What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

On 21/02/2019 00:31, Mike Easter wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
(For some reason) I'm reminded of the great exchange in Amadeus when
the emperor and Mozart had an exchange:

Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don't take it too hard. Your
work is ingenious. It's quality work. And there are simply too many
notes, that's all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

Or was it this one:

The emperor: ''Too beautiful for our ears, my dear Mozart, and monstrous
many notes.''

Mozart: ''Exactly as many as are necessary, Your Majesty.''

Both good! :-)

--
David B.
Devon, UK

On 21/02/2019 03.36, 123456789 wrote:
On 2/20/2019 5:29 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

those people that are posting to usenet through
Google Groups web service have to use a valid and identified Gmail (aka
Google) account, and thus they are using their correct and working email
address in the From header, so they are not anonymous.

Google Groupies can use a throwaway Google email address. (I won't use
the word 'fake' so that I won't upset the word usage cops here.) Google
throwaways are easy to get, I have several. And they're reasonably
anonymous for most uses.

What do you call "throwaway Google email address"? Does google say they
are throwaway? Or is it just a standard Google email address that you
only use, perhaps temporarily, for the purpose of posting to google groups?

I assume it is the later. In that case, they still are proper mail
addresses to which we can send mail directly. And given justified need,
like a court order, Google can identify the person.



Thus a proxy that uses Google Groups website is not an anonymizer.

I also use a throwaway Google address and fake name for logging into the
Usenet servers that require it. Then I use a different name and address
in the newsreader. So now you know my secret: My real name isn't
123456789...Â*

So do I, but neither of us is using google groups to post here.


It's probably not CIA proof but for Usenet it's reasonably anonymous.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:09:01 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Using a VPN as a method of concealing his own IP connectivity is one
strategy for solving his dilemma, but I don't think it is an ideal one.

Mike,

I'm addressing this to you because you have often been an adult.

I'm a man of action, so, I ask you a simple 3-word bull**** test:
o Name just one

I also ask that you stop incessantly assuming I beat my wife, Mike.
o Just stop with the nefarious bull****
o If the only way your argument works is that I'm a pedophile, Mike
o Then you have no argument, Mike.

*Please assume only one thing & one thing only: PRIVACY*

Think about that.
o All your arguments FAIL if I'm _not_ a pedophile, Mike.

You're no different than GoodGuy, Mike,
o Your argument & GoodGuy's are EXACTLY the same, Mike.

Just stop it with the nefarious bull****, Mike.
o Simply assume we all have a basic right to PRIVACY Mike.

And stop with the specific server bull****, Mike.
o Each and every server provides a _different_ problem set

But they're all the same, in the end, MIke.
o For reasons known to you only, you do NOT comprehend that.

The only on topic answer is a working PRIVACY based solution...
o Anything else is complete, total, and utter bull****, Mike.

And you know I don't handle bull**** well, Mike.
o It's all people like Jasen, Frank, Dan et al., _can_ do, Mike.

I can't make you comprehend the simplest of PRIVACY Mike.
o I can just give you the simplest of EXAMPLES, Mike.

Here is the simplest of the simplest of the simplest of tests:
1. Post using Netfront (like I am doing right now, Mike).
2. Tell me how to _change_ the resulting NNTP posting host to anything
3. The goal is to not be static, and not to be mine (it's simple, Mike)

That's the _simplest_ I can explain the problem set, Mike.
o If you can't solve _that_ problem, then you are spewing bull****.

Here's the NNTP Posting Host, Mike:
o 187.182.172.64 (bbb6ac40.virtua.com.br)
o Serviços de Comunicação S.A. (AS28573),
o NET Virtua, City: Guarulhos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
o https://www.whois.com/whois/187.182.172.64
etc.

HINT: I'd _love_ to use a proxy; if it worked as well as does VPN.
o Name just one

If there's a better way to arbitrarily change the posting host to any
of thousands of choices at any moment in time, then, Mike:
o *Name just one*

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:30:44 +0000 (UTC)
arlen holder wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:09:01 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Using a VPN as a method of concealing his own IP connectivity is
one strategy for solving his dilemma, but I don't think it is an
ideal one.

