test new config
My name
I see my posts added a 127.0.0.1: that was not there before.
Does that number identify me specifically or is it a generic number?
This post I reset to default port in xnews.
MartinS
It's generic. Everybody has it. See below or Google it like I did.
http://compnetworking.about.com/od/workingwithipaddresses/g/127_0_0_1_def.htm
--
Martin S.
My name
yes I was going to google it. I was just doing some testing.
Trying to see if xnews supports a proxy.
I set up a proxy in firefox for testing, and so far I have accessed al
the websites I would normally. Google made me prove I am human, and
then worked fine.
I did a before and afer ip check and it reflects the proxy I used.
But I am still stuck on confirmation that xnews is using the proxy.
I leave x news port on the default setting I get one raw text config.
I set xnews to port 119 as one article suggested then the 127.0.0.1
appears.
If I use the port number in xnews I used in firefox, then xnews will not
connect.
So I am trying with help from all you others to learn how to use a proxy
in xnews (if possible) to help anonymize uploads and downloads.
Just trying to learn more about security and such.
One person mentioned a news reader that uses ssl, I don't see that
oprion in xnews.
Before I try another reader, I want to learn in xnews.
Then try another, see how diffeent programs work.
So again I thank everybody for their input.
Whiskers
> MartinS <m...@my.place> wrote in news:%AnOm.24785$We2....@newsfe09.iad:
>> My name <whos...@email.com> wrote:
[...]
> Trying to see if xnews supports a proxy.
> I set up a proxy in firefox for testing, and so far I have accessed al
> the websites I would normally. Google made me prove I am human, and
> then worked fine.
[...]
Web proxies have nothing at all to do with newsgroups; they are of use
only to web browsers accessing web servers. XNews doesn't connect to any
web servers, only to news-servers. The standard 'port' for connecting to
a news-server is 119; only try a different 'port' if the news-server
operator tells you to or has a web page indicating that you can.
There is no such thing as an anonymising proxy news-server; the nearest
thing is to use an anonymous re-mailer - but doing that will get your
posts heavily down-scored or plonked entirely by many people, as such
arrangements are mostly abused by people posting libel or garbage. It's
also an awkward and complicated way of posting - and can't hide you from a
highly motivated government agency anyway, and still requires you to trust
someone with your IP number (without which you can't connect to the
internet at all).
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
My name
news:slrnhgl52o.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net:
I understand the differences web vs news group servers.
I also notice xnews does notsupport SSL encryption.
Grabit does, but apparently does not have built in native support for
viewing binaries.
I sent an email to my server asking about SSL, will probably hear soon.
But this begs another question.
If you click to read a post whether text, or binary (picture, movie
etc).
when it appears on your screen is that considered downloaded or is
downloaded only when you actually save the post?
I understand somewhat about trusting someone with ip
If you do a general web search for free proxies let's say.
You pick one enter it into your browser.
The holder of that proxy would know your ip, correct?
I saw talk in a group while back (forgot which ) that mentioned
remailers and chaining like you did in your reply.
That would mean (I think) they would have to go to a www address, setup
a remailer / chain / proxy in their browser, and then post to the usenet
groups, via a www based usenet reader. Am I correct basically?
Thanks
Whiskers
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote in
> news:slrnhgl52o.8...@ID-107770.user.individual.net:
>> On 2009-11-23, My name <whos...@email.com> wrote:
>>> MartinS <m...@my.place> wrote in
>>> news:%AnOm.24785$We2....@newsfe09.iad:
>>>> My name <whos...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Trying to see if xnews supports a proxy.
>>> I set up a proxy in firefox for testing, and so far I have accessed
>>> al the websites I would normally. Google made me prove I am human,
>>> and then worked fine.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Web proxies have nothing at all to do with newsgroups; they are of use
>> only to web browsers accessing web servers. XNews doesn't connect to
>> any web servers, only to news-servers. The standard 'port' for
>> connecting to a news-server is 119; only try a different 'port' if the
>> news-server operator tells you to or has a web page indicating that
>> you can.
>
> I also notice xnews does notsupport SSL encryption.
> Grabit does, but apparently does not have built in native support for
> viewing binaries.
> I sent an email to my server asking about SSL, will probably hear soon.
If you're interested in binary news groups, they are a very different
thing (an abomination, in my opinion, for a start) from text newsgroups,
and are best handled using software designed for the purpose - XNews and
the other popular text newsreaders people are using in this group, are not
suitable for more than occasional light use with binary groups. I'm not
interested in binary newsgroups (in case you hadn't guessed already) so I
can't advise you about that subject.
