mixmaster support in mutt
As we have discussed here mixmaster support in mutt in for version 2.0.4 of mixmaster. The later mixmaster 2.9b23 does not have the -T flag needed to read the type2.list file. I have written a patch to mixmaster 2.9b23 that alters main.c to add the -T flag. This now works with mutt. Get it of the page:- http://lacebark.ntu.edu.au/mutt.html Improvements, suggestions, welcome. Enjoy. Cheers, Brian. -- Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chemistry, School of BECS, SITE, NT University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847. http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/ Get PGP2 Key:- http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/chemistry/duke.key.html
Re: Mixmaster support in mutt
On Wed 09/20/00 at 08:40 PM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My efforts in this direction however lead me to the following > reflections. The L-mix e-mail list has virtually no traffic. The various > newsgroups that could possibly have people interested in this topic have > little non-junk traffic. Only three people have expressed interest in > mixmaster support from the mutt lists. The mixmaster community seems to > be terribly small. There are some indications that interest in anonymous > mailers has declined over the last 4 - 5 years [...] I for one had no idea this was the case and am sorry and alarmed to hear it. The Mutt community should definitely continue to pursue integrating mutt with mixmaster and the anon-remailers -- though it's not for me to say whether this means mixmaster support should be part of mutt proper or as a stand-alone utility like urlview. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, too. And I certainly hope folks on this list *do* have something to say about it, because it seems to me that if GPG is worth supporting, so is mixmaster. If the FBI can't hear your phone conversations, they can still compel the phone company to turn over their records of your phone calls, showing who you called, when, and for how long. That's a lot of information. Using encryption, as we all know, prevents someone from seeing the actual content of your mail, but this same someone (or any other someone) can still see the e-mail equivalent of your phone company records unless you use remailers. Precisely because of that, using them is just as important as encrypting, but they never *will* be used until it becomes simple to do so. We need to make it easy for our parents, for aol users, and for clueless newbies everywhere to encrypt *and* remail. Otherwise we're pissing in the wind. We're a miniscule minority who may be able to communicate securely to each other, but to no one else. In the year 2000, remailing is a ghetto. Almost no one remails. And that means that the spooks have won. They see everything. -- // [EMAIL PROTECTED] // It is in no way obvious that the freedom to have a private conversation will survive. -- Whitfield Diffie PGP signature
Mixmaster support in mutt
I have been trying to explore various issues about the mixmaster support in mutt, but I am having difficulty in bringing these issues to a conclusion. Here however is a summary, followed by some questions. Mixmaster has versions 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and then a set of versions loosely called version 3.0 betas, but actually called 2.9bxx where xx is a version number. Mutt support is currently for versions 2.4 only. It may work for 2.3 but I think this versions delivers the remailer list using "mixmaster -T" differently from 2.4. I have not explored this further as the 2 versions are clearly similar and the latest - 2.4 - is likely to be the best. The earlier versions do not support the "-T" flag. The 3.0 betas also do not support the "-T" flag to delivery the list of remailers from the type2.list file. Thomas Roessler believes that the code could very easily be changed to read the type2.list file directly and that could work with both 2.4 and the 3.0 betas. I agree. However I am unable to make progress because I can not get 2.9beta23 to work on either of two machines I use - a RS6000 running AIX 2.3.5 and a Digital Alpha running what they now call Tru64 Unix. I have tried to get help on these problems - the behaviour is different on the two machines - but am still completely puzzled. My efforts in this direction however lead me to the following reflections. The L-mix e-mail list has virtually no traffic. The various newsgroups that could possibly have people interested in this topic have little non-junk traffic. Only three people have expressed interest in mixmaster support from the mutt lists. The mixmaster community seems to be terribly small. There are some indications that interest in anonymous mailers has declined over the last 4 - 5 years and also that perhaps what interest remains is dedicated to PCs where there some nice wrappers it seems for the Windows Mixmaster executable. So, is there really a demand for mixmaster support in mutt? Should we perhaps remove bloat by taking it out, rather than expanding it? Certainly I am beginning to wonder whether I need it or whether further work on it is warranted. Your views please. Cheers, Brian. -- Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] School of Biological, Environmental and Chemical Sciences, SITE, Northern Territory University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847 http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/school/compchem.html