Mike,

I'm addressing this to you because you have often been an adult.

Adding, "PRIVACY," to the subject line does not constitute a new
thread.

In :
Message-ID:
you said, "I formally now leave this thread."

You've posted to this thread 6 (six) times since.

Liar.

You, "sir," are a being of no honor.

--
Cybe R. Wizard
My other computer is a HOLMES IV with the Mycroft OS

arlen holder wrote:
3. The goal is to not be static, and not to be mine

Notice that you did NOT include free or any privacy consideration
between you and the nntp admin. If you are 'fuzzy' in your
'requirements' then those who would answer are going to have a harder
time, because then the respondent has to say IF this THEN that but if
THAT then THIS.

But, just given that your above requirement can include exposing your
identity to the nntp provider but not exposing your connecting IP to the
usenet masses:

- don't use an nntp provider which displays the connecting IP in the
clear, like dotsrc/sunsite, netfront, or one which might not be hard to
decrypt like mixmin
- do use an nntp provider which creates a more complicated and
variable NPH content string. I know of eternal-september and individual
and there are likely more which DO require authentication or even payment
- if you open the door to nntp accounts which require authentication,
you have a lot more choices.

Then/And/But, if you also need to conceal your identity from the nntp
provider, which you have previously stated that you do NOT; you have to
devise a different strategy for that. You can assume that they ALL keep
logs.

--
Mike Easter

HINT: I'd _love_ to use a proxy; if it worked as well as does VPN.

proxychains + telnet + newsfront.net

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 07:52:37 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

Notice that you did NOT include free or any privacy consideration
between you and the nntp admin.

Hi Mike,

Thank you for being an adult in your response.
o In this thread, I will _try_ to only respond to adult posts.

Also, I will _always_ focus on a BETTER solution Mike
o I WANT a better solution than VPN Mike

But if every proposal is utterly WORSE than the current VPN solution, Mike
o Then that PROXY proposal is not viable Mike, would you agree?

My use model is EXTREMELY SIMPLE Mike
o It's not ME who is confused Mike.

This is the _simplest_ WORKING example I can provide to you Mike:
o My NNTP Posting host, Mike, is 78.228.100.3
o That hails from France, Mike, Le Landreau is the city
o The region is Loire-Atlantique, & the ISP is Free SAS

This is the SIMPLEST working example I can give you Mike.
o I'm clearly choosing my IP address using VPN as a "glorified proxy"
o Simply tell me how to make THIS EXACT EXAMPLE work, with a proxy

Mike: Anything else is bull****, Mike.
o My whole point is that I don't want non-working bull****, Mike.

You can tell me to _change_ my NNTP server, Mike
o But that's bull****, Mike.

The solution ALREADY works with ANY NNTP server, Mike.
o If your answer _only_ works with _some_ servers, Mike,
o Then it's a bull**** answer, Mike.

Remember, I'd LOVE to have a "proxy-based" solution Mike
o I never once said I wasn't using VPN as a "glorified proxy", Mike.

But your proxy solution has to work at least as well, Mike
o Otherwise, it's utter, complete, and total bull****, Mike.

And you know how much I hate bull**** Mike.
o I'm a man of working solutions, Mike; not bull****.

I am of reasonable intelligence (if that), and yet, I can't comprehend why
you're so extremely and incessantly hung up on the relatively minor
connection between me and the NNTP server, Mike.

Let me give you a SIMPLE answer, Mike:
o I have a neighbor who snoops on me (hypothetically speaking)
o There are people in town who snoop on everyone (hypothetical).
o I need to go to the MD at the hospital to get my AIDS test results.

Do I really want the whole world to know I went to the AIDS doctor, Mike?
o That is the important PRIVACY issue.
o That is equivalent to the NNTP posting host (which is PUBLIC, Mike).

And yet, do I want the whole town to know I went to the AIDS hospital?
o That is equivalent to the NNTP server Mike

More so, do I really want my neighbor to know I went to the AIDS hospital?
o That is the equivalent of my ISP, Mike.

