Anonymous Servers - Web Host Services and Remailers

Author

Web Host Services and Remailers

Anonymous

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

There were questions about using web hosting services for remailers by
making use of the SMTP and POP that comes with the service.

I did a little investigation. The few web hosting companies that responded
to my request provides some evidence that it is unlikely or impossible. I
presented the situation for a real business (for real) and not a remailer.

Please wait for a site operator to respond.
You are not currently in a chat session.
All operators are currently assisting others. Thanks for your patience. An
operator will be with you shortly.
You are now chatting with SOMEONE

SOMEONE: Welcome to "XXXXXXX" live chat service. How may I assist you?

ME: I consult for a large mail order company. The old owners have retired
and sold the business. The new owners want to expand the business by adding=

a Web Site service. In addition, they will need to be able to send out
5,000 to 6,000 confirmation of orders E-mails to customers within 24 hour
periods and possibly additional E-mails announcing specials for regular
customers bringing the total E-mail sent to about 8,000 per 24 hour period.=

Do you have a plan suitable for this? The large number of E-mails being
sent gives me some concern as the new owners have appointed me as
responsible for finding a solution as a consultant to them. If the current
plans are not suitable for the large number of SMTP mail that must be sent,=

could you please provide pricing for a plan that would support it?=20

SOMEONE: Unfortunately the limited on email are 200 emails per hour and
2000 emails per day. Any more would breach terms and conditions and is
grounds for suspension.

ME: Thank you for your time. It is a difficult solution to find.=20

ME:
Hello , ??????

I consult for a large mail order company. The old owners have retired and
sold the business. The new owners want to expand the business by adding a
WebSite service. In addition, they will need to be able to send out 5,000
to 6,000 confirmation of orders E-mails to customers within 24 hour periods=

and possibly additional E-mails announcing specials for regular customers
bringing the total E-mail sent to about 8,000 per 24 hour period. Is your
XXXXXX plan suitable for this? The large number of confirmation E-mails
gives me some concern as the new owners have appointed me as responsible
for finding a solution as a consultant to them. If the XXXXXX is not
suitable for the large number of smtp mail that must be sent, could you
please provide pricing for a plan that would support it?

SOMEONE:
We received your request for a web hosting quote from XXXXXXX=20
=20
I just wanted to get back to you regarding your =93Additional Comments=94
section. Unfortunately, we can not accommodate such a request because of
the email load this would bring. We limit our e-mail load to 100/hour for
each account (even our ??? solution). =20
=20
So I at least wanted to get back to you and let you know there isn=92t any
way you could pass an average of 333 emails / hour through any of our
servers. =20
=20
We do host quite a few E-Commerce sites and for some large corporations as
well. Many of them usually have an ISP that provides a T1 service or
higher which comes with managed DNS services. They would have us host the
website; and have the ISP maintain the DNS record which would point the MX
record to their internal mail servers for handling of mail (usually through=

an Exchange Server). =20
=20

Anonymous

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

In article <de759aef0edec5dba7f47ca06060820f@anon.bananasplit.info>
Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
> There were questions about using web hosting services for remailers by
> making use of the SMTP and POP that comes with the service.
>
> I did a little investigation. The few web hosting companies that responded
> to my request provides some evidence that it is unlikely or impossible. I
> presented the situation for a real business (for real) and not a remailer.

Exactly. It also shows that it isn't running a remailer that
is the problem, but the amount of mail that would be sent
over their servers.

TwistyCreek

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Anonymous <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>In article <de759aef0edec5dba7f47ca06060820f@anon.bananasplit.info>
>Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>Exactly. It also shows that it isn't running a remailer that
>is the problem, but the amount of mail that would be sent
>over their servers.

Exactly why I posted it here. To prove a point. Eelbash stated that Web
Hosting Professionals looked down their noses at remailers. Simply put,
remailer or not, they won't take on the load. I contacted 11 of the largest
companies expressing interest in their most expensive plans with the E-mail
stipulation. Only 2 replied, those 2 that you saw posted previously. One a
live chat, and 1 a return E-mail.

Alex de Joode

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
: There were questions about using web hosting services for remailers by
: making use of the SMTP and POP that comes with the service.

