From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/35164
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Message-ID generation
Date: 02 Mar 2001 11:35:56 +0100
Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu
Message-ID: <87r90gwj8z.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <s8u25eaj4e.fsf@lanber.cam.eu.citrix.com>
	<87n1b6rcq9.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <lf66htbm8q.fsf@Samizdat.uucom.com>
	<87k8694k66.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <m33dcxrtnq.fsf@gnus.cvs.983032537>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035170953 1547 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:29:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:29:13 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu>
Original-Received: from lisa.math.uh.edu (lisa.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.49])
	by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BBC0D04A0
	for <jason@mastaler.com>; Fri,  2 Mar 2001 05:26:46 -0500 (EST)
Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5])
	by lisa.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id EAB11586;
	Fri, 2 Mar 2001 04:26:40 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Fri, 02 Mar 2001 04:25:50 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: from mailhost.sclp.com (postfix@66-209.196.61.interliant.com [209.196.61.66] (may be forged))
	by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id EAA09425
	for <ding@hpc.uh.edu>; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 04:25:39 -0600 (CST)
Original-Received: from mail.netic.de (mail.s.netic.de [212.9.160.11])
	by mailhost.sclp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33A5D049E
	for <ding@gnus.org>; Fri,  2 Mar 2001 05:26:10 -0500 (EST)
Original-Received: by mail.netic.de (Smail3.2.0.111/mail.s.netic.de)
	via LF.net GmbH Internet Services
	via remoteip 212.9.163.12
	via remotehost mail.enyo.de with esmtp
	for mail.gnus.org
	id m14YmlG-001WyXC; Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:26:10 +0100 (CET)
Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] (helo=deneb.enyo.de)
	by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1)
	id 14YmjY-0005ID-00
	for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:24:24 +0100
Original-Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 3.12 #1)
	id 14Ymui-00015o-00
	for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:35:56 +0100
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
In-Reply-To: <m33dcxrtnq.fsf@gnus.cvs.983032537> (Harry Putnam's message of "01 Mar 2001 14:52:02 -0800")
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) Emacs/20.7
Precedence: list
X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7
Original-Lines: 12
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35164
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:35164

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> 
> > Spammers aren't interested in your network structure. In addition,
> > other headers leak much, much more information.
> 
> What headers leak information about the internal network when you go
> thru an IPmasquerade box?

It depends on the structure of the network.  I do use IP masquerading,
but my email headers contain a wealth of information about by network.