I hope you comprehend this extremely simple PRIVACY argument Mike.
o I constantly have to DEFEND my basic right ot PRIVACY with you Mike

Defending the basic right to privacy, Mike, would be _fine_ if you actually
UNDERSTOOD that privacy is a _chain of events_ Mike.

It's extremely sad that I have to explain PRIVACY BASICS Mike:
1. Privacy is a chain, where the most important part is the PUBLIC part
2. The rest of the chain still matters - just not as much, Mike.

If you are 'fuzzy' in your
'requirements' then those who would answer are going to have a harder
time, because then the respondent has to say IF this THEN that but if
THAT then THIS.

Holy **** Mike,
What you just said is exactly what Jasen, Dan, Frank, say.
o Do you realize it's not ME who is confused Mike?

I realize I hurt your feelings Mike by claiming you spew bull****, Mike.
o I apologize if I hurt your feelings Mike

But you're STILL spewing bull****, Mike.
o It's not ME who is confused Mike; it's you.

Why are you so extremely confused Mike?
o I already said a MILLION TIMES Mike, that it's so SIMPLE.
HINT: Let Cybe(r) Wizard count them.

Let me say it again, Mike:
o The IP address that is PUBLIC is what matters most Mike.
o It's a secondary consideration to have privacy at the NNTP server, Mike.
o It's a tertiary consideration ot have privacy at the ISP, Mike.

Mike, let me ask you a simple, basic, extremely easy question, Mike
o I ask this question because I seek a better solution, Mike.

Trust me, Mike, I don't make **** up, Mike.
o My credibility is stellar Mike - because I seek WORKING SOLUTIONS, Mike.

Do you have a suggested solution to _change_ the NNTP posting host?
o I can't provide a _simpler_ test case than I'm doing right now, Mike.

If you can't comprehend the _simplest_ test case, Mike...
o Then how are you going to comprehend slightly harder cases, Mike?

*I'm giving you the _simplest_ test case, Mike!*

Look at my header in _this_ post, Mike:
o The NNTP Posting host will be "78.228.100.3" from Le Landreau, France.

If you have a solution to change _that_ exact NNTP posting host
o Name just one

HINT: This is only the _simplest_ example, Mike.
o Any solution has to work with _every_ nntp server, Mike.

If a solution only works with _some_ NNTP servers, Mike
o Then that solution is utter, complete, and total bull****, Mike.

But, just given that your above requirement can include exposing your
identity to the nntp provider but not exposing your connecting IP to the
usenet masses:

Mike,
It's not ME who is confused, Mike.
o It's you.

I explained the AIDS DOCTOR example Mike:

Privacy is a chain, Mike:
o The most important piece is the PUBLIC piece
(Do I want the whole world to know I have AIDS, Mike.)
o Far less important is the SERVER piece
(Do I want the entire town to know I have AIDS, Mike.)
o Less important is the ISP piece
(Do I want my neighbor to know I have AIDS, Mike.)

Why can't you comprehend something _that_ simple, Mike?

PRIVACY is a chain, working backword in priority:
1. The public NNTP posting host header is the MOST important
2. The nntp server itself is a distant second in importance
3. The local ISP is an even further distant third in importance

Mike - this is so freaking basic that for me to have to explain the most
basic of the most basic of the most basic of the simplest of the most basic
tenets of IP privacy, is disconcerting, Mike.

Usenet is NOT the medium for me to teach you PRIVACY basics.
o You're supposed to KNOW this stuff Mike.

Every adult is supposed to know this stuff, Mike.

- don't use an nntp provider which displays the connecting IP in the
clear, like dotsrc/sunsite, netfront, or one which might not be hard to
decrypt like mixmin

Mike,

Stop spewing bull****, Mike.
o Just stop it.

You think I don't _know_ the "obfuscation" of _every_ server I use?
o Do you really think I'm _that_ stupid, Mike?

It's not me who is confused Mike.
o The obfuscation of the NNTP server is NOT the issue Mike.

Remember, you're the one "proposing" a solution to the problem.
o If your solution only works if the NNTP provider wants it to work
o Then your solution DOES NOT WORK Mike.

Grow up.
o Either you propose a solution, or you agree you don't have one.

But to propose a solution that you _think_ works, which fails the simplest
of the simplest of the simplest of simple tests, Mike, is spewing bull****.