>> There is no such thing as an anonymising proxy news-server; the
>> nearest thing is to use an anonymous re-mailer - but doing that will
>> get your posts heavily down-scored or plonked entirely by many people,
>> as such arrangements are mostly abused by people posting libel or
>> garbage. It's also an awkward and complicated way of posting - and
>> can't hide you from a highly motivated government agency anyway, and
>> still requires you to trust someone with your IP number (without which
>> you can't connect to the internet at all).
>
> I saw talk in a group while back (forgot which ) that mentioned
> remailers and chaining like you did in your reply.
> That would mean (I think) they would have to go to a www address, setup
> a remailer / chain / proxy in their browser, and then post to the usenet
> groups, via a www based usenet reader. Am I correct basically?
No, the web doesn't come into it (apart from the web pages used by many
News Service Providers (NSPs) and others to advertise their services) [1].
You compose your newsgroup article as a specially formatted email message
which you send to an address that will either convert it into a newsgroup
post and post it to the group(s) you want it in, or will forward it to
another email address that will post it or forward it.
> But this begs another question.
No it doesn't; it prompts or suggests another question
<http://skepdic.com/begging.html>
> If you click to read a post whether text, or binary (picture, movie
> etc).
> when it appears on your screen is that considered downloaded or is
> downloaded only when you actually save the post?
If you can see (or hear) something on your computer that came from another
computer, then you have downloaded it. There is a copy on your computer,
otherwise you wouldn't be able to see or hear it. It makes no difference
whether or not you then 'save' your copy. (The same applies to email
messages or newsgroup articles or chatroom sessions and attachments to
them; even if you are "only" seeing it in a "preview", that file has been
downloaded to your computer - in fact, with many email programs and
newsreaders you don't even need to see or hear the download for it to have
been downloaded anyway).
> I understand somewhat about trusting someone with ip
> If you do a general web search for free proxies let's say.
> You pick one enter it into your browser.
> The holder of that proxy would know your ip, correct?
Yes. Just as you (or your software) will know their IP number.
> Thanks
Do you see how I've rearranged your post so that your comments are
interleaved with mine, so that it reads like a sequential conversation
instead of unrelated blocks of text? Please try to do that yourself, as
it makes life much easier for everyone - and makes it more likely that
people will bother to work out what you are saying and make useful replies
of their own.
[1] There are of course 'webmail' services and even web interfaces for
reading and posting to newsgroups, but with those you are merely running
an email or newsgroup program on the remote computer, with your web
browser giving access to the 'user interface'.
Frank Slootweg
[...]
> I understand the differences web vs news group servers.
> I also notice xnews does notsupport SSL encryption.
> Grabit does, but apparently does not have built in native support for
> viewing binaries.
> I sent an email to my server asking about SSL, will probably hear soon.
You are confusing anonimity with privacy. SSL makes sure that what
goes over the 'wire' (the Internet) can not be traced *on* the 'wire',
but it does not change anything at either end, i.e. not on your side -
the user/newsreader - and not at the News server side.
For example, if I would be using SSL, I would not be any more or less
'anonymous' than I am now. I.e. you would still know my name, what I
posted and my NSP (News Service Provider), but my IP would not be any
more invisible than it is already.
Moral: As the others also pointed out, first use News/Usenet in the
*normal* manner, before starting with stuff which is still way beyond
your knowledge and expertise, i.e. crawl before you walk and walk before
you run. There's of course nothing wrong with wanting to learn, but part
of learning is learning/knowing *how* to learn. IMO/IOO you should be
searching/reading/studying more and asking less.
[...]
Frank Slootweg
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in news:7n2040F3jg1nrU1
> @mid.individual.net:
[...]
> > Moral: As the others also pointed out, first use News/Usenet in the
> > *normal* manner, before starting with stuff which is still way
> > beyond your knowledge and expertise, i.e. crawl before you walk and
> > walk before you run. There's of course nothing wrong with wanting to
> > learn, but part of learning is learning/knowing *how* to learn.
> > IMO/IOO you should be searching/reading/studying more and asking
> > less.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> your opinion is noted. But if one does not understand what one
> reads.Then one must ask questions.
I disagree. In that case (not understanding), one should *first*
search and research other, related sources. You don't do that. There has
been at least one case where you didn't bother to look up a common
abbreviation (initialism) which you didn't understand. We (TINW) aren't
your unpaid teachers. If you keep up that behaviour, you won't get the
help/answers you're seeking. Your loss, not ours (TINO).
> I was using anonymity / privacy as in generally speaking.
