E-mail service with lowest retention?
ferrante276...@yahoo.com
e-mails? Any try to protect a users privacy? Which to avoid and why?
Thanks,
C.
Nomen Nescio
> e-mails? Any try to protect a users privacy? Which to avoid and why?
I use www.cotse.net and have for five years now. They post on their
site that they maintain a five day log retention for abuse and
troubleshooting issues. As for the contents of your e-mail, delete it
and it's gone, they don't store mail contents unless you leave it on
their servers in your mailboxes and they don't back it up, so it won't
be floating around in a backup somewhere after you delete it. They are
also a privacy service and quite frankly, their e-mail can't be beat by
anyone I have seen. As for who to stay away from, I'd definitely say
Google, they never delete your mail even if you do, all mail sent and
received is stored basically forever by them.
♥Ari♥
> I use www.cotse.net and have for five years now. They post on their
> site that they maintain a five day log retention for abuse and
> troubleshooting issues. As for the contents of your e-mail, delete it
> and it's gone, they don't store mail contents unless you leave it on
> their servers in your mailboxes and they don't back it up, so it won't
> be floating around in a backup somewhere after you delete it. They are
> also a privacy service and quite frankly, their e-mail can't be beat by
> anyone I have seen.
+100
--
http://tr.im/1fa6
Frank Merlott
wrote:
I would look into Anonymousspeech.com for email as they say they don't
maintain any logs,
and even if requested to provide them they will only do so after a Court
order and will not
reply to investigators emails.
I agree that Gmail is the one to avoid at all costs, they have a mechanism
in place
that scans all emails to place advertising. That can easily be abused to
scan emails
for words such as "free speech" or "democracy" and turn it against you.
Nomen Nescio
> maintain any logs,
This is the biggest snake oil red flag there is. This "no logs" BS has
been covered in here so much that every regular should know this.
Anyone recommending such a place that makes these claims is either
demonstrating their complete ignorance of the issues involved or they
own the service and are shilling for it.
♥Ari♥
> I would look into Anonymousspeech.com for email as they say they don't
> maintain any logs,
> and even if requested to provide them they will only do so after a Court
> order and will not
> reply to investigators emails.
They have logs and if they didn't have a court order, why would they
take the risk of getting their asses sued off for privacy in commo
violations?
--
http://tr.im/1fa6
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
"Frank Merlott" <fr...@nomail.com> wrote:
> I would look into Anonymousspeech.com for email as they say they
> don't maintain any logs,
> and even if requested to provide them they will only do so after
> a Court order
Are you seriously recommending a service that outright lies to users?
They don't maintain any logs, but if requested to provide them they will
only do so with a court order...provide what, didn't they say they
didn't maintain them, now they do and only give them in a court order?
Confusion already, not a service that should be recommended by anyone
maintaining a "privacylover" website. You should know better.
Kulin Remailer
♥Ari♥
> I would look into Anonymousspeech.com
Frank, this promotion, according to their terms, is a violation.
--
http://tr.im/1fa6
♥Ari♥
> I would look into Anonymousspeech.com for email as they say they don't
> maintain any logs,
> and even if requested to provide them they will only do so after a Court
> order and will not
> reply to investigators emails.
Are you an affiliate? Plans to become one?
--
http://tr.im/1fa6
Frank Merlott
>> I would look into Anonymousspeech.com for email as they say they
>> don't maintain any logs, and even if requested to provide them they
>> will only do so after
>> a Court order
>
> Are you seriously recommending a service that outright lies to users?
A no logs promise is as good as a five days logs promise or a thirty days
logs promise. You like me, have not way of knowing any of that.
Frank Merlott
> for the service being discussed, I assume people are aware that it's
> privacy.li under one of their new names.
>
Really? Well I didnt know that and I would be interested to find out where
you
got that information from.
Nomen Nescio
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:05:28 +0100, <ferrante276...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Which email services have the lowest retention time in saving sent
> > e-mails? Any try to protect a users privacy? Which to avoid and why?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > C.
>
>
> I would look into Anonymousspeech.com for email as they say they don't
> maintain any logs,
Are you the owner of this "no logs" service? Have you ever even run
any sort of email service at all?
These people are lying to you. Or you're lying to us. Either way,
anyone who has ever had any experience at all running an email
service knows you can't run one without logs.
> and even if requested to provide them they will only do so after a Court
> order and will not
> reply to investigators emails.
My mother is a virgin. Trust me.
>
> I agree that Gmail is the one to avoid at all costs, they have a mechanism
> in place
They **ALL** have a "mechanism in place". Or one can be put there
with OR without the service's knowledge, which you'll never know
about.
You're relying on bullshit amateur "security". Sorry.
noauth
> > As
> > for the service being discussed, I assume people are aware that it's
> > privacy.li under one of their new names.
> >
>
>
> Really? Well I didnt know that and I would be interested to find out where
> you
> got that information from.