- do use an nntp provider which creates a more complicated and
variable NPH content string. I know of eternal-september and individual
and there are likely more which DO require authentication or even payment
- if you open the door to nntp accounts which require authentication,
you have a lot more choices.

See above, Mike.

If you have a solution, then:
o Name just one

If you don't have a solution, then stop spewing this bull**** Mike.
o It's YOU who is confused, Mike. Not me.

Let me give you an example, although examples only go so far.

What you're telling me is akin to saying NOT to use the highway when I go
to the AIDS doctor because the highway that is free happens to have cameras
which can record my license plate of my car in the clear.

Oh, and, don't use the main street in town either, because the police man
who controls the main street intersection happens to be nosy, where he's
going to notice that I was heading to the hospital by the second best route
if I don't use the highway.

Mike,
If the only way your solution can work is to reduce the functionality that
I ALREADY have (i.e., I can use _any_ NNTP server I want to, MIke),
then you are simply spewing bull****, Mike.

Mike,
I expect you to act like and be an adult.

Do you comprehend my argument that, privacy is a chain, Mike?
Do you comprehend that the PUBLIC link is the MOST important, Mike?
Yet, do you comprehend that ALL the links are important, Mike?

OK. Assuming you were an adult in answering that, now let's move to your
proposed solution, Mike.

What you just proposed is that I go out at night, and I don't use my car,
and that I don't use the highway, nor the main street, and THEN (and only
then) do I get the PRIVACY that I already have with VPN.

Do you realize Mike that you're spewing utter & total bull**** Mike?

Remember, I ALREADY have a perfectly working solution, Mike:
o VPN works just fine as a "glorified proxy", Mike.

It's YOU who is claiming that I should use, instead, a proxy, Mike.
o And I'm PERFECTLY HAPPY to use a proxy, Mike.

But _this_ is the simple 3-word test for bull****, Mike.

I'd _love_ to test out your suggestion to use a proxy instead, Mike:
o *Name just one.*

Then/And/But, if you also need to conceal your identity from the nntp
provider, which you have previously stated that you do NOT; you have to
devise a different strategy for that. You can assume that they ALL keep
logs.

Mike,
I'm not afraid of logs, Mike, so stop with that right there.
o I'm NOT bearing my wife, Mike.
o I'm NOT porking little boys, Mike.

I just want something so freaking simple that you can't comprehend it.
o I simply want PRIVACY (specifically NNTP posting host privacy, Mike).

Again, _this_ is the _simplest_ WORKING example I can provide to you Mike.
1. LOOK at my NNTP posting host in the header Mike.
2. With VPN, I can _change_ that NNTP posting host to any of thousands, Mike.
3. How do I do _this_ test, using YOUR suggested "proxy" solution, Mike?

Rest assured Mike, I am of at least average intelligence (if that).
o I went to the finest schools in this country Mike - and I handled it.
o I worked for decades & retired early in Silicon Valley, Mike.

Rest assured, I've worked with truly intelligent people, Mike.
o There's _nothing_ you can post that I can't understand, Mike.

But you have to post an actual WORKING solution Mike.
o Everything else is simply utter and total complete bull****, Mike.

In summary, I'm for WORKING solutions & I'm against total bull****.
o I already have a working solution that uses VPN, Mike.

This whole thread has one and only one goal, Mike.
o If a proxy solution is better than VPN, I'd use it Mike.

You keep advocating a PROXY Mike - which I'd be _happy_ to test, Mike:
o *Name just one*

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

In alt.os.linux owl wrote:
HINT: I'd _love_ to use a proxy; if it worked as well as does VPN.

proxychains + telnet + newsfront.net

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

https://imgur.com/fA0VEd9

arlen holder wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:

Notice that you did NOT include free or any privacy consideration
between you and the nntp admin.

Hi Mike,


You type too much and say too little which is useful for a discussion of
the issues.

I have no suggestions for how you should address that affliction of
yours, except that the first step is to own it - recognize that you DO it.

The other problem with your messages is that they tend to be rude or
offensive toward your discussant.

