http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=CZ48FD2A37602.3719907407%40Gilgamesh-frog.org

http://tinyurl.com/tpg5

From: Frog-Admin (Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header)
 Subject: Re: JBN2 and Outgoing mail server requires authentication 
 Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server
 Date: 2002-12-11 23:58:08 PST 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 12 Dec 2002, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (Frog-Admin)
wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, xenophon <xenophon-NOSPAM@xenophon.homeip.net>
>wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>On 12 Dec 2002 05:49:04 -0000, Frog <FrogRemailer@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You forgot to mention that most ISP's block port 25 except to their own
>>>smtp  server. This information would be useful if you could suggest a
>>>remailers smtp  that uses a port other that 25.
>>
>>Yes I did overlook that, thanks for pointing this out because it's a very
>>important point.  I don't have a list of remailers running smtp on ports
>>other than 25, but I'll sure research it and I might even try to put up
>>second smtp server for chicago on a port other than 25 to accomodate
>>users who's isp are unreasonable and are blocking 25.
>
>Would you try
>OR  frogadmin.yi.org:22222
>OR  frogadmin.hn.org:22222
>OR  frogadmin.no-IP.com:22222
>OR  80.65.224.85:22222
>
>instead of
>OR  frogadmin.yi.org:25
>OR  frogadmin.hn.org:25
>OR  frogadmin.no-IP.com:25
>OR  80.65.224.85:25
>
>I did set it up ages ago for a similar request
>(and don't prepend "smtp." to the name)
>
>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Also, the 'JBN2 SMTP authentication' is a boring troll
>There are 2 lines of code to add to JBN to get SMTP authentication
> (2 lines is by hard-coding password)
> I released the code last summer or so
>
>But a person who *really* has the problem would
>OR use a MTA on his computer
>  because he would gave the same problem with many other softwares
>OR directly inject through the SMTP of the first remailer in his chain
>
>Besides, I don't see any *real* reason not_to_use the provider's
>(non-authenticated) SMTP, except to get a *false* feeling of extra
>privacy.

I meant, of course, besides the *OBVIOUS* reason:
the guy is a spammer
 and wants to balance his flood between different 3rd party SMTP
 to defeat flood detectors.

- -If the guy has 10 SMTP to inject from,
- -and there are 50 remailers to inject to
- -->that is 500 messages
    while every remailer will see no more than one message/IP
- -->if the guy wants -say- flood apas with 5000 messages
    no remop will see more than 10 messages/IP 

>So, I am not willing to waste time on that.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBPfg/+oDgT488d3zFAQEO1ggAuIHusJVxI9GkhjBdinW1fUv6TDJnKHFR
wBH2gZsiLwz8IGcIqVIIVd7cdFWj/UxM11exGQ3123rvHW58MTL7ag1eZEF+aN0C
MdFs26fhzRHqBGnJ5ROR+Zjn2Nl5TeAx09DKYl/E0wQRFsMivrmZQZTEO03O1xmP
3CO05wrsZcCnL+7hK8CEPilmmzQIvq0T53O8+2MGBBvXw5MLeHAHS6j+cZfdhiNQ
XL4AkBl3RhFyLVfHWhJ8Qd3fXz0tbfkGR/lS9OnKj116ZfUokcPgzhcMks3aqlrN
eZ7q1RIjvA6agc83lbMZwbR9xKSAw1tHihNkSHfKU7qSqfOnl7jLng==
=3Ow8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----