If you want to run a remailer, shared hosting is a 'bad idea',
as you will have the key and it's password available on a server
that is controlled by someone else.

If you want to start a remailer the best way to operate is via
a colocated machine (you own it, you install the OS, you are the
administrator (you Boss Man).).

The second best option would be a dedicated server, you are the
administrator (you Boss Man). The company will setup the machine
and the OS but you can change almost everything.

The third best option would be a server connected to your ADSL/Cable
provider. (you own it, you install the OS, you are the
administrator (you Boss Man).) But most TOS will prohibit a server
running and the service will be more prone to a DDoS attack.

In Germany you can have a 'root-server' for the elcheapo price of
e19,- per month ..

http://www.hetzner.de/rootserver.html e19,--
http://www.strato.de/server/index.html e19,90
http://www.hosteurope.de/index.php4 e19,99
http://www.firstdedicated.de/ e39,95

Cheers,
-aj-

moose

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

You seem to be going down the same dead end path over and over (or perhaps
this is some different each time).

First there seems to be a bit of confusion over a registrar a hosting service.
When you register a domain name you are basicly getting DNS services. Anyone
sending mail to yourdomain.org will (probably without even seeing it) access
the MX records associated with you name. Those MX records point to the server
that will accept incoming mail.

If your machine is online 24/7 with a static IP then you can simply point your
MX recs at your machine and Mercury will work great to receive all incoming mail.
If your machine is not online 24/7 then you probably need "redirection" services.
Many -REGISTRARS- offer redirection as part of the name registration package.
When you're using thier redirection server you put -thier redirection server's IP-
into you MX recs.

There's a couple of variations on what you do with this arrangement. One possibility
is to run a dynamic update client that detects your "current" IP on your machine
each time it changes and contacts your registrar and updates it's database so thier
redirection server can send incoming mail requests to your current IP. The reason
you can't simply update the MX recs themselves with a dynamic update client is that
DNS info takes up to 3 days to propogate to all corners of the earth. The idea of a
redirection service in this sinerio is that everyone trying to contact you gets a nice
stable IP (the one your registrar specifies for it's redirection server) and the server
is the only thing that needs to be changed every time your IP changes.

The other way to use a redirection server is what I did with the moose remailer. You
simply point the redirection server at some nice reliable online storage space like
a gmail box. The organization you use needs to be OK with providing you POP3 (or in
the case of gmail POP3s) service for your 8000+ emails a day. This is nowhere near
the requirement of providing you 8000+ outgoing (SMTP) emails a day. The POP3 is
incoming (to you) and if it's spam they really couldn't care less. Outgoing spam on
the other hand can cause them huge problems (if they get blocked by other ISPs, etc).

The outgoing (SMTP) part you are going to want to do directly from your machine with
Mercury's E-Module. The only problem here is that a dynamic IP (or any IP that can not
have reverse DNS - AKA Ptr recs) set up for it will be blocked by some ISPs because of
the likelyhood that you are in fact a spammer. If you are running a middleman remailer
this is not an issue.. actually it's an issue you whine and complain about (see Razelka
blocking - Not temporary, etc). The load on your ISP for this traffic is not really an
issue, perhaps a few hundred meg a day of "general purpose" bandwidth. That's diddly
compared to what warez, mp3, pr0n, etc collectors use.

HTH

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: cp850

iQCVAgUBQ7325jfLqdEzX1nVAQFeLwQAx7pOtXuq
7h63zCzt77mO8Z7aRefGjAzp
gjhvp/SaE23ueWwJ1DnDTIhMKRYFOaNFTFet9Li/fK57BO/JUAIqYVr1B8Bl+tA+
3voHb8nQUaVfpisC6jlgRYo8HHKniULdrS20T48w
gRh5GYzANO2VKewSKueRewqK
XZCS03sy2HM=
=lDxU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

TwistyCreek

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

On 6 Jan 2006, moose <moose@nym.alias.net> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>You seem to be going down the same dead end path over and over (or perhaps
>this is some different each time).