Both of the above behaviors would tend to cause those who would
potentially contribute to your conversations to kf or ignore what you
post or threads which you participate.


--
Mike Easter

In alt.os.linux arlen holder wrote:

In summary, I'm for WORKING solutions & I'm against total bull****.
o I already have a working solution that uses VPN, Mike.


Then use a VPN. WTF?

This whole thread has one and only one goal, Mike.
o If a proxy solution is better than VPN, I'd use it Mike.

You keep advocating a PROXY Mike - which I'd be _happy_ to test, Mike:
o *Name just one*


You've been given instructions on how to test with socks4 proxies.
Apparently, you are *not* happy to test.

The following post was sent through netfront using proxychains
and a sock4 proxy:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!or...E/UtRHesafBQAJ

This image shows that connection:
https://imgur.com/fA0VEd9

On 2/21/2019 4:17 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 21/02/2019 03.36, 123456789 wrote:

What do you call "throwaway Google email address"?

"Throwaway" email addresses are an old Internet term that means pretty
much what it says. They're disposable. I use them to hide my identity
from places that I want to visit and require a log in. If one starts
getting too much garbage the address is disposable.

Does google say they are throwaway?

No. But it's not exactly a well kept secret either...

Or is it just a standard Google email address that you only use,
perhaps temporarily, for the purpose of posting to google groups?

Yup. That's how one can remain REASONABLY anonymous on Google Groups.

they still are proper mail addresses to which we can send mail
directly.

True. And if you don't want to see the email you just program Gmail to
delete all incoming. The result (for you) is the same as a fake email
address on a newsreader.

And given justified need, like a court order, Google can identify the
person.

Probably depends on how the person acquired the throwaway. Google would
have to give the fake name to the court but finding the real person from
there? My email subterfuge would likely be easy to uncover but I'm sure
others here could do a more thorough job...

I also use a throwaway Google address and fake name for logging
into the Usenet servers that require it.

So do I, but neither of us is using google groups to post here.

Perhaps not here, but Google Groups has lots more than just Usenet...

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 16:52:19 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

proxychains + telnet + newsfront.net

Hi owl,

[This post was written ad hoc, as I "figured" out what you are suggesting.]
o NNTP POSTING HOST = 95.15.11.80
o LOCATION = Sanliurfa, Turkey
o ISP = Turk Telekom

I admit, up front, that I stopped reading that _other_ thread, simply
because the trolls took it over (as you're aware) and, even worse, few
adults existed who said anything past the opening post that wasn't
unworkable bull****.

All I ask for is what I always ask for, which is a "working solution".
o The more general purpose and generic, the better

Since I _already_ have a working solution, it simply has to work better
o I openly admit I'm using VPN mostly as a "glorified proxy"

If you propose a "proxy" solution, then I'm willing to comprehend it.
o I don't understand it yet ... so allow me to ask clarifying questions please

My first questions for you are is simple, since I see you used Netfront:

Q: Did you use this proposed solution to make your post I'm responding to?

Q: What is the relationship of "netfront" to "newsfront.net" in your post?

NOTE: I don't see "newsfront" yet in the basic server lists, which, as you
know, abound on the net, where I only point to one by way of simple
example: http://freenewsserver.site666.com

Note: http://newsfront.net & http://newsfront.com don't really do anything.
Note: A series of test ports times out, e.g.,
telnet newsfront.net 119

Q: Given those failures, what is the significance, in your response, of:
"newsfront.net"

HINT: Did you mean:
Proxychains plus the command "telnet any_nntp_server 119" ?

If so, then all I need to learn about are these "proxychains" you speak of.

Before I openly admit I don't (yet) know what a "proxychain" means to you,
I will first assert that if the solution proposed ONLY works with a web
browser, then it's _useless_ for our purposes. Are you OK with that
assertion?

And, the solution must work on _all_ platforms, since the VPN solution
_easily_ works on all platforms, and, where, you must note, the VPN
solution working on all platforms is what STARTED Mike off on saying to use
a proxy instead of VPN.

I repeat, we _all_ know that proxies abound for "web" use.
o We are ONLY talking about NNTP traffic in this thread. Deal?

