Re: Hiding originating IP when posting through CLOSED news servers

From: Frank Slootweg (this_at_ddress.is.invalid)
Date: 02/25/04 

Date: 25 Feb 2004 14:05:28 GMT

[Stepping back into the mud.]

Mike <duab@privacy.net> wrote:
> Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
[much deleted]
> Others yes; this one, no. This is my OP...
> _______________________________________________
> I want to post via closed servers (eg: news.individual.net),
> without giving away my originating fixed IP address(es) (machine
> or router). Is there any way to achieve this reliably?
>
> My reasons for this are that I'm on a UK ADSL connection and my
> IP's are registered through RIPE. This means that a quick "whois"
> will reveal my real name and possibly my home address. I find
> that undesirable to say the least.
> _______________________________________________
>
> How *anyone* with any experience could misinterpret that I'll
> never understand.

  Indeed, people with sufficient experience would not have, and I think
in practice had not, any problems understanding the *question*. However
in order to give usable *answers* for *you*, we needed more information.
IMO, *that* is where things started to go wrong. (I have already said
*why* I think things went wrong, so I won't repeat that.)

  So during the thread we tried to discover some of the 'missing'
information (I don't know if all of it was missing or/and if we covered
all of it, just consider this as *examples*):

- What were the system(s), platform(s), account(s) available to you?
  (Several solutions were given that involved other/multiple systems/
  platforms/accounts/etc.)

- (Mine:) Why couldn't you *post* from your other accounts?

- Was it *only* for news.individual.net? (After the fact, it apparently
  was, but your OP implied otherwise ("serverS" and "eg").)

- Why your RIPE data couldn't be 'fixed' (i.e. so that it would not
  mention *your* name/address, but those of your provider).

> However, even if I offer the benefit of the
> doubt the fact the problem was solved by Individual.NET
> *themselves*

  We could never have provided *that* solution. We could have
*suggested* that you contact them, but I doubt that that would have
fallen well with you.

> and then people conitinued to harp on at me about
> google bloody groups and XNA is beyond belief.

  Well, I think that now you and I are on sufficient good grounds that I
can say that I think that (except for AC) you are mainly the one to
'blame' for that. I.e. on this issue I agree with Leythos. If you wanted
to stop it, you could have, but you didn't. I.e. while *others* can
blame us (i.e. the other respondents) for continuing a seemingly
sensless debate, you can't because that would be the pot calling the
kettle black.

  All in all, I hope you can take this as constructive feedback. From
where I stand, the thread just went as it went. Trying to figure out who
was 'right' and who was 'wrong' is senseless, because right and wrong do
not exist. But hopefully we have all learned something from this thread.
I know I have.

Relevant Pages
Loading