The original post was to clear up for Eelbash Admin the question he posed
in another thread. He was under the impression you could sign up for a Web
Hosting package and use the SMTP and POP services that came with it to
operate a remailer. Here is a copy and paste of that section:

>I realize now, from emailing several of the cheapie services, that
>remailers are against their ToS. I thought any service was ok, as long as
>it was run responsibly, but obviously not.

>Aside from using one's own isp, are there any 'service providers' which do
>allow remailers?

>There must be a few remailers that are making use of such service
>providers.

>How much $. What do you get?

>Anybody?

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 17:13:41 +0000, TwistyCreek wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Anonymous <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> Exactly why I posted it here. To prove a point. Eelbash stated that Web
> Hosting Professionals looked down their noses at remailers. Simply put,
> remailer or not, they won't take on the load. I contacted 11 of the
> largest companies expressing interest in their most expensive plans with
> the E-mail stipulation. Only 2 replied, those 2 that you saw posted
> previously. One a live chat, and 1 a return E-mail.

Some replies from 'web hosting professionals'. All of these places had
> 10Gb transfer bandwidth per month:

Unfortunately, we will not be able to assist you. With our strict AUP
any complaints would result in the immediate closing of the account.

Unfortunately, we are not able to host a service such as this....
Remailers are abused too often....

More often than not, remailers are used specifically to SPAM and I
will not have any of that.

....we [do not] want to be part of an anonymising network...

So my experience tells me that it was not a problem with the volume
of mail but fear of abuse, specifically, the work that it entails, that
made these people turn down a remailer.

TwistyCreek

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

In article <20060106191938.EAE6417090@mail.cypherpunks.to>
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer <nobody@cypherpunks.to> wrote:
>
> So my experience tells me that it was not a problem with the volume
> of mail but fear of abuse, specifically, the work that it entails, that
> made these people turn down a remailer.

Another Eelbash sock puppet!

Dance for us, Eelbash.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

>So my experience tells me that it was not a problem with the volume of
mail but fear of abuse, <snip>

Your problem was that you sounded like either a wannabe spammer (who was
so stupid as to ask instead of just doing it) or a kid who was dreaming
what he could do with his allowance money and made up some incredibly
obvious lie about consulting for a mail order company with retired owners,

etc, etc, etc... Real professioanls (real adults for that matter) don't
talk like that. They say I need.. Do you offer.. What's your price for...
and skip the whole bullshit part.

moose

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>I realize now, from emailing several of the cheapie services, that
>remailers are against their ToS.

Of course they are!... This is like going to the butcher shop and looking
to by 50 gallons of milk... They MAY have a gallon or two of milk for
sale for the convienience of customers who want to grab some milk at the
same time they pickup thier corned beef, but they aren't in "the milk
business", they're in "the meat business"..

Hosting services are in "the hosting business". This has nothing to
do with "the email business", especially tons of email. They offer a
small pop and smtp service as a "one stop shoping" option for customers
with VERY LIMTED requirements. Just like places like GoDaddy offer
registrar and hosting services combined as a convienience for customers
with limited DNS requirements and so they can reduce the margin they need
to charge for each service seperately. Contacting cheapie hosting services
about large volume email services is GUARANTEED to get you a NO (with
whatever justification they find most convienient at the moment).

Why don't you try email service companies instead of web hosting service
companies? There are some cheapies in that market too. Try searching with
google. I can warn you in advance though that if you try a BS story like
you told the hosting guys it will get your e-mail laughed right into the
bit bucket.

outta here...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: cp850

iQCVAgUBQ74mcjfLqdEzX1nVAQEOOAP+IWx4bJ1I
V3sOr56/1VF7UCth/0nrFs+F
JA8nI/aeEnRHKyb7/4/Lm9g0+WyFHV4lNwO5gG1QPb/EeUXQ07pqg4X9Ng3jgVH/
OPfhYXDhXM9PPzpzRyTCyxLvqPmTZlYLzsifExPU
ItZBE3Q3QmM4jpYcljB9sDbh
+fnAJRMZnDg=
=0lIy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

TwistyCreek

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

> So my experience tells me that it was not a problem with the volume
> of mail but fear of abuse, specifically, the work that it entails, that
> made these people turn down a remailer.

Eelbash, you have already been told why a $20 a year web host
isn't going to allow a remailer to operate on it's service. It
isn't rocket science.