I repeat, we _only_ want solutions that work for _all_ platforms.
o We do not want a Linux-only solution, for example.

With that in mind, I admit, openly, and as an adult, that I'm currently
almost completely "ignorant" of proxychains, but that I do see "potential"
in the inherent concept based on the two words "proxy + chain", and based
on the fact that you seem to comprehend that NNTP traffic is what we're
talking about (not "web" traffic).

Googling to see how proxychains would work with NNTP headers...

CAVEATS:
A. Any solution must work native on _all_ platforms (or it's not a solution).
[And no, a virtual machine is not the same thing as native.]
B. Any (e.g., HTTP) solution that doesn't work with NNTP is not a solution
C. I'm completely aware that "telnet" works on all platforms.

NOTES:
a. The current solution works on _all_ platforms (that's what started this!)
b. The current solution works with _all_ NNTP servers (not just some)
c. The current solution works with _any_ Usnet client (even with "telnet")

Any proposed solution _must_ be _better_ than the current solution.
o Otherwise, the proposed solution doesn't solve the proposed problem set

Googling to see how proxychains would work with NNTP headers...

This is the first hit that I skimmed...
o Tutorial] Run Most Application Through a Proxy (Windows/Linux) Most Browsers and OldSchool Clients!
https://tribot.org/forums/topic/62769-tutorial-run-most-application-through-a-proxy-windowslinux-most-browsers-and-oldschool-clients/
a. That suggests "widecap" (http://widecap.ru/en/download/)
b. WideCap apparently uses SOCKS v5 
c. In the end, it seems you execute: "proxychains usenetreader.exe"

This second hit goes a little deeper, but isn't Windows specific:
o How To Setup Proxychains With Tor In Kali Linux
https://www.sunnyhoi.com/how-to-setup-proxychains-with-tor-in-kali-linux/
a. Proxychains uses many proxy servers to conceal your true IP address.
b. Propels TCP connections through SOCKS5 proxy servers
c. Uses proxies found, essentially, randomly, from various lists
Example: https://www.free-proxy-list.net
NOTE: The article text shows that you can comment out the TOR step.

This third hit
o A brief introduction to ProxyChains
https://0x00sec.org/t/a-brief-introduction-to-proxychains/418
a. ProxyChains send through multiple SOCKS proxy servers.
b. They provide this list of SOCKS proxies https://www.socks-proxy.net
c. This article is Linux-specific using "sudo apt-get install proxychains"
NOTE: I love Linux - but every solution has to _also_ work with Windows.

This fourth hit is also linux specific (nothing wrong with that, but any
solution has to also work on all platforms if it calls itself a solution):
o ProxyChains Tutorial
https://linuxhint.com/proxychains-tutorial/
a. Again, they advocate the Linux "proxychains" command set
b. Which work with SOCKS5 servers & handle any TCP client application
c. Telnet is a tcp client app (but it's a bitch to telnet manually to nntp)

Finally, the quoted line makes perfect sense to me (belatedly):
proxychains + telnet + freenews.netfront.net 119

Given that one-line sugestion, here's a hypothetical testcase:
(Note: You can pick any free NNTP server https://www.freeusenetnews.com)

C:\proxychains telnet nntp.freeserver.com 119
connecting to nntp.freeserver.com 119
200 to nntp.freeserver.org
- help
- list
- group alt.test
211 2416 309329 329951 alt.test
- post
340 Ok, recommended ID
- From:
- Newsgroups: alt.test
- Subject: test
-
- Test
- .
240 article posted ok
- check
- article
- next
223 3313270 xxxxx.0.0.1 article retreived - request text separately
- body
- quit
205 closing connection - goodbye!
Connection to host lost.

It seems that proxychains will work, as long as proxychains works on all
platforms, which, let's name them, are always the same common consumer
platforms, always in the same order, as shown below:
o Windows + Linux + Android + Mac + iOS

Proxychains clearly works on Linux:
http://proxychains.sourceforge.net

Without having to resort to virtual machines (which isn't the point here),
the question is how to get proxychains to work on the other common
platforms.

NOTE: The current solution works on _all_ platforms.
o In fact, _that_ fact is what _started_ this mess (mostly from Mike).

