Some number of years ago, there was a discussion here about the
differences in EHLO handling between QSL and Omnimix.
I can't find that thread anywhere.

If I recall correctly, and I may not with the lapse of time, QSL and
Omnimix handle EHLO differently.

And the accusation was the way QSL handles it, an adversary can know
that a person was posting a message using QSL.

Did i recall that correctly?

On Saturday, September 18, 2021 at 4:52:57 PM UTC+2, Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> Some number of years ago, there was a discussion here about the
> differences in EHLO handling between QSL and Omnimix.
> I can't find that thread anywhere.
>
> If I recall correctly, and I may not with the lapse of time, QSL and
> Omnimix handle EHLO differently.
>
> And the accusation was the way QSL handles it, an adversary can know
> that a person was posting a message using QSL.
>
> Did i recall that correctly?

An EHLO, from your Mixclient, tells only the entry Remailer something.

Regards
Stefan

Anonymous Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:

>Some number of years ago, there was a discussion here about the
>differences in EHLO handling between QSL and Omnimix.
>I can't find that thread anywhere.
>
>If I recall correctly, and I may not with the lapse of time, QSL and
>Omnimix handle EHLO differently.
>
>And the accusation was the way QSL handles it, an adversary can know
>that a person was posting a message using QSL.
>
>Did i recall that correctly?

Was it the 2007 OM vs QL (not QSL!) thread

| Subject: Anyone Get Omnimix to Work?

starting with

| Message-ID: <oaa353dej923ho1tus0ntik2h7huah9d9a@4ax.com>
| Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:17:02 GMT

[..]

| Message-ID: <4f2fc4d2f3ead675e5e05d32614e43e7@pseudo.borked.net>
| Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:21:31 -0600 (MDT)
|
| rover <rover@nym.komite.net> wrote:
|
| > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| >
| > On 24 May 2007, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
| > <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
| > >rover <rover@nym.komite.net> wrote:
| >
| > >
| > >So how about you just admit you misspoke, and we can move on to
| > >something a little more interesting like harassing Jiang or picking on
| > >Privacy.LIE scammers, OK? ;-)
| >
| > Because, Dude, I'm not wrong. QS uses he older HELO protocal, rather than
| > EHLO. Using the older protocol does not allow you to "...positively
| > identifies itself every time you send a message" Message-ID:
| > <cc521a3ec76f6d355406274bb3cb399f@remailer.cyberiade.it>
|
| The hell it doesn't.
|
| Please stop trying to pretend this is an email-wide discusion. It's
| not, and doing so only makes you look like a misbehaving child. QS is
| different from other clients, and therefore easy to spot. Period. You
| were wrong, so get over yourself.

In article <20210919.112631.59ffc4d4@yamn.paranoici.org>
Anonymous <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:
>
> Anonymous Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Some number of years ago, there was a discussion here about the
> >differences in EHLO handling between QSL and Omnimix.
> >I can't find that thread anywhere.
> >
> >If I recall correctly, and I may not with the lapse of time, QSL and
> >Omnimix handle EHLO differently.
> >
> >And the accusation was the way QSL handles it, an adversary can know
> >that a person was posting a message using QSL.
> >
> >Did i recall that correctly?
>
> Was it the 2007 OM vs QL (not QSL!) thread
>
> | Subject: Anyone Get Omnimix to Work?
>
> starting with
>
> | Message-ID: <oaa353dej923ho1tus0ntik2h7huah9d9a@4ax.com>
> | Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:17:02 GMT
>
> [..]
>
> | Message-ID: <4f2fc4d2f3ead675e5e05d32614e43e7@pseudo.borked.net>
> | Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:21:31 -0600 (MDT)
> |
> | rover <rover@nym.komite.net> wrote:
> |
> | > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> | >
> | > On 24 May 2007, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> | > <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> | > >rover <rover@nym.komite.net> wrote:
> | >
> | > >
> | > >So how about you just admit you misspoke, and we can move on to
> | > >something a little more interesting like harassing Jiang or picking on
> | > >Privacy.LIE scammers, OK? ;-)
> | >
> | > Because, Dude, I'm not wrong. QS uses he older HELO protocal, rather than
> | > EHLO. Using the older protocol does not allow you to "...positively
> | > identifies itself every time you send a message" Message-ID:
> | > <cc521a3ec76f6d355406274bb3cb399f@remailer.cyberiade.it>
> |
> | The hell it doesn't.
> |
> | Please stop trying to pretend this is an email-wide discusion. It's
> | not, and doing so only makes you look like a misbehaving child. QS is
> | different from other clients, and therefore easy to spot. Period. You
> | were wrong, so get over yourself.

I remember a few other similar "discussions".

Pointless after the initial entry remailer regardless of HELO /
EHLO.

An entry server will always know from the initial ID string.
They can also get the host name and originating IP addy, but
those all disappear next hop.

When spamming was popular, there were a number of free
mailservers that would strip out all the originating header info
during sending. Some even permitted forging the originating
header. Before everything got locked down, you could use those
to relay outbound and confuse the heck out of anybody trying to
backtrace. Had a lot of fun with those.

