You haven't used anonymizer and you had the audacity to reply to my post.
Quit wasting people's time with your unneeded and uninformed verbosity. BTW,
I made no "arguments." Thanks for overstating the obvious: I only asked
questions.

Thank god for kill files. Vandork you are now in my ignore list.

"Vanguard" wrote in message
news:9XGeb.649965$Ho3.134495@sccrnsc03...
> Sounds like you just want to blast a service without providing any proof
> to qualify your arguments. "... there are numbers that anonymizer.com
> itself uses and the words anonymizer.com are clearly listed in the
> header." Well, with such a detailed description as this then, yeah, we
> all are going to jump on the "slam anonymizer.com" bandwagon with you.
> Sure, yeah.
>
> Obviously ANY destination host that gets a connection from a source host
> will know the IP address of the source host. Any receiving mail server
> will know the e-mail originated from an IP address belonging to
> anonymizer.com. I don't know if Anonymizer doesn't bother to report a
> valid host name in the HELO or EHLO command for SMTP but it doesn't
> matter since the receiving host can do a reverse DNS lookup to show you
> that source host's IP name (if it has one; otherwise, you can simply
> lookup the IP address of the source host at ARIN or another regional IP
> address registrar). Anonymizer cannot hide to the receiving host that
> the e-mail came from Anonymizer. But apparently you have already
> confirmed that nothing of YOUR domain was revealed (your DHCP-assigned
> or static IP address, your domain, your e-mail address, and so on). If
> Anonymizer doesn't keep log records, or whatever they have or backup
> doesn't contain any of YOUR information, then no one can subpeona them
> to get any information regarding YOU and all they get are maintanence
> logs of Anonymizer's operation. Your email can ALWAYS be traced to the
> first mail server which either inserted the original headers or stripped
> them all out and put in theirs. Why do you care who is the delivery guy
> if he doesn't have any info on who gave him the package?
>
> I haven't bothered to use Anonymizer. I haven't gotten that paranoid
> yet. Using an e-mail alias suffices for now (I use Sneakemail although
> there is SpamMotel, SpamEx, and others). Guess what? When you use
> those services' anonymous e-mail service, like from Sneakemail, the
> recipient can still see that it came from Sneakemail.com but nothing
> about YOU. So who cares that the information within the headers shows
> the e-mail originated from an anonymous service? Is that you? No.
>
> I don't know about their tunneling feature. It it is like VPN (Virtual
> Private Networking) then the ISP cannot use or disclose any of the
> traffic in the tunnel since it is encrypted. Otherwise, VPN wouldn't
> exist and no company would use it for off-site or at-home employees. In
> fact, Anonymizer probably doesn't even need to use VPN. They probably
> only need for you to use their SSL-secured proxy for web surfing because
> that would encrypt your traffic, too. They mention using SSL at
> http://www.anonymizer.com/privatesurfing/.
>
> Yep, sounds like you just want to slam Anonymizer. I can't defend them
> very well because I don't subscribe to their services. I haven't got
> that paranoid yet but nor do I engage in any activities for which I
> would fear the FBI or police would want to bother to arrest me for. If
> I want to secure my e-mail, I encrypt it but I don't hide from whence it
> originated. If I want to carry on business at remote sites over
> non-company networks then I'd use VPN. SSL works for securing web
> traffic. I'm not yet in a position where I would consider spending
> $30/year for their PrivateSurfing service to be of much value to me.
> But that has nothing to do with how well they secure your communications
> and whether or not you feel the cost is worth it. I've actually
> occasionally used their freebie web surf page to get to a site that was
> unreachable by my ISP's route because a host in that path was causing
> problems but a different route got me through a different set of hosts
> to reach the target web site. But then using MultiProxy and public
> proxies does the same thing. In some way, Anonymizer just provides a
> more reliable solution to using something like GhostSurf and bouncing
> through one or more proxies (but I don't think any of them use SSL as
> does Anonymizer, so this proxy bouncing doesn't hide your ISP from
> snooping on your communications).
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ __________
> ** Share with others. Post replies in the newsgroup.
> ** If present, remove all "-NIX" from my email address.
> __________________________________________________ __________
>
>
> "Josh Collins" <JoshCollins32@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:blcs1c09a2@enews4.newsguy.com...
> > The website anonymizer.com says it can hide your IP and keep you from
> being
> > tracked online. It says it can hide your technical info from websites
> that
> > use stat trackers. I tested this and know it is true. However, I
> emailed
> > their support so I could get copies of email sent from their so-called
> > anonymous service. While no IP is listed in their email headers, there
> are
> > numbers that anonymizer.com itself uses and the words anonymizer.com
> are
> > clearly listed in the header.
> >
> > So what is the point of using anonymizer.com if your email can still
> be
> > tracked back to the anonymous site? It is not really anonymous then,
> is it?
> >
> > Also, do any of you really believe that their "tunneling" service can
> keep
> > your email and website activity shielded from your ISP? They claim
> their
> > service can keep you ISP from reading your email and logging your
> internet
> > activity. Any of you buy into this?
> >
> >
>
>