Change the record already.

privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

In article <5O98N9Q138723.6231944444@twistycreek.com>
TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
> Could someone give me a SHUT UP ELLBASH please.. TIA

Obviously you are a mentally ill psychopathic remailer-hater child.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

On 6 Jan 2006, TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
>Eelbash, you have already been told why a $20 a year web host
>isn't going to allow a remailer to operate on it's service. It
>isn't rocket science.
>
>Change the record already.

Eelbash is like one of those kids you want to beat with a blunt instrument.
"Why?"
"Because"
"But why?"
"Because"
"But why?"
"Because"
"But why?"
"Because"
"But why?"
"Because"

Anonymous

2006-01-06, 5:48 pm

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 16:00:56 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

> There were questions about using web hosting services for remailers by
> making use of the SMTP and POP that comes with the service.
>
> I did a little investigation. The few web hosting companies that responded
> to my request provides some evidence that it is unlikely or impossible. I
> presented the situation for a real business (for real) and not a remailer.

I contacted a dozen places, telling them outright that I wanted to run a
remailer.

10 got back to me. 8 said they could not allow it. 2 of them said a
remailer was not a problem. Those two were bauxgroup.com and netfirms.com.

Judging by all the hits you get when you search for 'pop3 domain', there
must be another 50 places that could serve for a remailer. So there are
probably more that would allow one.

>
> Please wait for a site operator to respond. You are not currently in a
> chat session. All operators are currently assisting others. Thanks for
> your patience. An operator will be with you shortly.
> You are now chatting with SOMEONE
>
> SOMEONE: Welcome to "XXXXXXX" live chat service. How may I assist you?
>
> ME: I consult for a large mail order company. The old owners have retired
> and sold the business. The new owners want to expand the business by
> adding a Web Site service. In addition, they will need to be able to send
> out 5,000 to 6,000 confirmation of orders E-mails to customers within 24
> hour periods and possibly additional E-mails announcing specials for
> regular customers bringing the total E-mail sent to about 8,000 per 24
> hour period. Do you have a plan suitable for this? The large number of
> E-mails being sent gives me some concern as the new owners have appointed
> me as responsible for finding a solution as a consultant to them. If the
> current plans are not suitable for the large number of SMTP mail that must
> be sent, could you please provide pricing for a plan that would support
> it?
>
> SOMEONE: Unfortunately the limited on email are 200 emails per hour and
> 2000 emails per day. Any more would breach terms and conditions and is
> grounds for suspension.
>
> ME: Thank you for your time. It is a difficult solution to find.
>
>
> ME:
> Hello , ??????
>
> I consult for a large mail order company. The old owners have retired and
> sold the business. The new owners want to expand the business by adding a
> WebSite service. In addition, they will need to be able to send out 5,000
> to 6,000 confirmation of orders E-mails to customers within 24 hour
> periods and possibly additional E-mails announcing specials for regular
> customers bringing the total E-mail sent to about 8,000 per 24 hour
> period. Is your XXXXXX plan suitable for this? The large number of
> confirmation E-mails gives me some concern as the new owners have
> appointed me as responsible for finding a solution as a consultant to
> them. If the XXXXXX is not suitable for the large number of smtp mail that
> must be sent, could you please provide pricing for a plan that would
> support it?
>
>
>
> SOMEONE:
> We received your request for a web hosting quote from XXXXXXX
>
> I just wanted to get back to you regarding your “Additional Comments”
> section. Unfortunately, we can not accommodate such a request because of
> the email load this would bring. We limit our e-mail load to 100/hour for
> each account (even our ??? solution).
>
> So I at least wanted to get back to you and let you know there isn’t any
> way you could pass an average of 333 emails / hour through any of our
> servers.
>
> We do host quite a few E-Commerce sites and for some large corporations as
> well. Many of them usually have an ISP that provides a T1 service or
> higher which comes with managed DNS services. They would have us host the
> website; and have the ISP maintain the DNS record which would point the MX
> record to their internal mail servers for handling of mail (usually
> through an Exchange Server).

