How to send anonymous e-mail
lark2k
http://209.67.19.98/lark2k/anonymail.html
Thomas J. Boschloo
>
> Messages sent through this mailer do not carry your machine's IP.
>
> http://209.67.19.98/lark2k/anonymail.html
Could be a way to harvest valid e-mail addresses. But I am sure everyone
figured this out for themselfs. Even trusted services like Dizum could
be used for this, but I guess the chances are *MUCH* lower with good old
Alex.
Anyone know if Dizum webspace will be as great as Replay was? I like it
the way it is now but some of the old stuff would be nice (like 128-bit
navigator links, anony posting forms and such). Sorry for being such a
lamer by asking this.
Regards,
Thomas (not a regular poster/lurker anymore, trying to get a life
off-line)
--
We live in the Matrix <http://www.whatisthematrix.com>
PGP key: http://x11.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=453727376
Email: boschloo_at_multiweb_dot_nl
Anonymous
news posting as well as web interfaces to anonymous e-mail.
It seems to work good.
> Anyone know if Dizum webspace will be as great as Replay was? I like it
> the way it is now but some of the old stuff would be nice (like 128-bit
> navigator links, anony posting forms and such). Sorry for being such a
> lamer by asking this.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas (not a regular poster/lurker anymore, trying to get a life
> off-line)
---
This message did not originate from the Sender address above.
It was posted with the use of anonymizing software at
http://anon.xg.nu
---
Vacs
> lark2k wrote:
> >
> > Messages sent through this mailer do not carry your
machine's IP.
> >
> > http://209.67.19.98/lark2k/anonymail.html
>
> Could be a way to harvest valid e-mail addresses. But
I am sure everyone
> figured this out for themselfs.
I think you've been figuring out too much. The mailer
is limited to 8 messages per day, not a good strategy
for massive gathering of e-mail addresses.
Spammers are into volume traffic and the mailer above
is obviously not.
Thomas J. Boschloo
>
> "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nos...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> > lark2k wrote:
> > >
> > > Messages sent through this mailer do not carry your machine's IP.
> > >
> > > http://209.67.19.98/lark2k/anonymail.html
> >
> > Could be a way to harvest valid e-mail addresses. But I am sure everyone
>
> I think you've been figuring out too much. The mailer
> is limited to 8 messages per day, not a good strategy
> for massive gathering of e-mail addresses.
>
> Spammers are into volume traffic and the mailer above
> is obviously not.
Spammers are into high-quality e-mail addresses. At least I would if I
were a spammer! Best would be if someone send a 'remove me from your
spam list' to the spammer. Then the spammer can be sure his spam is
being read. If you send messages through the anony mailer mentioned, for
normal use, chances are that your recipients e-mail address is
harvested.
A spammer has nothing to gain by becoming a cheap spam-relay, that's why
if I harvested e-mail addresses, I would include such a trottle. It is
to keep the other spammers out. I think a nice way to be anonymous and
getting your recipients address harvested is by using
http://www.hipcrime.com IIRC. 'lark2k' looks very similar to me. And we
really don't need it with nice anony services like www.Cotse.com and
www.Anonymizer.com.
My little sister (she would disagree, she's 19, I'm 27) send some nice
christmas cards to a few people she knew. Now her e-mail gets spammed.
I'm not sure about the people she send the 'on-line' cards to, but IMHO
it is best to be careful with these things.
Please keep this thread going, I'm beginning to enjoy usenet again ;-O
Thomas J. Boschloo
The Netherlands
Vacs
>
> Vacs wrote:
> >
> > "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nos...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> > > lark2k wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Messages sent through this mailer do not carry your machine's IP.
> > > >
> > > > http://209.67.19.98/lark2k/anonymail.html
> > >
> > > Could be a way to harvest valid e-mail addresses. But I am sure everyone
> > > figured this out for themselves.
> >
> > is obviously not.
>
> Spammers are into high-quality e-mail addresses. At least I would if I
> were a spammer! Best would be if someone send a 'remove me from your
> spam list' to the spammer. Then the spammer can be sure his spam is
> being read.
You got a point there. But in the case of the lark2k mailer, the high quality
address the spammer would like to harvest is that of the active party the
anonymous sender, and this might look something like mon...@thewhitehouse.gov
which is of little use.
> If you send messages through the anony mailer mentioned, for
> normal use, chances are that your recipients e-mail address is
> harvested.
So we are left only to harvest the adresses of the recipients, which might
again look like bi...@thewhitehouse.gov or bi...@mocrosoft.com, two likely
recipients of the anonymous citizen's grievances. And then again the spammer
has limited himself to gathering 8 of such jewels per day.
As a scheme it's self defeating. Very unlikely.
Lark2k looks like a significant piece of web technology. I looked at the code
and there seems to be no CGI in use, it uses an applet but who knows what its
doing. Each message I sent through it had a different IP.
I'll use it anyway because it's readily accessible from the web and simple to
use. If I get any spam I can associate with using it you'll be the first to
know.
VACS
Martin Nicholson
<rema...@anon.xg.nu> writes
>anon.xg.nu has added SSL to the web server, a web interface to anonymous
>news posting as well as web interfaces to anonymous e-mail.
>It seems to work good.
>
Well I posted a trial message to myself and it was never received.
So .........?
Martin Nicholson, Daventry, UK
Why not visit my Asteroids and Variable Star Site at
http://www.further-education.com/stardial/stardial.htm
Cyber Link
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000, Martin Nicholson wrote:
> In article <646456509e655fd0...@anon.xg.nu>, Anonymous
> <rema...@anon.xg.nu> writes
> >anon.xg.nu has added SSL to the web server, a web interface to anonymous
> >news posting as well as web interfaces to anonymous e-mail.
> >It seems to work good.
> >
>
> Well I posted a trial message to myself and it was never received.
>
> So .........?
>
> Martin Nicholson, Daventry, UK
I found a bug in it a few days ago. I have used both and they seem to work
for me.