uknown sender

[the_one]

Hi

Is there a program that enables me to send messages without showing my email adress to the recipient?

and
Is there a prog that send multiple emails to one recipient at once ?

seems I have bad intentions ,but the truth is quite otherwise.:)

[The Dude]

www.stealthmessage.com is your friend :)

Welcome to the site!

[John A]

Any anonymous remailer will work. Usually it involves sending to a special address, which relays the message while stripping the header (and adding its own).

[jwenting]

and such things are used exclusively by spammers and conveyors of trojans and other malware.

I've never yet seen a legitimate reason to want to send an email in a way that can not be traced back to the sender.

[Salem]

Just in case you think there are no good reasons for anonymous remailers, consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistle_blower
It's all very well if you live in a country with reasonable protections - even then, it would be a rough ride. But in a country run by thugs, getting caught would be very bad indeed.

As with any other technology, users and abusers abound.

[jwenting]

If your message is worth hearing it's worth for the person receiving it to know who transmitted it.
If you want to come forward with some damning information about someone, why should I believe you if you only want to do so under the condition that I never know who you are?
Where's your credibility? Most likely you're just someone with a grudge trying to use me to get even with someone.

It's all nice and dandy to have "anonymous hotlines" and things like that, but the fact is that they're pretty much exclusively used for people to falsely accuse others in order to get even for some perceived wrongdoing.

No, anonymous mailers are the exclusive domain of conartists and criminals.

[TkTkorrovi]

Well then you only believe the authorities -- if you think that the authorities are always right and authority is the only way to establish credibility, then the burden of proof lies on you.

[jwenting]

no, but I won't believe sources who refuse to establish even their own identity.
If you don't want yourself known, any information you give is by definition suspect and not to be relied upon for anything.

[Salem]

So if you were a reporter, and someone anonymously sent you some story which you could independently verify, you would automatically dismiss the rest of it as being the work of a crank?

If the discloser chooses to reveal their identity at a later stage, when they feel more comfortable with the arrangement, does that invalidate everything they've said already?

The corollary is that you know who GW Bush is, does that mean you believe everything he says?

Believing that everyone who remains anonymous is a liar is just as dumb as believing everyone who is known is telling the truth.

[MidiMagic]

It's called spam.

[jwenting]

So if you were a reporter, and someone anonymously sent you some story which you could independently verify, you would automatically dismiss the rest of it as being the work of a crank?

Anything that can't be verified is suspect, anything coming from an anonymous source is doubly suspect.

If the discloser chooses to reveal their identity at a later stage, when they feel more comfortable with the arrangement, does that invalidate everything they've said already?

I won't make arrangements with people that won't reveal whom I'm making arrangements with.

The corollary is that you know who GW Bush is, does that mean you believe everything he says?

Where did I say anything of the kind?

Believing that everyone who remains anonymous is a liar is just as dumb as believing everyone who is known is telling the truth.

which I never stated. You seem to think that if you mistrust information coming from undisclosed sources you automatically trust blindly anything coming from disclosed sources.
That's an utterly false assertion.

[plusplus]

If you don't want the receiver to know who you are, then you are probably not comfortable with what you are writing(maybe you're not sure it's true, maybe you don't want anyone to know that you do,write certain things, you feel it's under your dignity to write certain things,you would be embarassed if anyone would know you wrote this) If you feel that way, do the right thing and don't write. That's what I do with most threads in this forum.

[plusplus]

If you don't want the receiver to know who you are, then you are probably not comfortable with what you are writing(maybe you're not sure it's true, maybe you don't want anyone to know that you do,write certain things, you feel it's under your dignity to write certain things,you would be embarassed if anyone would know you wrote this) If you feel that way, do the right thing and don't write. That's what I do with most threads in this forum.

What I mean to say is, the fact that someone knows you wrote this, makes you think twice before you write and about what you write. And that's good, it will help you not to write things you really shouldn't.

[Salem]

Well since forums are at least pseudo anonymous, everything written here must obviously be trash and not worth the electrons it's written with.

Why are you still here?

[kb.net]

Hi,

Even though am against it the_one may be right. Sometimes this may be very helpful epically in big companies were names can't be kept secret. Once I have received an email with the sender name not revealed, at the first I didn't open it for security reasons. The second time I have received it the subject of the email was interesting (it was about an illegal commission being paid by one of our suppliers to one of our procurement employees). At that point it was nothing but worth to be followed. Using my authority at that time as consumption coordinator and after 2 weeks of investigations we were able to catch a fraud that costed us 150,000$. And all of this was because of that message that I don't know its sender.