Anonymous

2006-01-06, 8:46 pm

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:21:56 +0000, moose wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>
> Of course they are!... This is like going to the butcher shop and looking
> to by 50 gallons of milk... They MAY have a gallon or two of milk for sale
> for the convienience of customers who want to grab some milk at the same
> time they pickup thier corned beef, but they aren't in "the milk
> business", they're in "the meat business"..
>
> Hosting services are in "the hosting business". This has nothing to do
> with "the email business", especially tons of email. They offer a small
> pop and smtp service as a "one stop shoping" option for customers with
> VERY LIMTED requirements. Just like places like GoDaddy offer registrar
> and hosting services combined as a convienience for customers with limited
> DNS requirements and so they can reduce the margin they need to charge for
> each service seperately. Contacting cheapie hosting services about large
> volume email services is GUARANTEED to get you a NO (with whatever
> justification they find most convienient at the moment).
>
> Why don't you try email service companies instead of web hosting service
> companies? There are some cheapies in that market too. Try searching with
> google. I can warn you in advance though that if you try a BS story like
> you told the hosting guys it will get your e-mail laughed right into the
> bit bucket.

Thanks. You are confusing me with the guy who told the BS story. I told
the 'email service companies' or maybe they called themselves 'web hosting
service companies' but whatever they called themselves, they offered a pop
server, a domain name and > 10Gb transfer bandwidth per month - I told
those guys straight out that I wanted to run a remailer and did they have
an objections.

Of the 12 I asked, 10 replied; 8 said NO; 2 said SURE.

Thrasher Remailer

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

In article <20060106191938.EAE6417090@mail.cypherpunks.to>
Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer <nobody@cypherpunks.to> wrote:
>
snip

>
> So my experience tells me that it was not a problem with the volume
> of mail but fear of abuse, specifically, the work that it entails, that
> made these people turn down a remailer.

No, it's simply because (as somebody else tried to point out), web hosting services are not in the business of sending email, they are in the business of hosting web sites.

Apples and Oranges... You're going to an Apple tree expecting to get Oranges.

Try an Orange grove and you're in business.

- --
My public keys can be found on my freenet site:
SSK@TEx6TiaPeszpV4AFw3ToutDb49EPAgM/mytwocents/25//m2ckey.html
(*NOTE* you must be running freenet for this link to be usefull)
and on public keyservers. Key-Id: 0x92769D7E
Fingerprint: 2F07D586C8D4EEA732711338CFEF46E592769D7E

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.45

iD8DBQFDvyexz+9G5ZJ2nX4RA+/1AJ97g2FrOnS1k2QvCwLAU2TPyNjrKwCeJrCS
VyurcQFpYZbFysHXeBbcE0c=
=EDS7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thrasher Remailer

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

In article <EIIVTZL738723.5095023148@twistycreek.com>
TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Anonymous <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> Exactly why I posted it here. To prove a point. Eelbash stated that Web
> Hosting Professionals looked down their noses at remailers. Simply put,
> remailer or not, they won't take on the load. I contacted 11 of the largest
> companies expressing interest in their most expensive plans with the E-mail
> stipulation. Only 2 replied, those 2 that you saw posted previously. One a
> live chat, and 1 a return E-mail.

What needs to be remembered is a basic idea: Use the right tool for the job.

Webhosting companies are not the right tool for running a remailer. What you need is an ISP whose TOS/AUP allow you to run public services and then run the remailer and Mail server on your own machine. Then and only then will you be able to process the
load of email involved.

- --
My public keys can be found on my freenet site:
SSK@TEx6TiaPeszpV4AFw3ToutDb49EPAgM/mytwocents/25//m2ckey.html
(*NOTE* you must be running freenet for this link to be usefull)
and on public keyservers. Key-Id: 0x92769D7E
Fingerprint: 2F07D586C8D4EEA732711338CFEF46E592769D7E

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.45

iD8DBQFDvyVoz+9G5ZJ2nX4RAwKHAKCTVaiALk+w
/Cbn37UTZLmSx6EHkgCg/k8p
RwwYIPBvQ430gI9zHW0UFnY=
=jQTD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thrasher Remailer

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 22:38:37 +0000, TwistyCreek wrote:

>
> Eelbash, you have already been told why a $20 a year web host
isn't going
> to allow a remailer to operate on it's service.

