Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #291643
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) |
| Date | 2015-04-26 19:55 +0000 |
| Organization | ok by me, so long as it doesn't get out of hand |
| Message-ID | <bvjf93.ajfi2@rooftop.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <535d4a2d-63f4-4490-bd22-ddbf19a50902@googlegroups.com> <bnvhdue03.jgkdu83@rooftop.invalid> <c447e2cc-b509-4648-afc2-9a9d70e378d2@googlegroups.com> <hbvj83.gko8a2@rooftop.invalid> <990eab8b-bae7-49b8-9cc3-0f23c1cd1bbb@googlegroups.com> |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 12:49:41 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sunday, April 26, 2015 at 11:30:29 AM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 1:18:20 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: >> ... >> >> >> >> > ... >> >> >> He could just sign messages with his private key and put an end to this >> >> >> nonsense. >> >> >> >> > When Desk Rabbit suggested this awhile back I went and got the Mac version of PGP key but I see no way to 'sign' posts made via Google Groups. If a reader doesn't have the public key... >> >> >> >> Why wouldn't the reader have the public key? >> >> > Who would bother? I've never done it for usenet. >> >> Why would you bother? > Whether or not I will remains to be seen. It depends on how much of a hassle it is. BTW, thanks for helping with this. >> You sure seem to be bothered about "forgeries." > To the extent that I'd like to differentiate myself from them, obviously... but I'm not changing how I read usenet at this point to do it. >> Isn't that enough reason to bother signing your messages and making >> your public key available? > If I can without too much hassle, I will. >> >> That's what it's for. Make >> >> it public. Put it on the web and link to it in the message itself if >> >> necessary. >> >> >> >> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.os.linux.advocacy/vDNdq6Aj6EQ/nQ3pffj7qu4J >> >> > That's not from GoogleGroups and it's probably using a newsreader app. Inferior as it may be to a dedicated app, I've gotten used to it now and, being browser based, it also works well on mobile. >> >> >> Have you tried posting a signed message through google? > I have no idea how. >> >> > ... that's what you get and it's useless. For those same readers, the gmail handle... >> >> >> >> How is that useless? Does it fail verification? >> >> > I have no idea. >> >> >> > i.e. 'fretwizzer' >> >> >> >> > or a "posting-account" number... >> >> >> >> > i.e. 'posting-account=qzPusQoAAADVdKNEKE-jqIVbecHp7oZ7' >> >> >> >> > ... in a header is the only way. Notable is Gluehead's ever present denial of reality stating: "if he were to do so and make it public that ONLY such comments were to be trusted it would be a good step forward." This is essentially what I've done when I alerted COLA about being hacked, what I've been doing all along by differentiating myself from the forgeries, I've made it "public that ONLY such comments were to be trusted" as coming from the one "posting-account". The reader can quickly see the ' fre >> twi >> >> zzer' handle and/or the 'Z7' at the end of the account number. If you can explain how to use the key on a post from Google Groups 'I'm all eyes' from a learning viewpoint... but being that most people probably aren't going to bother with the public key anyway, seems there isn't much point to it as it wouldn't really "put an end to this nonsense." >> >> >> >> Again, is google mangling messages so that they fail a signature check? >> >> > Dunno... I see no facility for signing it... if I could figure out how to do it I would. >> >> Try pasting a signed message into google groups compose window. >> >> >> >> Anybody who cared whether it was you or somebody else would need only >> >> to verify that the message was signed by you. People who would not care >> >> enough to be bothered with that don't care now either. >> >> > Agreed. Besides myself, take a look at the people who care... it's one person... and he's doing his usual and ridiculous hard sell attempt for those he believes are as stupid as he needs them to be. >> >> > It's possible there's a chrome extension that does it but I haven't seen any talk of it when searching; they do have one for email, though. >> >> Why do you need an extension or a facility for signing at google? >> Just compose a text message on your machine, sign it, and paste the >> signed message into google's compose window thingie. > How do I sign it (I've never used this)? Compose a message as a text file, or if replying to a message, include the parts you are replying to (with delimiters of course - you may have to add these yourself). Assuming filename "message.txt": gpg --output signed_message.txt --clearsign message.txt Then you can paste the contents of "signed_message.txt" into google's input window. Google may or may