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

On 18/02/2019 16.17, arlen holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:13:40 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

For hiding the IP the only recourse I'd see is some sort of VPN

Hi Carlos,
To clarify...

All I'm asking is for a free proxy that I can connect to first.
o And then I can connect to a free nntp server second.

I believe those are two completely separate actions, are they not?

I do that today, using VPN as a "glorified proxy".
o My intent is simply to change the NNTP posting host to an arbitrary IP.

All this thread asks is whether a "proxy" exists that works like this:
1. Connect to the proxy (to obtain an arbitary IP address)
2. Pull down Usenet messages (& disconnect from that proxy perhaps)
3. Respond to the Usenet messages offline (which is what I do today)
4. Reconnect to the proxy to SEND those messages.

I do that today using VPN.
o I don't need the encryption of VPN
o I just need the random IP address of VPN

Then keep using VPN.

AFAIK the word "proxy" is used for "web proxy" only, and in that
protocol you don't write and send things.

Consider mail. There is no such thing as an anonymizer mail proxy, the
headers always trace to you. There are anonymizer mail servers.
Different thing.

Consider mail spammers. They can create fake delivery headers, but the
moment the mail hits a good server the headers are true and point back
to the true injection node.


Well, it is the same with nntp.

You can only use something that changes the IP of your machine or a
service/application on that machine. That is a full VPN or a tunnel.


Mike had posted an article that advised using a proxy instead of a VPN.
o I have _nothing_ against that advice.

Maybe he meant a web proxy for posting on usenet via web server.


Does that proxy exist?
o That is the question.

I'm always seeking a better general purpose solution, Carlos.
o Hence I ask this extremely simple question (which may have no answer).

Q: *Is there a free proxy that will work with the free Usenet servers?*

Paul already explained why not.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 18/02/2019 16.17, arlen holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:49:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

There is an nntp proxy, I use one - but it sits in my very own computer.
It is called leafnode - seek it up in the wikipedia. It is not used for
anonymity: its original creation purpose was for use with dial up modems.

All I want, Carlos, is what I get with VPN, Carlos, but where I _accept_
that I'm using VPN as a "glorified proxy".

I just want to change my IP address at will, Carlos.
o Does this "leafnode" allow many different free IP address proxying?

Of course not.


Let me look it up.
http://leafnode.org/doc_en/leafnode.8.html

It's an NNTP server.
o Offhand, I don't think that will work, but let's delve deeper to see...

Actually, it is an nntp proxy server, but not what you think a proxy is.


Maybe there is a clever way to use "leafnode" to change the IP address?

No.


A user would connect the modem and fire up the "fetch news cycle":
leafnode collects all new messages on the groups it follows (not all
groups). Then the modem would disconnect. The user or users would read
the posts, write answers using any normal nntp client software, which
for all purposes would think they were connected to a normal nntp server
on Internet. Finally, the machine would fire up the modem and send all
pending nntp posts in a few seconds of connection.

Hi Carlos,
I'm _only_ about _actionable_ solutions (i.e., real solutions).

Only after you really state the problem that you want to solve. When
that is known then we can offer solutions.

o And, in general, I'm about _general_ purpose solutions.
(That is, solutions that work for everyone; not just for me.)

I like this leafnode idea, which I am unfamiliar with ... at the moment.

This "leafnode" might actually be useful - in a "modem" sort of way.
o Replace the word "modem" with "vpn" to get the idea...

I guess "one way" leafnode would work would be that we do this:
1. We connect to free public VPN of our choice
(a proxy would be better - but it has to exist!)
2. We use leafnode to connect to a free public nntp server of our choice
(we use leafnode to pull down all the traffic & disconnect from VPN)
3. We then use leafnode again to connect to the free public VPN.
(and we send all the articles that we composed offline)

The headers still trace you fully.

....

Uff, the rest of your post is way to long for my patience. Skipping.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:44:10 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/02/2019 16.17, arlen holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:49:42 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

There is an nntp proxy, I use one - but it sits in my very own computer.
It is called leafnode - seek it up in the wikipedia. It is not used for
anonymity: its original creation purpose was for use with dial up modems.

All I want, Carlos, is what I get with VPN, Carlos, but where I _accept_
that I'm using VPN as a "glorified proxy".

