From: NetSurfer <netsurf@pixi.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 48f111bff054045aab2d1cdceb57da68c4cf0863ad01ff80c9904b15da2156c6
Message ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960830060820.3076F-100000@netsurfer>
Reply To: <199608292255.PAA08976@netcom7.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-08-30 19:08:17 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 03:08:17 +0800
From: NetSurfer <netsurf@pixi.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 03:08:17 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: www.anonymizer.com
In-Reply-To: <199608292255.PAA08976@netcom7.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960830060820.3076F-100000@netsurfer>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I have found and reported to the anonymizer that it does not
always protect you against perl-based cgi scripts. I did this by
accessing a form-based email page (based on Matt's script) which includes
environment variable values in the msg to the recipient. I didn't
receive any response back from them after I emailed them the info.
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
> www.anonymizer.com got a nice plug in David Plotnikoff's column in today's
> San Jose Mercury News. He quotes Community ConneXion's motto, "Because on
> today's Internet, people do know you're a dog." He also mentions its
> similarity to anonymous remailers. His capsule review:
>
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_ __ __ _____ ____
/ | / /__ / /_/ ___/__ _______/ __/__ _____
/ |/ / _ \/ __/\__ \/ / / / ___/ /_/ _ \/ ___/
/ /| / __/ /_ ___/ / /_/ / / / __/ __/ /
================/_/=|_/\___/\__//____/\__,_/_/==/_/==\___/_/===============
Return to August 1996
Return to “NetSurfer <netsurf@pixi.com>”