Anonymous Servers - Opt-in for emails. A few comments

Author

Opt-in for emails. A few comments

Eelbash Admin

2006-12-04, 7:12 am

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

I've been running eelbash as opt-in for emails for several days and
noticed a few things which might be of interest.

The way exit emails to civilians are handled is to send the first email,
but include a disclaimer that explains it will be the last email he
receives, unless he opts in by replying and including the confirmation
code in the subject line.

Spam email is filtered out. It rarely gets through the remailer.

So far, about 50 emails going to civilians have been received. Of those
50 recipients, guess how many people have opted-in? One.

I interpret that to mean that people are indifferent, at best, to email
that is sent to them through remailers, and makes me think that the opt-in
idea is a good one.

Two potential problems have been pointed out: LEA not receiving criminal
threats, thereby unable to head them off, and the variety of possible
emails making it impossible for everyone to opt-in.

I don't see the first one as much of a problem. If the LEA doesn't check
its email for bomb threats and so on, it's not doing its job. If that's
too simplistic a way to look at it, maybe some sort of tweaking can be
done; maybe send a couple of emails before putting in the block.

The second problem, of the variety of possible emails, hasn't caused a
problem yet and I can't see how it can, but maybe there is some address
out there that will gum up the works.

I don't see how emails going to a public address, such as a mailing list,
will cause a problem, since the confirmation code is in the subject line
of the first email, and anyone can send a reply using the public address
of the mailing list, or whatever it is, as the 'from' address, and
thereby opt-in. But who knows?

What I've had to do is to whitelist, using regex, certain essential
addresses that should never get the disclaimer or be added to the
blocklist. A periodic check of the existing blocklist is enough to see if
an address is blocked that should not be, and the whitelist can then be
adjusted.

I haven't had to make any changes yet, but the question is still there of
how much maintenance the operator will want to do.

Personally, after seeing how little interest people have in receiving
emails through the remailer - that was an eye-opener, and considering how
unpleasant it can be for them to receive threats or insults through the
remailer, and how bomb threats and the like can cause problems for the
remailer to the point of it being shut down, I don't mind doing a little
maintenance; but others may feel differently.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFdBA8EC+g9Qawm6QRApSUAKDni2/EX/Uw++DQt6LgGQcgXdIpRgCglFYi
8yWDrGd7mKlo8+4fSZtV1Ts=
=FJvO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo

2006-12-04, 1:13 pm

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

Eelbash Admin wrote:
> I've been running eelbash as opt-in for emails for several days and
> noticed a few things which might be of interest.
>
> The way exit emails to civilians are handled is to send the first email,
> but include a disclaimer that explains it will be the last email he
> receives, unless he opts in by replying and including the confirmation
> code in the subject line.
>
> Spam email is filtered out. It rarely gets through the remailer.
>
> So far, about 50 emails going to civilians have been received. Of those
> 50 recipients, guess how many people have opted-in? One.
>
> I interpret that to mean that people are indifferent, at best, to email
> that is sent to them through remailers, and makes me think that the opt-in
> idea is a good one.
>
> Two potential problems have been pointed out: LEA not receiving criminal
> threats, thereby unable to head them off, and the variety of possible
> emails making it impossible for everyone to opt-in.
>
> I don't see the first one as much of a problem. If the LEA doesn't check
> its email for bomb threats and so on, it's not doing its job. If that's
> too simplistic a way to look at it, maybe some sort of tweaking can be
> done; maybe send a couple of emails before putting in the block.
>
> The second problem, of the variety of possible emails, hasn't caused a
> problem yet and I can't see how it can, but maybe there is some address
> out there that will gum up the works.
>
> I don't see how emails going to a public address, such as a mailing list,
> will cause a problem, since the confirmation code is in the subject line
> of the first email, and anyone can send a reply using the public address
> of the mailing list, or whatever it is, as the 'from' address, and
> thereby opt-in. But who knows?
>
> What I've had to do is to whitelist, using regex, certain essential
> addresses that should never get the disclaimer or be added to the
> blocklist. A periodic check of the existing blocklist is enough to see if
> an address is blocked that should not be, and the whitelist can then be
> adjusted.
>
> I haven't had to make any changes yet, but the question is still there of
> how much maintenance the operator will want to do.
>
> Personally, after seeing how little interest people have in receiving
> emails through the remailer - that was an eye-opener, and considering how
> unpleasant it can be for them to receive threats or insults through the
> remailer, and how bomb threats and the like can cause problems for the
> remailer to the point of it being shut down, I don't mind doing a little
> maintenance; but others may feel differently.