I just want to change my IP address at will, Carlos.
o Does this "leafnode" allow many different free IP address proxying?

Of course not.


Let me look it up.
http://leafnode.org/doc_en/leafnode.8.html

It's an NNTP server.
o Offhand, I don't think that will work, but let's delve deeper to see...

Actually, it is an nntp proxy server, but not what you think a proxy is.


Maybe there is a clever way to use "leafnode" to change the IP address?

No.


A user would connect the modem and fire up the "fetch news cycle":
leafnode collects all new messages on the groups it follows (not all
groups). Then the modem would disconnect. The user or users would read
the posts, write answers using any normal nntp client software, which
for all purposes would think they were connected to a normal nntp server
on Internet. Finally, the machine would fire up the modem and send all
pending nntp posts in a few seconds of connection.

Hi Carlos,
I'm _only_ about _actionable_ solutions (i.e., real solutions).

Only after you really state the problem that you want to solve. When
that is known then we can offer solutions.



Why do you want to help a troll? You should killfile him, not offer
him solutions.

arlen holder wrote:

Q: Does a free proxy even exist to post using free nntp news servers?

You could for example use a SOCKS proxy, but why would you want to do
that? Can't you connect directly to that free NNTP news server?

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 18/02/2019 16.17, arlen holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:13:40 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

For hiding the IP the only recourse I'd see is some sort of VPN

Hi Carlos,
To clarify...

All I'm asking is for a free proxy that I can connect to first.
o And then I can connect to a free nntp server second.

I believe those are two completely separate actions, are they not?

I do that today, using VPN as a "glorified proxy".
o My intent is simply to change the NNTP posting host to an arbitrary IP.

All this thread asks is whether a "proxy" exists that works like this:
1. Connect to the proxy (to obtain an arbitary IP address)
2. Pull down Usenet messages (& disconnect from that proxy perhaps)
3. Respond to the Usenet messages offline (which is what I do today)
4. Reconnect to the proxy to SEND those messages.

I do that today using VPN.
o I don't need the encryption of VPN
o I just need the random IP address of VPN

Then keep using VPN.

AFAIK the word "proxy" is used for "web proxy" only, and in that
protocol you don't write and send things.

A proxy can be used for all kinds of services/protocols, including
NNTP. But an NNTP proxy isn't what arlen thinks it is. It is what you
described, i.e. things like Leafnode, Hamster, but also general NNTP
caching servers, etc..

If arlen would Google 'NNTP proxy', he would see what it is and isn't.

For some general information about the different kinds of proxies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_server

Consider mail. There is no such thing as an anonymizer mail proxy, the
headers always trace to you. There are anonymizer mail servers.
Different thing.

Consider mail spammers. They can create fake delivery headers, but the
moment the mail hits a good server the headers are true and point back
to the true injection node.

Well, it is the same with nntp.

You can only use something that changes the IP of your machine or a
service/application on that machine. That is a full VPN or a tunnel.

Exactly. What he wants is an anonymizer, which anonymizes his IP
address.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymizer

Finding a trustworthy VPN service is probably easier - FSVSVO 'easy' -
than finding a trustworthy IP-anonymizer service (if such an animal
exists at all).

[...]

On 2019-02-18, Ken Blake wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:15:26 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 02/18/2019 11:01 AM, wrote:

On 18-Feb-2019, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

Worse, here is my RESPONSE to MIke's privacy rant:
A. Mike essentially makes the claim that I have to DEFEND my right to
privacy.
B. I respond, strongly, with cites, that this is a common ignorant
statement.
C. When I ask Mike to provide cites backing up his ignorant claim, he
can't.



Let's state the super obvious things he
1. Nobody has to defend their right to privacy.
2. If you (Paul or Mike) want to claim otherwise, then back it up with
cites.
3. Rest assured, I already provided Mike with cites proving my point of
view.


What the hell are cites?

References.


Thanks, I was mistaking it for sites.


As far as I'm concerned, you are right, and the original post with the
word "cites" is wrong. "Cite" is a verb, not a noun. The noun is
"citation."

I'm sure I'm going to get arguments about this, telling me I'm an old
fuddy-duddy and I'm behind the times. So I'll repeat my first five
words in the paragraph above: "as far as I'm concerned."

