From: nobody@cypherpunks.ca (John Anonymous MacDonald)
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 13:41:10 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: www.anonymizer.com
In-Reply-To: <199608302014.WAA08916@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <199608310328.UAA19396@abraham.cs.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> 
> 
> At 06:12 AM 8/30/96 -1000, NetSurfer wrote:
> >
> >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.
> 
> 
>    Am I missing something here because isn't the easiest way around all 
> of this is simply not to enter your personal info when setting up Netscape?  
> Granted the page can pick up your ISP and what port you used, but so what?  
> It can't get your name and email address.  Use a newsreader such as Free 
> Agent so there's no reason to enter your personal info.  If there is a reason 
> to respond to someone who's email is in on a particular page, then copy it 
> and paste to your emailer...

Please hit your carriage return once in a while. I had to format your post
manually so I could read it.

If the destination server can pick the port you used, there's a good chance
they can figure out your account name, and therefore your email address.
Many sites these days run identd, which in my opinion is a simply annoying
daemon. Most of those that run it run it because some of their users, most
of whom couldn't find two brain cells to rub together, whine about their
precious IRC servers not allowing them on without it, instead of simply
using IRC servers that will.