In article <3d42d43a8ee0592b36abefb07119e627@dizum.com>
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> In article <20210919.112631.59ffc4d4@yamn.paranoici.org>
> Anonymous <nobody@yamn.paranoici.org> wrote:
> >
> > Anonymous Remailer <remailer@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >Some number of years ago, there was a discussion here about the
> > >differences in EHLO handling between QSL and Omnimix.
> > >I can't find that thread anywhere.
> > >
> > >If I recall correctly, and I may not with the lapse of time, QSL and
> > >Omnimix handle EHLO differently.
> > >
> > >And the accusation was the way QSL handles it, an adversary can know
> > >that a person was posting a message using QSL.
> > >
> > >Did i recall that correctly?
> >
> > Was it the 2007 OM vs QL (not QSL!) thread
> >
> > | Subject: Anyone Get Omnimix to Work?
> >
> > starting with
> >
> > | Message-ID: <oaa353dej923ho1tus0ntik2h7huah9d9a@4ax.com>
> > | Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:17:02 GMT
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > | Message-ID: <4f2fc4d2f3ead675e5e05d32614e43e7@pseudo.borked.net>
> > | Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:21:31 -0600 (MDT)
> > |
> > | rover <rover@nym.komite.net> wrote:
> > |
> > | > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > | >
> > | > On 24 May 2007, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> > | > <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> > | > >rover <rover@nym.komite.net> wrote:
> > | >
> > | > >
> > | > >So how about you just admit you misspoke, and we can move on to
> > | > >something a little more interesting like harassing Jiang or picking on
> > | > >Privacy.LIE scammers, OK? ;-)
> > | >
> > | > Because, Dude, I'm not wrong. QS uses he older HELO protocal, rather than
> > | > EHLO. Using the older protocol does not allow you to "...positively
> > | > identifies itself every time you send a message" Message-ID:
> > | > <cc521a3ec76f6d355406274bb3cb399f@remailer.cyberiade.it>
> > |
> > | The hell it doesn't.
> > |
> > | Please stop trying to pretend this is an email-wide discusion. It's
> > | not, and doing so only makes you look like a misbehaving child. QS is
> > | different from other clients, and therefore easy to spot. Period. You
> > | were wrong, so get over yourself.
>
> I remember a few other similar "discussions".
>
> Pointless after the initial entry remailer regardless of HELO /
> EHLO.
>
> An entry server will always know from the initial ID string.
> They can also get the host name and originating IP addy, but
> those all disappear next hop.
>
> When spamming was popular, there were a number of free
> mailservers that would strip out all the originating header info
> during sending. Some even permitted forging the originating
> header. Before everything got locked down, you could use those
> to relay outbound and confuse the heck out of anybody trying to
> backtrace. Had a lot of fun with those.

Use Omnimix for your SMTP outbound and you'll eliminate all
clues for the entry remailer.

If the OmniMix hosting computer's name is bobsmith (or
bobsmith.some.gov), the first receiving mail server (OmniMix)
will use bobsmith [127.0.0.1] or bobsmith.some.gov [127.0.0.1]
as the sender. After that it all vanishes when mixmaster
processes it. The only thing preserved is a sender name if
specified.

IF you run OmniMix on another computer named mikejones.some.gov,
locally or remotely in another network, and send your traffic
via that computer using the onion address, the originating
computer name is effectively laundered period.

Here's the trail of a chunk below.

12:06:10.924 X Client connection request (SMTP Port 25 IPext
127.0.0.1 IPint 127.0.0.1)
12:06:10.924 X Checking for ImplicitSSL client connection
request ...
12:06:12.936 X Non-ImplicitSSL client request detected
12:06:17.850 0 SMTP message arrived
12:06:17.866 0 SMTP message read
12:06:17.866 0 Targeted SMTP host (anon - fix selection):
'orange (SEC3)'
12:06:17.866 0 Request for sending the message through a
remailer network
12:06:17.866 0 Calculating anti-spam Hashcash ...
12:06:17.866 0 Filtering headers ...
12:06:17.866 0 Removed header: 'Received: from
LOCALHOSTNAME[127.0.0.1] (helo=nowhere.invalid) by
LOCALHOSTNAME[127.0.0.1] with smtp (OmniMix SMTP Server)'
12:06:17.866 0 Checking for WholeMessageEncryption request ...
12:06:17.866 0 Calculating Hashcash ...
12:06:17.866 0 Sending SMTP message via Mixmaster (chain:
'orange * * dizum') ...
12:06:20.377 0 Converting message for Mixmaster usage ...
12:06:20.377 0 'From' header 'none@anonymous.net' removed
without replacement

Single post, 1 of 9 chunks outbound from OmniMix, posted using
QS.

==================== [12:06:17.866 - 0] Getting from SMTP Client:
Received: from LOCALHOSTNAME[127.0.0.1] (helo=nowhere.invalid)
by LOCALHOSTNAME[127.0.0.1] with smtp (OmniMix SMTP Server)
From: none@anonymous.net
To: mix@krautrelay.kraut.space

::
Remailer-Type: Mixmaster 3.0.3a

-----BEGIN REMAILER MESSAGE-----
REDACTED
-----END REMAILER MESSAGE-----

==================== [12:06:17.866 - 0] Getting from Hashcash
Minter:
Received: from LOCALHOSTNAME[127.0.0.1] (helo=nowhere.invalid)
by LOCALHOSTNAME[127.0.0.1] with smtp (OmniMix SMTP Server)
From: anon@anon.net
To: mix@krautrelay.kraut.space

==================== [12:06:17.866 - 0] Getting from Header
Filter:
From: anon@anon.net
To: mix@krautrelay.kraut.space

==================== [12:06:20.377 - 0] Getting from Message
Converter:
Mode: Anon mail (Mixmaster)

To: mix@krautrelay.kraut.space