English has the ability of making verbs into nouns. The Vancouver Sun
Run. Run is a verb, but in that context it is a nounified verb, ie a
noun. This happens, and has happened for hundreds of years, in English.

On the other hand, confusing sites and cites is like confusing any other
two homophones. to,two,too.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:30:21 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

I don't believe that article even /considered/ VPN for nntp access.

Hi Mike,

I mirror your intent, as always...

Thank you for showing that you comprehended the problem set.
o I'm a man FACT + LOGIC = ACTION

I also am blunt.
o You never have to worry about what I'm thinking about what you say, Mike.

I don't have social skills to play games or be coy or insincere, Mike.
o I simply tell you exactly what I think about what you write.

Fact is, if a proxy existed - I'd use it.
o But it doesn't appear to exist (at least not yet).

I wish it did exist.
o But if it doesn't exit, then recommencing it is total ignorant bull****.

LOGIC:
If the purpose of using VPN is to change the IP address for nntp traffic...
o Then a "proxy" should work.

But, if a proxy doesn't exist that works on nntp traffic...
o Then we're back to using VPN to change the IP address.

Proxies do certainly work for _other_ things...for example:
o For browsers, "proxy-based-browsers" exist.
a. TBB
b. Epic
c. Opera

Even if a user didn't want to use _those_ three browsers (only two of which
work on Linux), they still have _plenty_ of proxies to choose from for
web-based traffic.

That is, if a user wanted to use, oh, say, IE or Edge or Firefox, we _all_
know that free web-based proxies exist in the, oh, I don't know, in the
thousands (although once I mention any "number", then the numbertrolls
like Rene and Dan and especially Cybe(r) perk up like a cat pouncing on
a laser beam) since all they _can_ do is troll.

But for NNTP traffic, which is _why_ I use VPN, saying to use a proxy
is worthless unless a proxy exists.

If that proxy existed - and if it was free and easy to set up, and
otherwise not unreliable ... I'd use it Mike.

But it has to exist first.
o Does it?

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:22:15 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

The suggestion to use a proxy instead of VPN is _nearly_ worthless Mike.
o It's nearly worthless because VPN browsers exist, Mike.
o It's nearly worthless because proxies are essentially only web based.

Quick correction, since the utterly worthless semantic trolls like Dan
Purgert exist in spades, on this ng... (people like Dan Purgert know they
add no value so they pounce on typos & thinkos like a cat pouncing on a toy
moving mouse as if they found something "meaningful" to say).

I meant "proxy" browsers (not "VPN browsers").

HINT: Opera "says" it's a VPN browser but it's really a proxy.

On 18/02/2019 23.22, arlen holder wrote:
On 18 Feb 2019 21:38:18 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

If arlen would Google 'NNTP proxy', he would see what it is and isn't.

Hi Frank,

The question is so freaking simple that I have to ask you if YOU understand
the question.

Let me copy the subject line for you Frank...first:
Q: What's a free proxy for the specific purpose of free Usenet posts?

They're TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, Frank.
1. Proxy.
2. Usenet.

What makes YOU think they're one thing, Frank?

We have already answered, but you don't like it and accuse people of
being trolls or whatever.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 18/02/2019 23.22, arlen holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:30:21 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

I don't believe that article even /considered/ VPN for nntp access.

Hi Mike,

I mirror your intent, as always...

Thank you for showing that you comprehended the problem set.
o I'm a man FACT + LOGIC = ACTION

I also am blunt.
o You never have to worry about what I'm thinking about what you say, Mike.

I don't have social skills to play games or be coy or insincere, Mike.
o I simply tell you exactly what I think about what you write.

Fact is, if a proxy existed - I'd use it.
o But it doesn't appear to exist (at least not yet).

I wish it did exist.
o But if it doesn't exit, then recommencing it is total ignorant bull****.

LOGIC:
If the purpose of using VPN is to change the IP address for nntp traffic...
o Then a "proxy" should work.

But, if a proxy doesn't exist that works on nntp traffic...
o Then we're back to using VPN to change the IP address.

Proxies do certainly work for _other_ things...for example:
o For browsers, "proxy-based-browsers" exist.
a. TBB
b. Epic
c. Opera

Even if a user didn't want to use _those_ three browsers (only two of which
work on Linux), they still have _plenty_ of proxies to choose from for
web-based traffic.