> Actually they work hand in hand.
Nope, as I *explained*, they *don't*. This (Usenet) is not a private
medium, but a public one.
> Being anonymous, by NOT displaying identifiable info about oneself,
> whether name, location, isp, or news service provider, all work together
> hand in hand.
> I know enough not to use my real name in the newsreader as do most
> people.
And *I* do "know enough" to USE my real name. As others have
explained, by trying to be 'anonymous' you draw attention which you
*don't* want and do not draw the attention which you *do* want.
Face it, one-size-fits-all doesn't exist anywhere, and Usenet is no
exception.
> I know to use a uncensored news provider to obtain any content that is
> posted.
Yeah, why not throw (non-)censorship in the mix!? No wonder you don't
understand!
> I know enough to select one that at least claims they do not monitor or
> log there clients useage, other than amounts used.
You'd better check your local *laws*, instead of what your ISP/NSP say
they do and do not do.
> My next step is to remain as anonymous as possible to ensure my privacy
> for whatever reasons.
[Seriously misinformed rant deleted.]
> So yes in many ways, anonymity and privacy go hand in hand.
> I hope you understand my point in this of why I want to be knowledgeable
> on the topic.
> Don't need some nut tracking me down and knocking on my door, with a
> ball bat or stalking me. Do you?
If you don't provoke, it's unlikely that you will have any such
problem. Basically no real difference with RL.
FYI, I've been posting in the clear [1] for over two and a half decade
without any problem.
[1] Recently in some/most groups my IP address is not shown, not because
I want/need that, but because that server serves me best in filtering
spam, etc..
Whiskers
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in news:7n2040F3jg1nrU1
> @mid.individual.net:
[...]
> Don't need some nut tracking me down and knocking on my door, with a
> ball bat or stalking me. Do you?
Your present posting arrangements provide that degree of privacy. Unless
you seriously annoy your ISP or NSP, of course.
Whiskers
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
[...]
>> [1] Recently in some/most groups my IP address is not shown, not
>> because I want/need that, but because that server serves me best in
>> filtering spam, etc..
>>
> AHH! see, you too have a need to have some amount of anonymity! The
> inevitable spam! Thus hide your ip address....
IP numbers in usenet headers, have nothing at all to do with spam. It
just so happens that one of the news-servers that most effectively bins
the garbage, also doesn't show it's customers' IP numbers in the headers.
Mike Yetto
> your opinion is noted. But if one does not understand what one
> reads.Then one must ask questions.
And if one has no basis the questions will be all over the place.
> I was using anonymity / privacy as in generally speaking.
> Actually they work hand in hand.
> Being anonymous, by NOT displaying identifiable info about oneself,
> whether name, location, isp, or news service provider, all work together
> hand in hand.
You are not anonymous so much as indecipherable.
> I know enough not to use my real name in the newsreader as do most
> people.
Using your real name does no harm. Nor does making one up (or
leaving the newsreaders default) protect you.
> I know to use a uncensored news provider to obtain any content that is
> posted.
Including spam?
> I know enough to select one that at least claims they do not monitor or
> log there clients useage, other than amounts used.
> My next step is to remain as anonymous as possible to ensure my privacy
> for whatever reasons.
Anonymity and privacy are not the same thing.
> like "big Brother" snooping into my business whether I was learning to
> grow marijuana (illegal), talking and discussing violent over throw of
> government (also illegal), circumventing copyright restrictions (also
> illegal) or if I was just discusing politics in general, I don't like
> our president, he needs to go away, In this case I mean impeached, or
> voted out, not violently.
This is not communication so much as a conspiracy rant.
> Framers of our constitution were smart to include free speech, and allow
> people to own firearms and restrict congress from making laws against
> it.
Whose constitution? The world is a very big place.
> But they failed to restrict the courts and executive branch also.
> They didn't forsee how sneaky politicians would become.
> So yes in many ways, anonymity and privacy go hand in hand.
> I hope you understand my point in this of why I want to be knowledgeable
> on the topic.
More conspiracy ranting.
> Don't need some nut tracking me down and knocking on my door, with a
> ball bat or stalking me. Do you?
>
Take *all* your meds.
Mike "no more PUI" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.
Frank Slootweg
> > My name <whos...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in news:7n2040F3jg1nrU1
> >> @mid.individual.net:
> > [...]
> >
> >> > Moral: As the others also pointed out, first use News/Usenet in
> >> > the
> >> > *normal* manner, before starting with stuff which is still way
> >> > beyond your knowledge and expertise, i.e. crawl before you walk and
> >> > walk before you run. There's of course nothing wrong with wanting
> >> > to learn, but part of learning is learning/knowing *how* to learn.
