|WikiProject Cryptography / Computer science||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Matt, The Fredonia reference was deliberately constructed for humorous purposes. Both Fredonia and Firefly are from a Marx brothers movie.
Your objection was to... The humour? An editorial comment on the quality of the humour? What? --ww 19:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- More that it would likely confuse as many as it would amuse; I didn't understand the reference, and a quick look revealed that it was likely that quite a few other readers wouldn't either (from a 1933 movie?). I thought about trying to refactor the example without the cultural reference, but then it occurred to me that it was a fairly straightforward and obvious point that might not need an accompanying anecodate anyway. -- — Matt 19:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I removed this text:
A Mixmaster remailer allows receivers to answer messages. To receive an answer to your message, you have to create encrypted reply blocks. A reply block contains instructions to reach your real address.
The text although true, is misleading because Cypherpunk remailers also offer reply via reply blocks. That is how nym servers work.
- Because Wikipedia is not a link directory. We link to places that can give further topical insights, and not to mere services. Haakon 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. I agree. Zanaq 12:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Is "Type IV" really used?
Can anybody source the claim that pseudonymous remailers are called "Type IV?" Google has no hits for "Type IV remailer", "type 4 remailer", or "type four remailer" (all with quotes). As near as I can tell, if anybody uses the term, it doesn't have general acceptance. Am I wrong? --Victor Lighthill 23:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Victor I believe you are correct. I do not know of a type IV remailers. I changed the designation to type IV because it was previously described as Type III and I knew Mixminion was type III. I left the designation in because I thought someone may have known something I didn't. I think the pseudonymous remailers should be moved to a different designation outside of the Type X list. --User:rearden9
I would not like to remove those broken links completely, because most of the documents had been published in many versions all around the world and we should rather try to update those references to potato software and other information.--184.108.40.206 08:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Aren't the results of RProcess' analysis worth mentioning with a few phrases, in addition to offering the link? My English might, though, not suffice to do it properly, myself. TY.--220.127.116.11 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the relationship? Is there a historical tie to snail-mail remailers from email remailers? The article expands, through its "See Also" section, and through its categorization, more in the direction of anonymity over computer networks. There should be, I think, a stronger connection between the topics than a similarity purpose you suggest. -- Mwatts15 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The site 'information.is-the-coolest.com' is reproducing Wikipedia content without attribution, including this page -- see http://www.information.is-the-coolest.com/index.asp@q=Anonymous_remailer -- in order to serve ads.
- That page doesn't seem to be up for me. Anyway, WP:FORK is the page you want. --Gwern (contribs) 17:05 27 June 2009 (GMT)
Is there any article on a physical/real-world analogue to anonymous remailers? I didn't see any, and they seem like they'd be useful enough services that someone would be running one (although maybe the legal issues would kill any such service). --Gwern (contribs) 07:51 12 August 2009 (GMT)
I added a short section about 'abuse' of remailers. I would appreciate expansion of this section by a Wikipedian with access to the relevant law enforcment or legal sources. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed the following.
I changed the following- However, since most users of e-mail do not have very much technical expertise, the full headers are usually suppressed by mail reading software. Thus, many users have never seen one. I changed it to read Occasionally the full headers are usually suppressed by mail reading software. I'm sorry but the statement- since most users of e-mail do not have very much technical expertise, is an assumption,as is stating many users have never seen one. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)