That is, if a user wanted to use, oh, say, IE or Edge or Firefox, we _all_
know that free web-based proxies exist in the, oh, I don't know, in the
thousands (although once I mention any "number", then the numbertrolls
like Rene and Dan and especially Cybe(r) perk up like a cat pouncing on
a laser beam) since all they _can_ do is troll.

But for NNTP traffic, which is _why_ I use VPN, saying to use a proxy
is worthless unless a proxy exists.

If that proxy existed - and if it was free and easy to set up, and
otherwise not unreliable ... I'd use it Mike.

But it has to exist first.
o Does it?

Already answered: *NO*.

Even mo it can not be done.

Why? It has already been explained by people you dismiss.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:13:49 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

That (Mike advised) s not correct. That is how YOU interpreted part of
an article advising caution on VPN usage which I linked.

Mike,

I can only ask you the simple 3-word test of prove your statements, Mike.

Find a _single_ statement from me backing up your unsupported claim that I
misunderstood ANYTHING in that article, Mike.
o Name just one.

Remember, I SUMMARIZED the ENTIRE article for you yesterday, Mike.
o And you didn't claim that I got a _single_ thing wrong then, Mike.

It's only now, when I came down hard on your for ignorant statements
you keep making, Mike, that you now claim I misunderstood the article.

That's like telling me that I beat my wife, Mike.
o Your claim is wholly and completely unsupported by facts, Mike.

EVERY ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS HAS BEEN COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED BY FACT:

Here's the simple test, Mike:
o Name just one

That is, name just one statement in my summary of that article, Mike,
that is a "misunderstanding" of that article, Mike?
o Name just one.

Here is the cite to the summary, Mike:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/Bv8bwG4ggnc/oAPYdk4QEgAJ

You see Mike, I'm not afraid of the "name just one" test, Mike.
o You have FAILED this "name just one" test a few times already, Mike.

Find a misunderstanding in that summary of the article Mike.
o Name just one.

Mike - stop acting like a child.
o It's clear to me WHY you are so confused Mike.

Very clear.
o Allow me ot use the example of a black female MD, Mike.

YOUR BRAIN is what's confused about the black female MD (example), Mike.
o It's not me who is confused Mike ... it's YOU who is confused.

Until you shake YOURSELF of the black-female-MD inbred instinct,
YOU Mike, will ALWAYS be confused about almost ANY VPN use model.

The reason YOU are confused Mike, is you harbor instinctively incorrect
ideas about VPN use models, Mike.

Explaining my trivially simple VPN use model to you, Mike, and hence, why
the recommendation to "use a proxy" instead of VPN for my use model is like
explaining to you that Black Female Doctors actually exist is what's going
on here, Mike.

YOU say I'm confused - but I haven't changed my logic and facts once, Mike.
o Meanwhile you're flailing and making incorrect statements left & right.

The problem Mike, is clear.
o You harbor instinctive ideas of a use model that is akin to harboring
instinctive ideas about black female doctors.

You're the one confused Mike.
o Not me.

Until YOU wipe out your innate inbred instinctive bias, Mike,
you'll _never_ comprehend even the _simplest_ of the simplest of use models
that involve VPN.

I realize this is a hard pill for you to swallow, so I apologize for having
to be the one that has to tell you the blunt factual truth. I'm sorry.

On 02/18/2019 4:43 PM, arlen holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 09:13:49 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

That

Snip a huge load of **** For Brains crap.

I see it's still here.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:24:50 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

It is not appropriate to lump read only with posting privileges.

Hi Mike,
That's an ignorant claim of yours (yet another of a long series of them).

I realize that explaining even my extremely _simple_ use model is like
explaining to you that black female doctors exist, when your brain
instinctively disallows the fact that black female doctors exist.

That's simply a metaphor, like my metaphor that you're confused by VPN like
a cat is confused by a toy mouse, but still the cat pounces on the toy
mouse as long as it's moving, where you pounce on any thread that has the
words VPN using your always-the-same innate inbred instinctive spiel.

Even though my use model is so simple that it's laughable, you _still_ will
_never_ comprehend it, just as a southern racist will never comprehend a
black female doctor.

It's not _me_ who is confused Mike. It's you.