not mangle it, so this could fail. Try reposting my signed message through google and we'll see what happens to it. >> owl@thinkpad:~$ cat message >> a message from me >> >> owl@thinkpad:~$ gpg --output signed_message --clearsign message >> >> You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for >> user: "owl (usenet) <owl@rooftop.invalid>" >> 2048-bit RSA key, ID D83A7ECF, created 2015-04-26 >> >> gpg: gpg-agent is not available in this session >> owl@thinkpad:~$ cat signed_message >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> a message from me >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVPS/NAAoJEAJKDhzYOn7PMC8H/1Mu7Pa9zmW/pAKhO9KFivCY >> 4r+DSaFoQMlcb4BHhtnQdB2waKQH9SWe6WLmhsvhVAsoFs6w/qCaGo9tqHYbm8WV >> TOk7nPLJMDiH9jnHCDsuFPnrWm2vQn/r7c7dwlvXv9YGFgm0plfdw1qRg/5+Tl9J >> vWiwct3/oFm63dUL7KxmNm/9X5+rI/elwrkm4D70vrMd9J/eBuhe8ULBkLBWqzDS >> UJhbcHVJoCPHz5AkIMdXnIBJLO56Lx0xrwg5zHLBsBlFLnOHZUCPD9b1OTNkHuJ/ >> 6+hqEUpAfhzF4ytly7mfp9aihvU/cY8+aORXjvOBkuGEfs61oGPcO5DwKw6owtM= >> =P3mC >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> owl@thinkpad:~$ >> >> owl@thinkpad:~$ gpg --verify signed_message >> gpg: Signature made Sun 26 Apr 2015 02:34:53 PM EDT using RSA key ID D83A7ECF >> gpg: Good signature from "owl (usenet) <owl@rooftop.invalid>" >> owl@thinkpad:~$ >> >> Here's a public key: >> >> owl@thinkpad:~$ cat owl.asc >> -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) >> >> mQENBFU9I9EBCACZI8NiUxzLlQUmkYgfhVseeDfAroM7PcH5ZN4mPBiWeVpyl7E3 >> XOpm1P1G15Ds6eGOmUn+QY+P7LzyOtUsXxtqBlqePzHlgM3pS5kAh0PBECWMP3zE >> 7wcPYFhYRCoGhWHpY9dkXoqgkAcqekI3Nr+TkVwKDCHlwUq3m/pXk3uon+s11qHV >> 2GzJss/tii41t8Hb+wuV2cH/niQakp9FTt5bZqqDcbddvhvnhMPPqU0p1VtIS8Bm >> BC/Pb7zlcSz2N2CJ6xEek66MnbzaEUm7EX2HabIh4jCiOmjZX1KxNaRQ1hz5AB6m >> QxqACxq8Sl6esntnU7yFUphK4Xp9W9ynNLz/ABEBAAG0VG93bCAoY29sYSkgKGhh >> ZCB0byBoYXZlIGF0IGxlYXN0IDUgbGV0dGVycyBpbiByZWFsIG5hbWUgZmllbGQp >> IDxvd2xAcm9vZnRvcC5pbnZhbGlkPokBOAQTAQIAIgUCVT0j0QIbAwYLCQgHAwIG >> FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQRUaq8oUq46jSGAf/ef4UcyzcBQURZq60xa6q >> wKTVnMi1A9PhR/eirukY5Qdq6JXnVb39UtU6s0LCmQVQxYytH78TBQUe4aob9HBc >> etcK95b3K1MMXN0yy8EMfLWLi46B+ZjXXlFjIIUPaBWw3ILd89Dc/zlA+njRguGn >> CcSu0xDnnlL24VPv4s9ECR7bSsds4Rkmy7KxGZKw5Y1nHh2wNmWbiBxDyYn7OQwZ >> mqZznd5XlgiZCodr5mJkSJteaZgDanWgIndSAk4VzAhp4LAaxy14buG4VWncjU9n >> cX15+bcBIhyntHmZU/Y2II6h6NVTgkOGwmxoUJg9NIcf+49utn4dRh/v20y3WX3a >> +LkBDQRVPSPRAQgAwKLsAjuRq70bgrV0mu7BwqUK/9W2dv/FZBk4BJtAr0uxo2Rr >> GgP5TXa3zZ6fy+LE9Lipu96cQFKTL22kGP/jIkabwLxtSBjqXaDIXF8fZpLtoY/T >> sWuvnsjtrzbBAlJd9H63FQ8IGDxL1U3VAavQeXWKQXVQ1C2sBWBSOFCMdCj4nQpA >> PUWUvCRX28fYbCr21vQXtL+3eC1a2FxeXFIfg67O9Q8TRhsmJagMLRSFwB3U6EH2 >> 6tM8rOqAtaBGs12IxpvcFCpHrJPTqkX90fHAALKEmlJCHZ6E2I0UnugtOOOvQ02r >> y/55znm1eeOt5OEuzQVcc9G2Vj8Zu2YTlN8pUQARAQABiQEfBBgBAgAJBQJVPSPR >> AhsMAAoJEEVGqvKFKuOoacUIAJMhxkecGIU2FysUUS2LGshuuyGWCmlWFlIyF9iq >> jpZQyNNGeMpjN0fncUfc+3tl6KfyEcPN9IrouUpxjSst1ZzxbUL2seAzdBgO1BFo >> BJANIFQsIWZ6WB3Xh7ibGHYXYQNE4uD7jHGvQ8DMerTBQEtYho+h4HF2UjeVzWB6 >> lejNuoj3UHoGo3vtK74Q9dMvDDH6nkWl2R9tbZaN5Sok73+Ul+tvT2CXRtYo4Css >> 7UKFLISbNOV3jXvBitQBrIfI58nD9dgezXOfzlw+YLbDoULfA3bobKgv73oYVFRr >> Rzwo1FdGVQdwmKa+jw0stlvfzyPYGks6U6Voi+our9nzpFI= >> =JvsZ >> -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- >> owl@thinkpad:~$ > I've never used this so please bear with me. I took the part starting with: > -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > ... and ending with... > -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- > ...and I pasted it into a text file. Then I did what I assumed was the next step (based on looking at one I generated) and I named the text file: > D83A7ECF.asc > I then imported it into my GPG keychain and I got an entry that read: > > Type: pub > Name: owl(cola) Did you add the "cola" part? I had a key with "owl (cola)", but generated a new one as "owl (usenet)" which I thought was the one I posted. > Email: your email > Date: today's date > Key ID: A number that is presumably yours > Validity: Shows 2 yellow bars (mine has 4 green bars). > How do I verify that this is you who wrote this post by using this key? Copy the following from my post: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 a message from me -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVPS/NAAoJEAJKDhzYOn7PMC8H/1Mu7Pa9zmW/pAKhO9KFivCY 4r+DSaFoQMlcb4BHhtnQdB2waKQH9SWe6WLmhsvhVAsoFs6w/qCaGo9tqHYbm8WV TOk7nPLJMDiH9jnHCDsuFPnrWm2vQn/r7c7dwlvXv9YGFgm0plfdw1qRg/5+Tl9J vWiwct3/oFm63dUL7KxmNm/9X5+rI/elwrkm4D70vrMd9J/eBuhe8ULBkLBWqzDS UJhbcHVJoCPHz5AkIMdXnIBJLO56Lx0xrwg5zHLBsBlFLnOHZUCPD9b1OTNkHuJ/ 6+hqEUpAfhzF4ytly7mfp9aihvU/cY8+aORXjvOBkuGEfs61oGPcO5DwKw6owtM= =P3mC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Save it as whatever.txt then $ gpg --verify whatever.txt > Why is the validity less on yours? Is it based on the stupid way I'm doing it? ;) You can set the trust level: https://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual/x334.html