I just don't know where to start. Are you really this dumb?

1) the LEA are the ones going to opt-in and you want them out
2) if you just dest-block the LEA and a plane blows up, who is going to
know about the dropped message? One cannot get upset about something one
doesn't know about now can one?
3) it is called DOS attacking not gum (you'll find out soon anyway)
4) you are stupid
5) insulting an airport official won't get you prosecuted as much as
threatening him
6) you are stupid
7) I wouldn't use your remailer if it was the only one left
8) I don't want to listen to people who do use your remailer because
they are as stupid as you and have nothing valuable to tell me
9) you 'outed' yourself as RAAA by replying to your own post, which you
signed. Hint: remailer latency, network delays and newsgroup traffic is
tale telling here

Suffocate and choke you canadian bastard! (and that is not an insult)
Thomas
- --
It is ironic, that ultimately, it is the politicians that push for the
use for lie detectors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBRXQ+GgEP2l8iXKAJAQHhfAMgm80xHvcL
WXCupC/4WXZ4ofia2++Zlm7H
qE0SsfHtvhv/QgHDa0ipI5FbB/RdxmxOz4hdG5zyIPIwTA9evXACDrtysztmz+ot
Xv63UeP/6qDyDKNcQE9PiSMv8+hnYA8i7nun+A==
=Ev3X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Alex de Joode

2006-12-04, 1:13 pm

Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
[..]
: Personally, after seeing how little interest people have in receiving
: emails through the remailer - that was an eye-opener, and considering how
: unpleasant it can be for them to receive threats or insults through the
: remailer, and how bomb threats and the like can cause problems for the
: remailer to the point of it being shut down, I don't mind doing a little
: maintenance; but others may feel differently.

Why not shutdown delivering emails all together and only provide access to
usenet ? Oh and why not use the same mechanism for delivering messages to
a newsgroup ? Ask say 10 subscribers to that group to ACK messages destined
for that group before they are delivered.

Maybe shutdown eelbash.org all together if those results are also
disappointing ?

Cheers
-AJ-

Eelbash Admin

2006-12-04, 1:13 pm

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:06:09 +0000, Alex de Joode wrote:

> Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote: [..]
> : Personally, after seeing how little interest people have in receiving
> : emails through the remailer - that was an eye-opener, and considering
> : how unpleasant it can be for them to receive threats or insults through
> : the remailer, and how bomb threats and the like can cause problems for
> : the remailer to the point of it being shut down, I don't mind doing a
> : little maintenance; but others may feel differently.
>
> Why not shutdown delivering emails all together and only provide access to
> usenet ?

So asking someone to opt in to continue receiving emails is as
destructive to the emailing aspect of remailers as shutting down emails
altogther?

I view it as making it easy for a user to be free of the rubbish from
remailers unless he wants to receive it. One person out of 50 has opted-in
so far. That should tell you something about how much people value the
emails they receive through remailers.

But anyone who wants to continue receiving emails just replies to the
first message and he has opted-in. Nothing else needs to be done.

How that is equivalent to shutting down emails, or to the other nonsense
below, is beyond me.

> Oh and why not use the same mechanism for delivering messages to
> a newsgroup ? Ask say 10 subscribers to that group to ACK messages
> destined for that group before they are delivered.
>
> Maybe shutdown eelbash.org all together if those results are also
> disappointing ?
>
> Cheers

> -AJ-

Non scrivetemi

2006-12-04, 1:13 pm

Eelbash Admin wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I've been running eelbash as opt-in for emails for several days and
> noticed a few things which might be of interest.
>
> The way exit emails to civilians are handled is to send the first
> email, but include a disclaimer that explains it will be the last
> email he receives, unless he opts in by replying and including the
> confirmation code in the subject line.
>
> Spam email is filtered out. It rarely gets through the remailer.
>
> So far, about 50 emails going to civilians have been received. Of
> those 50 recipients, guess how many people have opted-in? One.
>
> I interpret that to mean that people are indifferent, at best, to
> email that is sent to them through remailers, and makes me think that
> the opt-in idea is a good one.

