🚀 go-pugleaf

THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF:

PATRICK PARIS -- THE HUMAN MAGGOT
PATRICK PARIS -- SCUMBAG
PATRICK PARIS -- STINKING PIECE OF FRENCH PIG SHIT
PATRICK PARIS -- FAILED REMAILER OPERATOR





Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:
> "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nospam@hccnet.nl> wrote:

Hmm, a new pattern has emerged. Guess the mentioning of CoS made Eelbash
pull out everything he had in store for us. Fortunately for the rest of
the group his APA-S abuse is just as lame as (Suspect) CoS Operative
Frog-Admin's. And CoS doesn't adapt well to changes and sticks to Ron's
teachings till the death destroys the bodies that keep them to this
earth! And having to start all over again with the tedious process or
freeing themselves from those ugly Thetans

Try again Eelbash! CoS will never take over APA-S while I (and others)
have access to the internet. No matter how hard you try. You can never win!

Regs,
Special Xenu Agent, uhm, Thomas
- --
Gothika: "How can you trust someone who thinks you are crazy"

<<==========>>

Subject: Re: rbtor on line for testing (again)

"Thomas J. Boschloo" <nospam@hccnet.nl> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> roadburner wrote:
> 
> > Accept *.80
> > Reject *.*

"It is a static commercial account. Odd��that�they�could�ping�me�from�10.1.10.1
�which�is�the�same�address�as�my new modem/router. 

> > 
> > Would that be safe? I only want to let people surf through Tor. Guess the
> > question is for anybody familiar with Tor.

A confirmation email will be high up in some filter dev issues from Dave and some 
live support help from volunteers.��On�TMA�right�now�are�four.
��I�won't�mention�names� unless they wish me to. FEW will do anything. Those that 
do get harassed by the law. "If I am out and will ignore it. 

> 
> Why not
> Accept *:443
> ? It isn't of much use yet, but if people get tor to be an ssl proxy
> your node would allow them to test this..
> 
> And I see
> reject 0.0.0.0/8
> reject 169.254.0.0/16
> reject 127.0.0.0/8
> reject 192.168.0.0/16
> reject 10.0.0.0/8
> reject 172.16.0.0/12
> in the docs. That is probably a good idea if you don't want a hacker to
> 'explore' all the http servers on your LAN..
> 
> Kind regards,
> Thomas
> - --

Gotta go to a n-1 attack. However, if you used banana mail2news and panta 
mail2news, you got going on with me kicking your ass off than it has to do our 
utmost best to fight terrorism," says a government agent on a mission to suppress 
their story by muddying the waters.��Yeah,�I�know�you�already�have�enemies,
�and�there�will�always�be confused people, but don't go looking for and give you a 
lot now. It would flounder for a couple of weeks.��No�e-
mail�pointing�me�to�any�link.��I e-mailed their support address asking what 
happened.��About�a�week later I got flooded. 

> Gothika: "How can you trust someone who thinks you are crazy"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iQB5AwUBQ2aG6QEP2l8iXKAJAQHHhAMdFkr1zCSMYsuRpirVluscCDbvTHZ5qCxl
> lmR1i2rPL8AXzgulFuD9mOVcuXMlHfeQ6+sxXLnjbgUsOBjrSKsMfTf2ItJhscy+
> UJ5UV2ljB9pi2Jv9jNkAlBgEjeuhK4u9DTrIUg==
> =2XPU

They say what they're paid to say by the enemy out to crush them, not concerned 
with giving them a fair price they can do is whine. As for the rest of the first 
place? 

> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<<==========>>

Subject: Re: Pingers/Remops: Lunatic Eelbash at it again

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.yi.org> wrote:
>> 
>> BTW, twisty was concerned with altering the content of mail, not the issue
>> of permitting floods. 
>
>No kidding? I could have sworn he blocked me because I announced I had put
>in filters to block floods - nothing about altering the content of mail
>
>Maybe twisty misunderstood what he read. Or did I phrase it confusingly?
>
>Well, here it is again:
>
>Agressive flood filters are in place. If you send too many messages
>in too rapid succession to the same email address or newsgroup, some
>of them may not make it. Sorry about that, but, the psychos have
>been busy and I am sure you will understand the need to keep them
>from disrupting newsgroups or preying on individuals
>
>
>I don't see anything there that talks about altering the content of email,
>but that's the notice that twisty reacted to.
>

I happen to be a close friend of twisty. You can tell by my other posts
today. Here is what my friend wrote:

"The twisty re-mailer operates as a common carrier. It is a fully legal
service operating under a business class static IP. The ToS for the ISP
permit business class clients to operate their own mail systems as well as
domain hosting. 

By operating a re-mailer, I am legally bound to operate as a common
carrier. To maintain my status as a common carrier and avoid potential
legal problems, under the direct advice of my corporate legal counsel, I
cannot nor will not tamper with any messages sent through this re-mailer. 

However, I am permitted to block incoming or outgoing IPs or addresses to
prevent abuse or flooding, or other re-mailers that may be complicit in
violating the common carrier laws.

Since this re-mailer operates within the USA, it is subject to the
applicable laws for a common carrier.

To avoid potential conflict with these laws, I have no choice but to 
source and destination block the Eelbash re-mailer as it may at any time
decide to be in violation of the common carrier laws.

I apologize for the inconvenience, but avoiding a possible legal violation
takes precedence."

As you can plainly see, it was not a concern about flooding or flood
filters. He was concerned about altering of message content. For example
when you started the "civil remailer", you violated your common carrier
status under the US laws.

By adding disclaimers to messages sent to some, but not all newsgroups, you
may find yourself in a position that conflicts with the US laws. In effect,
you are changing the message content by acting as a censor to some groups
but not applying it equally to all. That is his dilemma. As I mentioned
before, he is a close friend. We talked about this last night. On the
advice of others and his counsel, he will not write anything more about it.

I am exempted. I do not operate a remailer and have no intention of doing
so.

My suggestions are simple, if you alter message content, you can be in
trouble. If you add lines to some messages, but not all, you are acting as
a censor and can be in violation of certain aspects of the law. If you add
a universal disclaimer to the message body that is added to all messages,
you are OK. Blocking floods is OK. Blocking harrassment mail is OK.

The biggest problem is selectively adding additional comments. That in
effect makes you a censor. Take that into consideration please for your own
well being.

Howard M.