In article <20220821.025245.ed03db4a@mixmin.net>
Yamn Remailer <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
>
> On 8/20/2022 4:02 PM, Yamn Remailer wrote:
>
> > Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> To all the privacy experts,
> >>
> >> Are there any anonymous web remailers like anonymouse.org out
> >> there on the internet.
> >
>
>
> All the web based remailers are gone.
>
> I think the only service left is Cotse.

http://anonymouse.org/anonnews_de.html

On 8/21/2022 9:59 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> In article <20220821.025245.ed03db4a@mixmin.net>
> Yamn Remailer <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 8/20/2022 4:02 PM, Yamn Remailer wrote:
>>
>>> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> To all the privacy experts,
>>>>
>>>> Are there any anonymous web remailers like anonymouse.org out
>>>> there on the internet.
>>>
>>
>>
>> All the web based remailers are gone.
>>
>> I think the only service left is Cotse.
>
> http://anonymouse.org/anonnews_de.html
>

Anonymouse uses Mixmaster?

Really???

Yamn Remailer <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
>
> http://anonymouse.org/anonnews_de.html

I would not trust a any anonymous Web remailer.

In article <20220822.163823.24f06e3b@yamn.paranoici.org>
Anonymous <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:
>
> Yamn Remailer <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
> >
> > http://anonymouse.org/anonnews_de.html
>
> I would not trust a any anonymous Web remailer.

Access it via Tor.

On 8/22/2022 10:37 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> In article <20220822.163823.24f06e3b@yamn.paranoici.org>
> Anonymous <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yamn Remailer <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://anonymouse.org/anonnews_de.html
>>
>> I would not trust a any anonymous Web remailer.
>
> Access it via Tor.
>

Tor obscures our IP, but that's it.

Anonymouse doesn't even use HTTPS so all your traffic is in
plaintext.

The operators of Anonymouse can read all your traffic and see your
IP.

Anonymouse is NOT anonymous. No way.

On 8/22/2022 9:38 AM, Anonymous wrote:

> Yamn Remailer <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote:
>>
>> http://anonymouse.org/anonnews_de.html
>
> I would not trust a any anonymous Web remailer.
>

Definitely not.

But Anonymouse is an especially bad recommendation

On 8/22/2022 10:22 AM, D wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 06:59:28 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://anonymouse.org/anonnews_de.html
>
> also in English:
> http://anonymouse.org/anonnews.html
>
> "With AnonNews it is possible to post entries in newsgroups
> without revealing your e-mail address or any information about
> your identity. So you can communicate more freely and do not
> have to worry that it might cause consequences for you. This
> service allows you to post entries in newsgroups without
> revealing any personal information. Protect your privacy,
> protect your data, protect it for free."
>
> it does connect (but _without_ https) through tor browser:
> https://www.torproject.org/
>
> just sent test message to inactive group ... may take "12 hours"
> to see results ... for insecure pseudo-anon news posts, why not?

Stay far away from Anonymouse.

On 8/22/2022 7:57 PM, D wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Aug 2022 01:45:38 +0100, Anonymous Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>> On 8/22/2022 10:22 AM, D wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 06:59:28 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>>> http://anonymouse.org/anonnews_de.html
>>> also in English:
>>> http://anonymouse.org/anonnews.html
>>>
>>> just sent test message to inactive group ... may take "12 hours"
>>> to see results ... for insecure pseudo-anon news posts, why not?
>>
>> Stay far away from Anonymouse.
>
> Fwiw, the aforementioned test message to an inactive group did post
> within a couple of hours with the following familiar dizum headers:
>
> From: Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
> Subject: -
> Message-ID: -
> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022
> Newsgroups: -
> Path: - !news.dizum.net!not-for-mail
> Organization: dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider
> X-Abuse: abuse@dizum.com
> Injection-Info: sewer.dizum.com
> Xref: -
> -------------------------------------
>
> So it does work through unsecure http tor browser(v11.5) connection,
> the obvious red flag being that tor all by itself is nowhere near as
> secure as using random mix/yamn chains, etc.; but also, worst of all,
> that the message itself was _unencrypted_ at its injection point(!).
> Even so, webmailers may have convenient uses...e.g. for testing tor.
>

+1