Of course that's the way you interpret it. In your mind it's impossible
for any of your ideas to be wrong so when a predictable outcome occurs
you assign it whatever cause your fouled thought processes see as
falling in line with your original reasoning.

Of course there could be a lot of different reasons why people don't
respond. One of the most most obvious ones is that a huge number of
people don't sit at their computers all day waiting to get email, and
so wouldn't respond with your personal definition of prudency. A
typical Jiang Wu "I am the center of the universe" mistake.

> Two potential problems have been pointed out: LEA not receiving
> criminal threats, thereby unable to head them off, and the variety of
> possible emails making it impossible for everyone to opt-in.
>
> I don't see the first one as much of a problem. If the LEA doesn't

Of course you don't. See above. The notion that LE has massive volumes
of emails to peruse can't even be considered in your world because you
have no way to defend another of your obvious failings against it. So
you dismiss it off hand by impugning LE if they don't function within
your Jiang Wu "I am the center of the Universe" parameters just like
you impugn remailer operators as not being "worth their salt" if they
don't follow your apocryphal ideas. Or you dismiss it by trying to
equate another of your more insidious favorites, filtering, to a real
solution. In your mind chanting a magic word comparison incantation
over your inbox makes the problem go away.

Here's another problem with the legal/LE end of your latest scheme. If a
target of some abuse wants to collect abusive emails as evidence they
have to opt in to receive them. Which makes the whole thing flawed at
its core because once a victim has done this it's logical to argue that
any claim to having been actually threatened or not wanting to get
these mails is null and void. You're aiding and abetting the criminals
by making the victim assume responsibility for criminal bullshit. You
must be very proud of yourself.

> check its email for bomb threats and so on, it's not doing its job.

You're developing a nasty habit of calling people useless if they can't
perform their job they way Jiang Wu believes they should. What exactly
is it you do for a living Jiang? Sit by your computer waiting to touch
yourself when another anonymous messages crosses your path and collect
disability? Not exactly what anyone would call a qualification for
making that sort of judgment call.

> If that's too simplistic a way to look at it, maybe some sort of
> tweaking can be done; maybe send a couple of emails before putting in
> the block.
>
> The second problem, of the variety of possible emails, hasn't caused a
> problem yet and I can't see how it can, but maybe there is some
> address out there that will gum up the works.

How could you possible know if it's caused a problem or not if you're
not archiving and double checking the destination of every single email
that's sent through your honeypot? You couldn't. Mail sent to lists or
other destinations which can't respond to your "disclaimers" results in
lost mail. Plain and simple.

What about lists like Security Basics where the moderator takes most
weekends and holidays off? That lag could easily result in lost mail by
a permanent blockage. That could be parlayed into an effective DoS
attack even. But they're not at the center of your little Jiang Wu
universe so they don't count, now do they? They deserve nothing but to
be dismissed like you're about to, if you have the guts to even address
to a real life example at all.

> I don't see how emails going to a public address, such as a mailing
> list, will cause a problem, since the confirmation code is in the
> subject line of the first email, and anyone can send a reply using
> the public address of the mailing list, or whatever it is, as the
> 'from' address, and thereby opt-in. But who knows?

So basically any attacker can "subscribe" eelbash to a public list or
forum. I guess you do see the problems with public lists and such, you
simply prefer totally broken solution attempts to admitting any part of
your Jiang Wu "I am the center of the universe" scheme is flawed in
design.

This is nothing new. It has come to be synonymous with Eelbash, and all
its previous incarnations.

>
> What I've had to do is to whitelist, using regex, certain essential
> addresses that should never get the disclaimer or be added to the
> blocklist. A periodic check of the existing blocklist is enough to
> see if an address is blocked that should not be, and the whitelist
> can then be adjusted.
>
> I haven't had to make any changes yet, but the question is still
> there of how much maintenance the operator will want to do.
>
> Personally, after seeing how little interest people have in receiving
> emails through the remailer - that was an eye-opener, and considering
> how unpleasant it can be for them to receive threats or insults
> through the remailer, and how bomb threats and the like can cause
> problems for the remailer to the point of it being shut down, I don't
> mind doing a little maintenance; but others may feel differently.

Others DO feel differently. For very good reasons. There's so many
legal, moral, and technical reasons not to do what you're attempting to
do that not one other operator will adopt or even consider adopting your
silly scheme. In your mind this will translate to some "failing" on
the part of real remailer operators because your under developed
psyche lack any ability to accept responsibility for it's own. But as
it has been with with all your "I am the center of the universe"
nonsense it's impossible to implement without breaking the most basic
remailer operator code of ethics (not that you ever cared about
ethics), it heaps liability on both the operator and the victim, and it
will result in lost mail. It's just a bad idea, plain and simple.