For example, do you know that I _always_ use a _different_ NNTP server for
reading posts than for sending them?

And, do you know that I always _read_ with a different IP address than I
send? And, that each group gets a _different_ NNTP server mix?

Of course you don't know this, because you can't even imagine that black
female doctors can exist (figuratively speaking).

Until you shake YOURSELF of your innate inbred instinct about what VPN
does, you'll _never_ comprehend even the _simplest_ of use models, Mike.

I'm sorry that I have to be the person to break this simple fact to you,
Mike, as generally you don't post with such a series of ignorant bull****.

While it may be ridiculous to explain to you Mike, even my laughably simple
use model, my main goal is privacy on the final post, but there _are_
easily added secondary goals of privacy during transit (e.g., encryption).

While it's a laughably simple use model Mike, you'll _never_ comprehend it
until you shake yourself of your innate inbred instinctively wrong concept
of what VPN accomplishes in a simple use model involving Usenet.

On 02/18/2019 4:52 PM, arlen holder wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:24:50 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:



Chop Chop.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 12:24:50 -0800, Mike Easter wrote:

HINT: Mixmin, Netfront, Mozzilla, Dizum, Aioe, Blueworld, News4All,
Albasani, Sunsite, XSUsenet, etc. (that's just offhand, from memory).

Those are mostly read only. Mixmin and aioe allow posting without
authentication.

Hi Mike,

The simple test of an ignorant statement is 3 words:
o Name just one

I'm going to (yet again) prove, in ten seconds, you FAILED that test!

Just like when Paul and William Unruh made completely erroneous claims out
of ignorance, your statement takes ten seconds to prove it's ignorant.

While it's not my goal to prove every statement from you is easily shown to
be that from an ignorant person, I really WISH you would just stop proving
you're ignorant of what you speak about.

Of the following free NNTP servers, which are "read only", Mike?
o Mixmin
o Netfront
o Mozilla
o Dizum
o Aioe
o Blueworld (Jesse gave up)
o News4All (likely defunct)
o Albasani
o Sunsite
o XSUsenet (likely defunct)

If we re move the defunct ones, we have about 7 in that ad hoc list.

Here's the simple test of your igorant statement, Mike:
You said: "Those are mostly read only".

Is that right Mike?
Most. Are read only, Mike?
Really?

Are you sure, Mike?
Or is that yet another of your spewing of ignorant bull****, Mike?

Name just one of those 7 free NNTP servers which is "read only".
o Name just one.

Now, maybe you meant that they don't allow posting sans authorization,
which, as you know, is _trivial_ to obtain, so, even then, I know exactly
which of those in the list require authorization to POST.

Do you?

Since you said MOST, and since there are 7 in that ad hoc list that are
likely not currently defunct, most would be, oh, about four of them, right
Mike?

Well, guess what, as usual in this thread, you're DEAD WRONG again, Mike.
o I'm not trying to prove you wrong Mike
(Since it's trivial to prove you wrong - it's child's play, Mike.)

*I'm just trying to ask you to STOP SPEWING IGNORANT BULL**** MIKE*

You and Paul and William Unruh are, essentially, spewing ignorant bull****
because you can't fathom any good reason that a black female MD should
exist (figuratively speaking).

It's YOUR BRAIN which is ****ed up Mike - not mine.

Here's my simple proof that you spew completely ignorant bull****, Mike:
o Name those four.

Yup.
Name those four.

HINT: You can't even get close to four!

Name the "most" of the following free NNTP servers that requires
authorization in order to post.
o Mixmin
o Netfront
o Mozilla
o Dizum
o Aioe
o Albasani
o Sunsite

Mike: My point isn't to prove you wrong, simply because it's literally
child's play to prove all your statements completely ignorant bull****.

My intent is to ask you PLEASE STOP SPEWING IGNORANT BULL****.

You can't even pass the simplest of ignorance tests, Mike.
o Name just one of those 7 that doesn't allow posting, and,
o Name the four of those 7 that requires authentication to post.

HINT: You fail.
I hate proving you spew ignorant bull**** because it's so easy to do.
Please Mike: Stop spewing your completely ignorant bull****.

The least you can do is spew bull**** that doesn't take fewer than 10
seconds to PROVE it's ignorant bull**** for Christs' sake, Mike.