Talk:Pseudonymous remailer

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[I2P#I2P-Bote|I2P-Bote]] The anchor (#I2P-Bote) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Question About Phrasing[edit]

From first paragraph, emphasis mine: "Unlike a purely anonymous remailers, it assigns its users a user name, and it keeps a database of instructions on how to return messages to the real user."

This doesn't make sense, does anyone know what this is supposed to say? Is it "Unlike a (missing word or phrase), a purely anonymous remailer assigns..."? I'm reluctant to fix this phrase until I find out what it's supposed to say. I guess I'll go poke around in the history and find out who wrote it an ask him/her. - Square pear 03:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both kinds of remailers remove the author's identification. A purely anonymous remailer sends anyone's message with no name attached. Unlike a purely anonymous remailer, pseudonymous remailers attach a pseudonym specific to each author (but not easily traceable to their original identity).

This version is alright, IMO.--84.56.85.191 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think your right. 2600:8807:268A:5800:C06D:98FF:FEEE:691F (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time commenting on wikipedia 2600:8807:268A:5800:C06D:98FF:FEEE:691F (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in case the difference is still unclear to anyone: an anonymous remailer is open to anyone, and as such has no list of users authorized to use it. a pseudonymous remailer is only open to some users, and as such has a list of users. since this is not truly anonymous, and it is assumed that the names on the list are not the real identity of the users, but pseudonyms, it is pseudonymous.

anonymous remailers are great for spam. pseudonymous remailers are not so good, as the administrator can block the pseudonym of the spammer.96.24.93.114 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last phrase contains a false statement which is reproduced, here, probably since 2011 without any verification being made. “Great for spam” is a precise, unambiguous description. It does, though, not apply more to anonymous remailers than to other services. Normal mail is quite obviously even greater for spam than remailers have ever been. Amen.Psycho Chicken (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]