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 11:40 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 11:46 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-23 15:12 -0400
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-23 12:23 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 12:59 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-23 15:49 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-23 20:41 -0400
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:44 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 04:31 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-24 10:30 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-24 20:08 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-25 10:49 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-25 18:40 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 11:53 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-25 19:18 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-25 12:25 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 09:54 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 17:30 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-26 10:43 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 11:29 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 18:49 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 12:23 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 12:48 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 19:55 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 13:25 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 13:33 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 14:00 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 21:22 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 14:32 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 21:50 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 15:01 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 15:05 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 22:35 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 14:35 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-26 14:40 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 22:09 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-26 15:21 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 15:21 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 22:40 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 15:47 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 22:51 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 15:49 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 22:56 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 16:00 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 23:32 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 16:46 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 00:00 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 17:02 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 17:08 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 00:47 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 18:14 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 01:41 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 19:04 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 02:32 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 19:38 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 02:46 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 19:59 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 03:21 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 20:38 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 20:45 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 03:58 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 21:04 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 21:06 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 21:12 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 04:20 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 03:55 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 20:57 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 04:02 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 20:59 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-27 04:04 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-26 19:01 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 19:11 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-26 19:47 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-26 17:11 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) tmelmosfire <tmelmosfire@gmail.com> - 2015-04-26 20:06 -0700
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-26 20:47 +0000
Re: OT: IT Pros or anyone with a clue about TOR (not you Snit) Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-26 12:40 -0700
csiph-web