I've used QS for some years and have had to reinstall quite a few times
after a system crash.  This time, I cannot get it to install.

I have tried the latest versions on the QS Web site.  I have tried a few
of my older versions. It still won't load right.

I do get QS to install up to the point of installing mixmaster,  But
then QS tells me it cannot extract the mixmaster file in order to
install it.

QS also refuses to recognize when mixmaster is already opened when I
open it manually in its own directory or in C:\Program Files.

QS also tells me it cannot find its own .ini file when it is right in
its own directory.

As I have said, I have installed QS on numerous occasions with no
problem whatsoever.  This time the mixmaster and ini problems are
screwing up everything.

How do I "install" mixmaster in another directory so that QS will find
it?

I hate to have to do without this program after so many years of using
it.

Is there anything available besides JBN to use for anon posting? (No Web
interfaces, please.)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Sep 29, 1:30 am, p...@asljkf.com wrote:
> I've used QS for some years and have had to reinstall quite a few times
> after a system crash.  This time, I cannot get it to install.
>
> I have tried the latest versions on the QS Web site.  I have tried a few
> of my older versions. It still won't load right.
>
> I do get QS to install up to the point of installing mixmaster,  But
> then QS tells me it cannot extract the mixmaster file in order to
> install it.
>
> QS also refuses to recognize when mixmaster is already opened when I
> open it manually in its own directory or in C:\Program Files.
>
> QS also tells me it cannot find its own .ini file when it is right in
> its own directory.
>
> As I have said, I have installed QS on numerous occasions with no
> problem whatsoever.  This time the mixmaster and ini problems are
> screwing up everything.
>
> How do I "install" mixmaster in another directory so that QS will find
> it?
>
> I hate to have to do without this program after so many years of using
> it.
>
> Is there anything available besides JBN to use for anon posting? (No Web
> interfaces, please.)




There are two web interfaces I know of. Anonymouse which is free. It
has flood prevention so you can only send about three messages at at
time. All the kids use it. http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html  Germany
based

There is Cotse a paid service   http://www.cotse.com  USA based

There used to be Zerofeedom but it only recently shut down. Reason
unknown.

Please do not abuse these interfaces, as we need them, and more if
somebody has a mind to biuld one.

Sorry about your problems with QS. It is not supported anymore. He
used to post in here.

Have a nice weekend everybody I am going to haver a beer.

Last thought they may be some cyberpunk remailers left. Can somebody
post them please, you could use an mail to post if they are running
any more. Most want PGP

You can use Google behind a proxy if you can find one that works.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> I hate to have to do without this program after so many years of using
> it.

Pete, Richard maintains a support mailing list, where he is very
conscientious in helping QuickSilver users. See
http://www.quicksilvermail.net/support.html on how to join in.

> Is there anything available besides JBN to use for anon posting? (No Web
> interfaces, please.)

If there's no way to solve your QuickSilver problem, you may upgrade
your Agent and combine it with OmniMix.
.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Mary Jane Middleton aka eelbitch sent ...

[rubbish snipped]

.... just another misleading psychopathic posting.

Some idiots never learn!

Web and single-proxy services are no more than kid's
playgrounds and their use only pleases adversaries,
which is why the OP already refused them on principle.

</>
.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:17:04 +0200 (CEST), "Anonymous Remailer
(austria)" <mixmaster@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:

> 
>
>Pete, Richard maintains a support mailing list, where he is very
>conscientious in helping QuickSilver users. See
>http://www.quicksilvermail.net/support.html on how to join in.
> 
>
>If there's no way to solve your QuickSilver problem, you may upgrade
>your Agent and combine it with OmniMix.
>.

I'll consider those alternatives.  I'll have to look up OmnMix.   have
not paid too much attention to it in the past.

Thanks.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 29 Sep 2007 17:47:07 +0200, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:

snipped
>
>Web and single-proxy services are no more than kid's
>playgrounds and their use only pleases adversaries,
>which is why the OP already refused them on principle.
>

Correct.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:11:16 -0500, pete@asljkf.com wrote:

> On 29 Sep 2007 17:47:07 +0200, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
> snipped 
>
> Correct.

Well, a question about that..

Let’s take Zax’s web-based front end:
https://www.bananasplit.info/cgi-bin/anon.cgi

All messages there are processed through Mix and the browser uses SSL.
If one is using a secure browser through Tor and access Zax’s front end
and posts a message, is there inherent harm in that? Or have I missed
the boat here..?

Thanks.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Anonymous wrote:
 
>
> Well, a question about that..
>
> Let's take Zax's web-based front end:
> https://www.bananasplit.info/cgi-bin/anon.cgi
>
> All messages there are processed through Mix and the browser uses SSL.
> If one is using a secure browser through Tor and access Zax's front
> end and posts a message, is there inherent harm in that? Or have I
> missed the boat here..?

You're sorta just late for the boat. Hasn't quite left yet. 

The inherent harm is allowing Zax[1] to handle your messages in clear
text form. Normal Mixmaster messages are encrypted to chains of
remailers built by the user's software. By handing that process over to
any third party you are effectively demolishing every bit of security
Mixmaster gives you. Zax knows everything you're saying, and the path
the message takes through the remailer network.

SSL really has no significant impact on this. It prevents snoops
between you and Zax from reading your messages, but that's a truth with
normal Mixmaster messages and it doesn't prevent Zax himself from
seeing everything.

Tor in this scenario is a band aid over a sucking chest wound. Yes, it
can keep your real identity out of Zax's hands, but it still doesn't
fix the Mixmaster problem. You're no more secure than you would be
posting your messages through a standard web mail interface to a Gmail
account you signed up for anonymously. And technically speaking, even
the design of Tor itself makes it measurably less secure than the
remailer network. Not to mention all the little "side channel" attacks
a real time TCP anonymity tool is naturally susceptible to. So in sum
total, even with Tor you're not as secure as you would be just using
the remailer network the way it's meant to be used.

Whether or not that security is still "good enough" for your
application is entirely up top you. ;)

[1] Replace "Zax" with any remailer operator, web host, etc.

Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente   |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore   |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni      |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Mon,  1 Oct 2007 00:02:00 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote:

> Anonymous wrote:
> 
>
> You're sorta just late for the boat. Hasn't quite left yet. 
>
> The inherent harm is allowing Zax[1] to handle your messages in clear
> text form. Normal Mixmaster messages are encrypted to chains of
> remailers built by the user's software. By handing that process over to
> any third party you are effectively demolishing every bit of security
> Mixmaster gives you. Zax knows everything you're saying, and the path
> the message takes through the remailer network.
>
> SSL really has no significant impact on this. It prevents snoops
> between you and Zax from reading your messages, but that's a truth with
> normal Mixmaster messages and it doesn't prevent Zax himself from
> seeing everything.
>
> Tor in this scenario is a band aid over a sucking chest wound. Yes, it
> can keep your real identity out of Zax's hands, but it still doesn't
> fix the Mixmaster problem. You're no more secure than you would be
> posting your messages through a standard web mail interface to a Gmail
> account you signed up for anonymously. And technically speaking, even
> the design of Tor itself makes it measurably less secure than the
> remailer network. Not to mention all the little "side channel" attacks
> a real time TCP anonymity tool is naturally susceptible to. So in sum
> total, even with Tor you're not as secure as you would be just using
> the remailer network the way it's meant to be used.
>
> Whether or not that security is still "good enough" for your
> application is entirely up top you. ;)
>
> [1] Replace "Zax" with any remailer operator, web host, etc.

I knew I was seriously missing something when I replied to the original
poster. Thanks for taking the time to clarify this. Much appreciated.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]