> >> > IMO/IOO you should be searching/reading/studying more and asking
> >> > less.
> >> >
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> your opinion is noted. But if one does not understand what one
> >> reads.Then one must ask questions.
> >
> > I disagree. In that case (not understanding), one should *first*
> > search and research other, related sources. You don't do that. There
> > has been at least one case where you didn't bother to look up a common
> > abbreviation (initialism) which you didn't understand. We (TINW)
> > aren't your unpaid teachers. If you keep up that behaviour, you won't
> > get the help/answers you're seeking. Your loss, not ours (TINO).
>
> used as an abbreviation for numerous things.
But not in this case. In any case, even if the abbreviation is
ambiguous, the right meaning can nearly always be determined by the
context it is used in. *If* it cannot be determined, *then* is the time
to ask questions, not before.
> So many times the quickest way is to just ask.
The quickest for *you*, not for the thousands which have to read/skip
your questions, nor for the ones who answer.
That is why I said "We (TINW) aren't your unpaid teachers. If you keep
up that behaviour, you won't get the help/answers you're seeking. Your
loss, not ours (TINO).".
[...]
> >> I was using anonymity / privacy as in generally speaking.
> >> Actually they work hand in hand.
> >
> > Nope, as I *explained*, they *don't*. This (Usenet) is not a private
> > medium, but a public one.
>
> But yes they do. If I want to maintain my privacy (name, address, phone,
> etc) Then in many cases I also may want to be anonymous in my
> activities.
Your address, phone number, etc. is not a (posting) privacy issue.
It's either public information or it's not. How you post does not change
that at all. (Of course not mentioning your name is anonimity, not
privacy.)
> I may want to access WWWW, or news, but yet make it difficult for my my
> u/l or d/l to be traced to me. No doubt if someone had the timeand
> desire and resources and power to find me they could regardless of
> precautions taken..
As said, your *current* setup already does that, so there's *no* need
for proxies or whatever.
[...]
> >> I know enough to select one that at least claims they do not monitor
> >> or log there clients useage, other than amounts used.
> >
> > You'd better check your local *laws*, instead of what your ISP/NSP
> > say they do and do not do.
>
> Yes laws are different around the world, country to country. But many
> claim they do not monitor, log or censor. Can they b trusted, who knows?
The *laws* will determine if they *have to* monitor, log or censor.
Hence my advice to look at the *laws*.
> And yes if LEA has suspicions they can get a court order to to backtrace
> people. I understand that. I try not to do anything that would give them
> that reason. As I stated before. I am mostly after knowledge of how
> things work or don't.
It may well be that LEA doesn't even *need* a court order. *Check* and
you probably will be (unpleasantly) surprised.
[...]
> > FYI, I've been posting in the clear [1] for over two and a half
> > decade without any problem.
> >
> > [1] Recently in some/most groups my IP address is not shown, not
> > because I want/need that, but because that server serves me best in
> > filtering spam, etc..
> >
> AHH! see, you too have a need to have some amount of anonymity! The
> inevitable spam! Thus hide your ip address....
Can you read/understand English? I just said that I do *not* want/need
my IP address to be hidden! So I do *not* "need to have some amount of
anonymity".
No offense, but it looks to me as if you have no real knowledge about
how Usenet/News works. So I suggest you start with *that*, the basics,
before jumping into this anonimity/privacy stuff.
IIRC, a wise man said "crawl before you walk and walk before you run".
Oops, that was *me*! :-).
Indi
>
> I'm replying at the beginning on purpose.
>
That's never a good idea.
> Why it is no matter where you go someone in someway has to give you a
> hard time about any subject.
>
Probably because you did cross a line when you went from asking about
anonymity/privacy to expressing political opinions, which are
off-topic here. It's bad form to bring up politics (or religion, etc),
then go on rants about how the people providing free help and advice did
not receive your opinions graciously enough for you. This isn't the
group for seeking that kind of validation.
> I was seeking general knowledge on how to ensure my privacy and or
> anonymity on usenet.
> If it cold be done or not.
>
Ultimately no-one is anonymous on the internet, assuming a
sufficiently-motivated investigator targets you.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is misinformed or a scammer.
You can obscure personally-identifying info, you cannot achieve
bullet-proof anonymity.
--
indi "welcome to the bi-partisan corporate oligarchy" sharpe
Jon Solberg
> On 2009-11-26, My name <whos...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm replying at the beginning on purpose.
>
> That's never a good idea.