Sure. $20 won't get you permission to run any service with the
potential for all of those nasty emails going to the 'web host
email service provider' or whatever it is called, and taking up
their time.

But bauxgroup.com and netfirms.com, to name two, are willing to
take on the job for more money. Thank God somebody was willing
to make the effort to find out about them. If anybody here wants
to run a remailer and can't use his isp for some reason, why not
check them out?

In fact, why doesn't the guy who made up the bullshit story
that he fed to 2 (two) entities put as much effort into doing a
search for 'pop server domain' and contact the people who offer
10 or 15 or more gigs of transfer / month, and see how many will
host a remailer?

Some gentleman has already discovered the two mentioned above,
after contacting a *dozen* entities, so why don't one or more of
you hotshots make some real effort instead of endlessly
speculating (if there is anything I can't stand it is
bullshitters who talk but don't act)?

Getting a list of remailer-friendly pop domain email service
providers seems to me to be almost as useful as keeping stats up
to date.

Do we want more remailers or not? Let's work to make the
entrance into this important field of internet endeavour as easy
as possible.

Thank God we have people like Eelbash who really care about
remailers and are willing to embody their feelings in action!

Anonymous

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

In article <ad02feb0453746bef46878679b50a42f@anon.bananasplit.info>
Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks. You are confusing me with the guy who told the BS story.

It sounds like you are a psychopathic child. You should filter
yourself out of your aaabbc remailer to protect us all.

Anonymous

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

In article <ad02feb0453746bef46878679b50a42f@anon.bananasplit.info>
Anonymous <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks. You are confusing me with the guy who told the BS story. I told
> the 'email service companies' or maybe they called themselves 'web hosting
> service companies' but whatever they called themselves, they offered a pop
> server, a domain name and > 10Gb transfer bandwidth per month - I told
> those guys straight out that I wanted to run a remailer and did they have
> an objections.
>
> Of the 12 I asked, 10 replied; 8 said NO; 2 said SURE.
>

Eelbash, it's good to know you have the time to make all these sock puppet
posts. I guess it means we won't be seing a new incarnation of your remailer
for a while. Excellent!

-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

TwistyCreek Admin

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 7 Jan 2006 04:46:02 -0000, Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au>
wrote:

Snipped (GRIN>

>Do we want more remailers or not? Let's work to make the
>entrance into this important field of internet endeavour as easy
>as possible.
Maybe incompetence on your part?

>Thank God we have people like Eelbash who really care about
>remailers and are willing to embody their feelings in action!
You are joking, right? That has to be one of the funniest jokes of the
year.

Why bother? My re-mailer works just fine as is.

Check: http://stats.bananasplit.info/

My stats are 99.22% at this time. Look the stats over carefully.

Go to http://stats.bananasplit.info/twisty.txt

Check them there. Average reliability: 99.91%

Now let us look at Eelbash:
Total known pingers: 20
Pingers reporting: 15 (0 Active)
Average reliability: 0.00%

Now aaabbc:
Pinger statistics for the aaabbc remailer
Total known pingers: 20
Pingers reporting: 1 (0 Active)
Average reliability: 0.00%

Maybe we should just thank God we don't have people like Eelbash running
re-mailers<G>

You just don't get it. Just go away already. You already said it was a
hobby to you. Some of us don't consider it a hobby. Some of us consider it
a dead assed serious commitment.

TwistyCreek Admin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQA/AwUBQ79VBP9qPDhkRaWyEQJz0wCgmwzIrk/iwtXuNzxogkoVkhyo5/IAn1NW
TEhT4MuAquOOu/0JFuysZ01H
=fhBK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Anonymous

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

> Thank God we have people like Eelbash who really care about
> remailers and are willing to embody their feelings in action!

Where else would we find somebody as stupid as you to laugh at?
You're one of a kind.

Thank God for Eelbash and his stupid attempts at trying to be
anonymous!

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

In article <jdjur1heqcnifbspfplice3213cn62j32t@4ax.com>
TwistyCreek Admin <admin^@^twistycreek^.^com> wrote:
>
> Maybe incompetence on your part?

