Frank Slootweg
(who was part of that Snit drama, by the way, despite the fact Frank tries
to distance himself from his idiocy every time I mention it), are doing
here.

All Snit saw ... was a pretty graph.
The graph was moving.
Hooray!

Just like a mouse sees a laser pointer moving...
o The mouse POUNCES on it.

Just like Mike did, when he saw the keyword "VPN".
o Snit is a keyword troll, and so is Mike Easter a keyword troll.

The moment they see a "moving graph", that's it.
o Their brain goes into cat-pouncing-on-laser mode.

It's like an alcoholic's response to being offered a drink.
o They can't resist being a keyword troll.

They think it's me confused, but all I did was ask this simple question:

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

A: Name just one.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:41:03 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

> Why do you want to help a troll? You should killfile him, not offer
> him solutions.

Troll.

Since this saga started with this very simple helpful tutoral...

o How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes

What purposefully helpful tutorials have _you_ written, Ken Blake?
o Name just one.

Hint:
o zero.

troll. Idiot.

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:18:59 -0500, Ken Hart wrote:

> Google is your friend.
>
> I copied and pasted your question into Google; it came back with "About
> 481,000 results (0.78 seconds)"
>
> The seventh result down the page was "25 Best Free Web Proxies for Safer
> and Anonymous Surfing | SpyAdvice
> https://spyadvice.com/free-web-proxies/"
> While I didn't check out the cite/site, it does mention "It also
> supports Usenet... posting..."

Idiot.
Troll.

[William Unruh]

On 2019-02-18, Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:44:11 -0000 (UTC), William Unruh
><un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>

....

>
> I'm well aware of that. It's the nature of language. I can't object to
> that; it's a fact of life. But I can object to it's happening very
> quickly. To my way of thinking, because of television and the
> Internet, these days it happens too quickly, much more quickly than it

Too quickly now? I think Shakespeare introduced something like a few
thousand new words into English. That is "rapidly" In fact the late
Elizabethan theatre was rife with new useage.

> used to. Too quickly, to me, means that it's very difficult for
> everyone to keep up with it, and the result is that communication is
> impeded.

Yup, that is what Shakespeare and Chaucer etc did, impede language.
>

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:04:16 -0600, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

> more chop chop.

Idiot.
Troll.

[nospam]

In article <hqfm6etrhr3tvjmhm...@4ax.com>, Ken Blake

where 'quickly' is 'in my lifetime', and nothing is impeded.

> So wherever possible, I personally avoid those "nouns" made of verbs.
> I say (and write) "clean installation, " not "clean install,"
> "invitation" not "invite," "citation" not "cite," and many other
> examples that don't spring to the mind at the moment.
>
> I know. I'm an old fuddy-duddy and I'm behind the times. So be it.

if you insist.

> There's an office complex near my home that has a sign in front of it:
> "If you officed here, you'd be home now." Besides making up the verb
> "office" from the noun "office," the sign makes no sense.

it makes perfect sense. it's a variant of the common sign, 'if you
lived here, you'd be home now':

<https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4097/4936701584_0fefe13994_b.jpg>

[William Unruh]

On 2019-02-19, arlen holder <ar...@arlen.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 15:55:32 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> So, having this discussion with you is like trying to debate an
>> undefined point because you refuse to define your purpose in.
>
> Mike,
>
> There is a simple 3-word test for ignorant bullshit, Mike:
>
> Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?
> A: *Name just one*

The question has no answer because you do not define what Proxy means to
you, or "free nntp news server" means.
Is posting via a vpn posting with a free proxy? If now why not? If so
your question has been answered.

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

William Unruh wrote:
> The question has no answer because you do not define what Proxy means to
> you, or "free nntp news server" means.
> Is posting via a vpn posting with a free proxy? If now why not? If so
> your question has been answered.

"troll(tm)" :)

Coffee and donuts are on the table over there.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxrYSsACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFL2wgAkTlQ7IEsnnhfD/VdrxMSzxRQ22OJekkvK3mFtlEKvjv65H/A2e6lq8CG
ARmMw/042eb7FVO/NjitsqB5xLxGKfB9SxQrzHOlNNgZ+Wn+dCI90016GcEe22Ub
pbhJhNw4I9DTBANYU0t5VEtssjco8/gq+kObIz5/IgluEkySD55LfwF1k7pXsz/n
oFmZJ8+nCT9DslTFWIoXE8b3+Y4v4PCVlATmCNgXCYFClpvjFayI0NfZnba31N8q
16w796HLqy/vkgz4i+IF9STzM7zYY6dDH/byivlg9n3Cv6egIPZ9wRGrQC5TCKjl
q3ybgTL8eY8vtUe2xFtXkyppgEYG6Q==
=BYH+

[Carlos E.R.]

You loose.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 19/02/2019 02.51, Dan Purgert wrote:
> William Unruh wrote:
>> The question has no answer because you do not define what Proxy means to
>> you, or "free nntp news server" means.
>> Is posting via a vpn posting with a free proxy? If now why not? If so
>> your question has been answered.
>
> "troll(tm)" :)
>
> Coffee and donuts are on the table over there.

Send some over here. Sugarless, please :-)

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Ken Hart]

That's pretty rude!

You asked a question. I presented your question, in your exact words
(remember 'copied and pasted') to Google- which is why it exists. Google
presented a myriad of answers. Generally, the first page or so of
answers are the best: in this case, the seventh one exactly answered the
question you asked.

And you call me an "Idiot. Troll." I tried to help you, and that's the
thanks I get?


--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Dan Purgert]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

You got it bud.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxra7MACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFyRggAl1peOsOcDgNUyps9X+w3FO/3qGDFsI9lO2oWCLXQm4SO20/QjDDdxGJR
SJBDlY3ak1D04F1DUS7kvHMvJdLb0IoC83J+YpQOAmHBc8wg1IKDr6LyKDuQjyoG
iRpuxKtTw+AK1GdZa1bSSWPi1FkFdtpaQ8s89hkp4yJEgneRuY9hXjGOgiU1SW7l
UFgVJMTHF5Jb6U972a12Y9uOIFqZZHxe0M7GPFYkIF/3jEAq5t+mksuN2lmJnLx5
lW0FQVbOk8Xg+a/w+M7G3vhPw1wpOi5bZq0LgSQp3d+U0rv/WYqbs3gPE6p8Ivj6
UZ0tflcGTayYpAzQ2C419TxhqhrUEg==
=Qaok

[Rene Lamontagne]

Rude is his middle name , he'll stab you in the back as soon as you
disagree with his stupidity. Ignore him or make fun of the idiot.

Rene

[Carlos E.R.]

He does that. One post he says you are an adult man, and the next that
you are an idiot.


I wonder how that site will do "usenet proxing", though. I don't
understand what they do:

«AnonyMouse is one of the best browser-based proxies available online.
You can access various sites by merely inserting the name in the address
bar. It offers both free and paid services.

...

The free version allows the users to browse and send emails anonymously.
It also supports Usenet (news) proxies that enable posting in
newsgroups with a hidden identity.»


--
Cheers, Carlos.