Here's the starting point of this thread, from a few days ago:
o How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc

In summary, here's my take on "proxychains" based _only_ on what I gleaned
by about a minute or two of skimming of each of the articles above:

(Preliminary assessment of) Proxychains:
1. The 'idea' of daisychaining proxies is sound, and easily agree on
2. Hence, it's a "nice" solution if you severely limit the platforms
2. There's no overt indication (yet) it works on the other platforms yet.

The question that arises is very simple, & very (very) very obvious:
o Does it?

--
NOTE: I don't really use a usenetreader, per se, it's just a bunch of
scripts, mostly written by Marek Novotny, where my "reader" is essentially
"vi" and my send mechanism is, essentially, "telnet".

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:06:26 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

https://imgur.com/fA0VEd9

Hi owl,

This post was posted as...
o NNTP POSTING HOST = 41.141.82.247
o LOCATION = Casablanca, Morocco
o ISP = Maroc Telecom

1. First off, thank you for being an adult in your responses (no bull****).
2. Second, thanks for proposing a "workable" solution for NNTP servers.
3. Third, thanks for _testing_ that workable solution (with proof!)

Here's what you proved, which I completely accept as proof of concept.
anon@lowtide:~$ grep ^socks4 proxychains.conf
socks4 182.75.139.222 4153
anon@lowtide:~$ proxychains telnet freenews.netfront.net 119
ProxyChains-3.1 (http://proxychains.sf.net)
|DNS-response|: lowtide does not exist
|DNS-request| freenews.netfront.net
|S-chain|--182.175.139.222:4153---4.2.2.2.:53--OK
Connected to freenews.netfront.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
200 news.netfront.net Inter netNews NNRP server INN 2.54.6 (20090602 snapshot) ready (posting ok).
post
340 Ok, recommened ID
From: owl
Subject: PRIVACY What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free
Usenet posts?
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux,comp.sys.mac.apps,alt.comp.os.windows-10
References:

HINT: I'd _love_ to use a proxy; if it worked as well as does VPN.

proxychains + telnet + newsfront.net

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:32:08 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

You've been given instructions on how to test with socks4 proxies.
Apparently, you are *not* happy to test.

o NNTP POSTING HOST = 217.11.166.168
o LOCATION = Tbilisi, Georgia, K'alak'i T'bilisi region
o ISP = Caucasus digital network

Hi owl,

I am an adult.
o Hence, I comprehend and accept facts extremely quickly.

Adults are funny that way.
o Facts are funny that way.

*I agree your test easily showed this nice proxychains concept works.*
o We do _not_ disagree on that fact owl (adults are funny that way)

In fact, I already posted that I completely accept the fact that this nice
proxychain idea is a "very good idea" which almost certainly "definitely
does work" for "nntp traffic" (on certain platforms).

Let me be very clear, owl, since I am an adult.
o I comprehend _instantly_ what your nice test example proved.

Let me state that I very much _appreciate_ that you didn't bull****, owl.
o That's important - since everyone else is spewing total bull****, owl.

Clearly the _concept_ is a _great_ idea, owl.
o The devil will be in the details of a working solution on all platforms

--
NOTE: What _started_ this quest, was this tutorial for iOS & Android :
o How to get up & running on a free public vpn service in minutes on Android or iOS
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/oOVRwpukuCE

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 09:12:10 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

You type too much and say too little which is useful for a discussion of
the issues.

o NNTP POSTING HOST = 200.127.230.78
o LOCATION = Posadas, Misiones, Argentina
o ISP = Cablevision Argentina
o PROTOCOL: TCP & NNTP

Mike,

Adults have no problem instantly comprehending facts, Mike.
o Facts are funny that way, and,
o Adults are funny that way.

If you have a workable solution, like "owl" proposed, I'll comprehend it.
o Instantly.

If you don't have a solution, Mike, & yet, if you constantly _insist_ you do ...
o Then ... guess what Mike? ... It will take a forever amount of posts.

Think about that obvious fact, Mike.
o HINT: It's _you_ who turned a five-post thread into five hundred posts.
(And you _still_ haven't passed the simple 3-word bull**** test.)

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---