The assfucked cumguzzlers who run this particular service are too
fucking stupid to take a bath once in a while. The slimy bastard(s)
buy a domain, get caught, disappear, buy a domain, repeat...
except the retarded fucks even reuse the exact same web site with
the pictures changed and the style sheet fudged a bit (mostly
color).
Anyone whose been reading this group for more than about 8 months
should already know this. Anyone with the IQ of a summer squash can
figure it out on their own. And anyone who starts pissing and
moaning about this asshole and his "anonymity services" when we
dissect them is either about as bright as a 4 year old or a sock
for the asshole itself.
>
>
>
♥Ari♥
>> As
>> for the service being discussed, I assume people are aware that it's
>> privacy.li under one of their new names.
>>
>
> Really? Well I didnt know that and I would be interested to find out where
> you
> got that information from.
Did you look at their website? It's a fucking knock-off of the old
privacy lie. site.
Shit, Frank, get real, you've been around these parts long enough to
know better. You're destroying what little credibility you built up
acting out like an assclown.
--
http://tr.im/1fa6
Nomen Nescio
>> As
>> for the service being discussed, I assume people are aware that
>> it's privacy.li under one of their new names.
>>
>
>
> Really? Well I didnt know that and I would be interested to find
> out where you
> got that information from.
>
Well, besides the fact that they don't hide well because they tend to
use the same templates, adminus and his socks started pushing them right
before and right after privacy.li went tits up...that domain and a bunch
of others, all connected. The one thing they are experts at is
appearing under new names with new claims whenever they get caught at
the old one.
I do see this site does post that they keep logs (5 days
worth...although the heading still says "No logs"), so guess that whole
Cotse vs pri.li todo had an impact on them last time and so this time
they are working to better emulate Cotse. If it wasn't pri.li I'd say
that was a big plus.
Nomen Nescio
> Well, besides the fact that they don't hide well because they tend to
> use the same templates, adminus and his socks started pushing them right
> before and right after privacy.li went tits up...that domain and a bunch
> of others, all connected. The one thing they are experts at is
> appearing under new names with new claims whenever they get caught at
> the old one.
+1
>
> I do see this site does post that they keep logs (5 days
> worth...although the heading still says "No logs"), so guess that whole
> Cotse vs pri.li todo had an impact on them last time and so this time
> they are working to better emulate Cotse. If it wasn't pri.li I'd say
> that was a big plus.
Cotse's business model works. Period. It's honest and responsible.
Adem and his Privacy.LIE cohorts are *way* too stupid and lazy to
adopt it. The slimy fucker will steal ideas and make empty claims
all day long, but he wouldn't do an honest days work if his life
depended it. He'll always be nothing but a lying loser, destined to
be hunted down and squashed every time he starts up another scam
service.
Personally, I'm proud to have played just a small part in the demise
of at least one of this assholes ventures, and look forward to
destroying the rest. :)
George Orwell
> > As
> > for the service being discussed, I assume people are aware that it's
> > privacy.li under one of their new names.
> >
>
>
> Really? Well I didnt know that and I would be interested to find out where
> you
> got that information from.
Just look at their damned web site. It's the exact same boiler
plate text from Privacy.LIE with new icons and colors. Period. It's
the exact same lies and scams in a different box. The same "off
shore no logs" horse shit that has never held up in the past and
will never hold up in the future.
We've already dissected logs and locations so thoroughly in this
group that the miscreants in question not only had to admit that
they do indeed keep logs, they actually tried to post an email from
one of their former, unsatisfied customers. Yeah... sure... they
"don't log" but they do hold on to your emails for months, years,
or forever.
If you believe anything these congenital criminals say you're
dumber than a rock.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
George Orwell
False. We know for absolute certain that any service making the "no
logs" claim is a bullshitting. You can't run a service and stay in
business for very long if you completely ignore it. You can't
improve it. You can't defend it from attacks. You can prevent its
abuse. Hell, you can't even know if it's secure, or owned by feds or
hackers. IOW, a log-free service is a totally useless service. And
to ice the cake, logs are pretty much irrelevant to anonymity. If
you offer a truly anonymous service it doesn't matter one bit
whether you log or not.
Frank Merlott
and privacy.li are the same company because according to you they use the
same
web template and the same text.
I invite people who may start to believe it to take a look by themselves at
both websites and form their own opinion other than relying on a Usenet
post
to do that for them.
>> Really? Well I didnt know that and I would be interested to find out
>> where you got that information from.
>
> Just look at their damned web site. It's the exact same boiler
> plate text from Privacy.LIE with new icons and colors. Period. It's
> the exact same lies and scams in a different box.
♥Ari♥
> I understand now, you have come come to the conclusion Anonymousspeech.com
> and privacy.li are the same company because according to you they use the
> same
> web template and the same text.
>
> I invite people who may start to believe it to take a look by themselves at
> both websites and form their own opinion other than relying on a Usenet
> post
> to do that for them.
Ahhhh fer Jehovah's sake, Frank, get a fucking life.
--
http://tr.im/1fa6