_Maybe_ incompetence? That is Eelbash you are talking to. You
know the one, took 4 years to work out that Mixmaster was a
remailer and not just an add-on for Reliable.

There is no maybe. Incompetence is guaranteed, or your money back.

Anonymous

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

In article <jdjur1heqcnifbspfplice3213cn62j32t@4ax.com>
TwistyCreek Admin <admin^@^twistycreek^.^com> wrote:
>
> You are joking, right? That has to be one of the funniest jokes of the
> year.

Obviously you weren't here for his "I'm just a little old woman"
sock puppet post then. That was the funniest joke of the year.

Read <3JD72CIW38639.3398726852@reece.net.au> if you want a good
laugh.

Anonymous

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

In article <V34XTNDX38724.5319675926@reece.net.au>
Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
> Sure. $20 won't get you permission to run any service with the
> potential for all of those nasty emails going to the 'web host
> email service provider' or whatever it is called, and taking up
> their time.
>
> But bauxgroup.com and netfirms.com, to name two, are willing to
> take on the job for more money. Thank God somebody was willing
> to make the effort to find out about them. If anybody here wants
> to run a remailer and can't use his isp for some reason, why not
> check them out?
>
> In fact, why doesn't the guy who made up the bullshit story
> that he fed to 2 (two) entities put as much effort into doing a
> search for 'pop server domain' and contact the people who offer
> 10 or 15 or more gigs of transfer / month, and see how many will
> host a remailer?
>
> Some gentleman has already discovered the two mentioned above,
> after contacting a *dozen* entities, so why don't one or more of
> you hotshots make some real effort instead of endlessly
> speculating (if there is anything I can't stand it is
> bullshitters who talk but don't act)?
>
> Getting a list of remailer-friendly pop domain email service
> providers seems to me to be almost as useful as keeping stats up
> to date.
>
> Do we want more remailers or not? Let's work to make the
> entrance into this important field of internet endeavour as easy
> as possible.
>
> Thank God we have people like Eelbash who really care about
> remailers and are willing to embody their feelings in action!

Another Eelbash sock puppet post. Puke.

Thrasher Remailer

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

In article <a2f794e7d22413c0525344675cf6e588@deuxpi.ca>
Anonymous <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> In article <jdjur1heqcnifbspfplice3213cn62j32t@4ax.com>
> TwistyCreek Admin <admin^@^twistycreek^.^com> wrote:
>
> Obviously you weren't here for his "I'm just a little old woman"
> sock puppet post then. That was the funniest joke of the year.
>
> Read <3JD72CIW38639.3398726852@reece.net.au> if you want a good
> laugh.

Yep. That has to be one of the classics...

TwistyCreek

2006-01-07, 2:46 am

TwistyCreek Admin <admin^@^twistycreek^.^com> wrote:

> Some of us don't consider it a hobby. Some of us consider it
> a dead assed serious commitment.

I don't.

George Orwell

2006-01-07, 5:48 pm

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Anonymous <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>In article <jdjur1heqcnifbspfplice3213cn62j32t@4ax.com>
>TwistyCreek Admin <admin^@^twistycreek^.^com> wrote:
>
>Obviously you weren't here for his "I'm just a little old woman"
>sock puppet post then. That was the funniest joke of the year.
>
>Read <3JD72CIW38639.3398726852@reece.net.au> if you want a good
>laugh.

Oh, good Lord! How the hell did I miss that little gem?!? That has to be
one of the worst sock puppet attempts I have ever seen. "...the garility
of an old woman" ROFLMAO!! The WORST! EVER!

Yeah, that sounds natural. As natural as UltraSuede.

TwistyCreek

2006-01-07, 5:48 pm

>Obviously you weren't here for his "I'm just a little old woman"

[vbcol=seagreen]

that part sounds right at least.. LOL

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-01-07, 5:48 pm

In article <a2f794e7d22413c0525344675cf6e588@deuxpi.ca>
Anonymous <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> Obviously you weren't here for his "I'm just a little old woman"
> sock puppet post then. That was the funniest joke of the year.
>
> Read <3JD72CIW38639.3398726852@reece.net.au> if you want a good
> laugh.

I think it has suddenly become clear why he is eaten up with
hate for mentally ill people; he hates himself.