Re: mixmaster support in mutt
On 2000-08-21 13:21:25 -0700, rex wrote: >> However I understand that version 2.9beta23 which I tried first >> does not support the "-T" flag. I then tried version 2.0 and >> this also appears to not support the "-T" flag. So, what >> versions of mixmaster does mutt support? > Good question. Unfortunately I don't know. 2.04bsomething -- Thomas Roessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: mixmaster support in mutt
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 02:08:53PM +0930, Brian Salter-Duke wrote: > > However I understand that version 2.9beta23 which I tried first does not > support the "-T" flag. I then tried version 2.0 and this also appears to > not support the "-T" flag. So, what versions of mixmaster does mutt > support? Good question. Unfortunately I don't know. > I also failed to get either version of mixmaster to actually work > outside mutt. This is of course off topic for the mutt list, but I will > outline my problems and ask people to e-mail me rather than continue to > discuss these non-mutt problems on the list. Of course the mutt topics > above can be discussed on the list. There is an egroups Mixmaster list. Send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I would welcome any help by e-mail to these mixmaster questions and any > discussion on the list about the future of mixmaster support in mutt. > Thomas says he is very busy and no longer uses mixmaster, so I guess it > is up to us if we want to progress it. It might be helpful to others to carry on any non-Mutt-related Mixmaster discussion on the above list rather than via private mail. Messages are archived there, and there is a search capability. I too, am interested in Mutt support for Mixmaster. Regards, -rex
mixmaster support in mutt
I have recently started to play with mixmaster but have had a mixed experience. I have been overseas and off the mutt lists for a while but I did look up the discussions on egroups and found that there had been a discussion about mixmaster support. It seems that mutt calls mixmaster with the "-T" flag which I think returns the remailers from type2.list file. Is this correct? However I understand that version 2.9beta23 which I tried first does not support the "-T" flag. I then tried version 2.0 and this also appears to not support the "-T" flag. So, what versions of mixmaster does mutt support? I also failed to get either version of mixmaster to actually work outside mutt. This is of course off topic for the mutt list, but I will outline my problems and ask people to e-mail me rather than continue to discuss these non-mutt problems on the list. Of course the mutt topics above can be discussed on the list. I used a RS6000 with AIX 2.3.5. On compile it finally got to the link stage for mix and said it could not link snprintf and vsnprintf. I took these from the mutt source as snprintf.c, moved this into the Src directory, compiled it, altered the makefile to add it to the link step and did a Make. This linked mix correctly and nothing else. Does anyone see any problem with this? I then tried using it to send a message. If I used it non-anonymously, it worked fine. Anonymously all seemed to go well until I got to "mail message". It then responded "Creating message ..." and hung. After some time it responds with "Killed" and aborts the process. Can anyone see where things may be going wrong? Version 2.0 failed to link on the RS6000 under AIX as it did not find flock. On an old DEC Alpha I failed to compile verison 2.9beta23 but I have not had time to really check this out. Version 2.0 compiled fine, but again I had trouble sending. I responded to all the requests including the remailer chain and then it responded:- Error: Public Key IDs do not match! Can't get public key! What is it trying to match? I'm lost. I would welcome any help by e-mail to these mixmaster questions and any discussion on the list about the future of mixmaster support in mutt. Thomas says he is very busy and no longer uses mixmaster, so I guess it is up to us if we want to progress it. Cheers, Brian. -- Associate Professor Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke) [EMAIL PROTECTED] School of Biological, Environmental and Chemical Sciences, SITE, Northern Territory University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia. Phone 08-89466702. Fax 08-89466847 http://www.smps.ntu.edu.au/school/compchem.html
