Talk:Anonymous remailer

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unclear humor

message: Why would the links to free remailers need to be removed?  — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zanaq (talk • contribs) .
: 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)
replies: text: Ok. I agree. Zanaq 12:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed links

message: 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)
thread_title: Is "Type IV" really used?

message: 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.--84.56.86.27 08:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: broken links.

message: 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.--84.56.81.23 07:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remailer Vulnerabilities

message: Is there any way to include the analog equivalent in the article? Is it dealt with elsewhere? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter service

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assistance requested 

message: 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. 98.240.76.78 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I changed the following. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Anonymous remailer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100710023752/http://dizum.com:80/help/usenet.html to https://dizum.com/help/usenet.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100710023752/http://dizum.com:80/help/usenet.html to https://dizum.com/help/usenet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The YAMN remailer network is existing and working. I do not know why this reference has been removed. It is easier to delete something than to inform one self to adapt something written by a newcomer to the rules of Wikipedia. People who act as sheriffs in Wikipedia should have knowledge of the things they are deleting. In this case they do not have any knowledge about remailer. This is a quick and dirty solution. I don't think this is the spirit of Wikipedia. 
The last maintenance of Mixminion program was about 10 years ago. The Mixminion network does not exists any longer. There is no evidence of this. But feel free to search for an existing Mixminion network in Google or similar search engine, you will not find anything. There is no evidence of this. But feel free to search for an existing Mixminion network in Google or similar search engine, you will not find anything. This temailer network does not exist any longer a lot of years. There is no evidence of this. But feel free to search for an existing Mixminion network in Google or similar search engine, you will not find anything. People who act as sheriffs should have knowledge of the things they are doing. 
There are only three working remailer systems: Mixmaster, Cypherpunk and YAMN. Mixminion is dead for many years. If you want to inform yourself more about the remailer community I suggest that you read https://groups.google.com/g/alt.privacy.anon-server. Besides a lot of SPAM (unfortunately) you will find a lot of information here. 
This was the first and last time that I improve or add information in Wikipedia. Now I understand why the number of editors in Wikipedia is decreasing.
This is my opinion [freedom of speech], but I do not want to offend or attack anyone with it.
79.159.6.25 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  YAMN and Mixminion remailer 

message: Found a great source for this article:
Mostyn, Michael M. (2000). The Need for Regulating Anonymous Remailers. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 14(1), 79–88. doi:10.1080/13600860054917
You can find the text on Sci-Hub. I've found this for Polish article (used it as reference) adding here as well, but only in form of a comment. jcubic (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source + controversy  

message: Good morning.
We need rather urgently an evaluation of the current technology and the one which is basically described in this article.
When obsolete facts are warmed up, there is more risk than gain. Reassure us, if you can. Not if not. –ꟼsycho ㄈhi¢ken 😭 (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evaluation needed in 2024