Indeed, it made me stopped reading right there and then. To many
people who top post on USENET nowadays.
>> Why it is no matter where you go someone in someway has to give you
>> a hard time about any subject.
>
> Probably because you did cross a line when you went from asking
> about anonymity/privacy to expressing political opinions, which are
> off-topic here. [...]
...and probably because many who asks questions on how to be anonymous
on the net often, but not always, have dubious or malicious intentions
(out of sheer stupidity or malevolence, be that as it may). I'm not
saying the OP has, but it seem to work as a warning sign that
something just isn't right to many of the old timers.
>> I was seeking general knowledge on how to ensure my privacy and or
>> anonymity on usenet. [...]
>
> Ultimately no-one is anonymous on the internet, assuming a
> sufficiently-motivated investigator targets you. [...]
There's an extremely good way of being anonymous on the net and it's
dead easy: do not log on in the first place.
--
Jon Solberg (remove "nospam." from email address).
XS11E
> I'm replying at the beginning on purpose.
> But thanks one and all, I am smarter today than yesterday,
Apparently not, based on the first line above.
> and I will continue to learn.
We all hope so.....
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
My name
news:slrnhgtbi...@jonsolberg.se:
All of your opinions are duly noted.
There are times it is quicker , easier and more logical to reply to a
post at the beginning. to me this (earlier) was one of them.
sometimes to intermix and sometimes at bottom.
well it wasn't really a rant. It was more of a basic reason of why many
people would like to achieve some anonymity and / or privacy.
I realize that if an investigator really wanted you they could back
trace eventually.
I was looking more generally, in areas where the publishers / writers
sometimes are not explanatory on how to do something.
Usenet and WWW I understand are somewhat different.
WWW or usenet, you will stip have an ISP who could log to a point where
you go, what servers you log into or URL'syou visit.
Using a proxy on WWWW, helps mask where you ended up at, Like
Anonymiser, or anonymouse, or others.
But as I pointed out elsewhere, I hear / read somehwere about a program
That investigators developed, that could actually track a specific file
from point A to B. Supposedly.
Like RIAA, if you D/L a music file illegally (1 or a 1,000) how do they
know to trace it back to you? or any other subject matter for that
matter.
I'm mostly curious as to workings of systems.
I'm trying to learn hope I made that plain., Again thanks to all that
have replied.
>
Mike Yetto
> There are times it is quicker , easier and more logical to reply to a
> post at the beginning. to me this (earlier) was one of them.
Lazy is not spelled l-o-g-i-c-a-l.
Mike "this post brought to you by the letter 'l'" Yetto
»Q«
My name <whos...@email.com> wrote:
> Jon Solberg <j...@jonsolberg.nospam.se> wrote in
> news:slrnhgtbi...@jonsolberg.se:
>
> > On 2009-11-26, Indi <in...@16x108.local> wrote:
> >> On 2009-11-26, My name <whos...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm replying at the beginning on purpose.
> >>
> >> That's never a good idea.
[giant snip, to deal with the insane mess created by the top-posting]
> There are times it is quicker , easier and more logical to reply to a
> post at the beginning. to me this (earlier) was one of them.
> sometimes to intermix and sometimes at bottom.
That's asinine. In a group that intersperses, top-posting forces
anyone who wants to reply to you to rearrange the quotes, to snip out
the quotes below your text, or to leave the mess you've created. If
you can't think past what is quicker and easier for *you* to do, you
shouldn't be here trying to interact with people.
Top
Odd that so many people read a book from back to front.
Top
--
To announce that there must be no criticism
of the President, or that we are to stand by
the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
Theodore Roosevelt
Doug Freyburger
>
> Odd that so many people read a book from back to front.
Nonfiction books generally have the index in the back. It's fun to shop
in the index and sample bits of the book. Rather like using the threads
and subject lines to pick what postings to read.
Top
Sounds more like the table of contents than the index. You know that part in front of the
chapters?
Doug Freyburger
> dfre...@yahoo.com says...
>> Top wrote:
>
>> > Odd that so many people read a book from back to front.
>
>> Nonfiction books generally have the index in the back. It's fun to shop
>> in the index and sample bits of the book. Rather like using the threads
>> and subject lines to pick what postings to read.
>
> Sounds more like the table of contents than the index. You know that part in front of the
> chapters?
You mean like the list of newsgroups to decide what groups to subscribe
to? Yeah, I like shopping there as well. TOC in front, index in back,
not linear reading.
Fiction I do prefer to read front to back. Except the amount of fiction
in UseNet posts. Oh no! Landrau guide us!