The up side is it's one more reason people will shun you.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFFdBA8EC+g9Qawm6QRApSUAKDni2/EX/Uw++DQt6LgGQcgXdIpRgCglFYi
> 8yWDrGd7mKlo8+4fSZtV1Ts=
> =FJvO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

J.Alfred Prufrock

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
>Signature: 0x06B09BA4
>Date:
>Status: INVALID (Unknown)
>
>I've been running eelbash as opt-in for emails for several days and
>noticed a few things which might be of interest.
>
>The way exit emails to civilians are handled is to send the first email,
>but include a disclaimer that explains it will be the last email he
>receives, unless he opts in by replying and including the confirmation
>code in the subject line.
>
>Spam email is filtered out. It rarely gets through the remailer.
>
>So far, about 50 emails going to civilians have been received. Of those
>50 recipients, guess how many people have opted-in? One.
>
>I interpret that to mean that people are indifferent, at best, to email
>that is sent to them through remailers, and makes me think that the opt-in
>idea is a good one.
>
>Two potential problems have been pointed out: LEA not receiving criminal
>threats, thereby unable to head them off, and the variety of possible
>emails making it impossible for everyone to opt-in.
>
>I don't see the first one as much of a problem. If the LEA doesn't check
>its email for bomb threats and so on, it's not doing its job. If that's
>too simplistic a way to look at it, maybe some sort of tweaking can be
>done; maybe send a couple of emails before putting in the block.
>
>The second problem, of the variety of possible emails, hasn't caused a
>problem yet and I can't see how it can, but maybe there is some address
>out there that will gum up the works.
>
>I don't see how emails going to a public address, such as a mailing list,
>will cause a problem, since the confirmation code is in the subject line
>of the first email, and anyone can send a reply using the public address
>of the mailing list, or whatever it is, as the 'from' address, and
>thereby opt-in. But who knows?
>
>What I've had to do is to whitelist, using regex, certain essential
>addresses that should never get the disclaimer or be added to the
>blocklist. A periodic check of the existing blocklist is enough to see if
>an address is blocked that should not be, and the whitelist can then be
>adjusted.
>
>I haven't had to make any changes yet, but the question is still there of
>how much maintenance the operator will want to do.
>
>Personally, after seeing how little interest people have in receiving
>emails through the remailer - that was an eye-opener, and considering how
>unpleasant it can be for them to receive threats or insults through the
>remailer, and how bomb threats and the like can cause problems for the
>remailer to the point of it being shut down, I don't mind doing a little
>maintenance; but others may feel differently.
>=====END PGP SIGNATURE====

Not all emails are the same, even if they are going to the same person.

Hypothetically, if two people send messages to the same recipient, and
the first one doesn't prompt an "opt-in" reply, then the second won't
make it either from a different person.

If the second mail would have been desirable to receive, it would be
lost pissing off the second sender (who would not have known about
the block) and the recipient who ignored the first email.

Sorry, your scheme sucks.

JAP

Anonyma

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

Eelbash Admin wrote:

>
> So asking someone to opt in to continue receiving emails is as
> destructive to the emailing aspect of remailers as shutting down
> emails altogther?

It's nothing new, but you misunderstand completely. It's MORE
destructive to the remailer network to have "opt-in lists" of willing
destinations partitioned off from the whole than it is to have one less
node. Especially when that node is one of yours.

What about dummy traffic and network noise sent to /dev/null style waste
bins which can't and shouldn't ever reply? Do you mistakenly believe
every mail leaving the remailer network is, and shold be destined for
a human readable address? Are you going to give that problem the brush
off just like you've dealt with all the rest of the issues that have
been raised regarding your latest silliness?

When will your overdeveloped sense of infallibility finally come into
brutal contact with the truth Jiang? How much embarrassment is enough?
How much ridicule do you have to endure from remops and users alike,
before the fact that you're incapable of being a useful member of the
remailer community on any level sinks in?

If you take a look around you you'll notice that yet another group of
remailers have quietly dropped you from their field of vision. You're
down to 10 out of 21 on the pingers list according to Noreply too.
That's less than half, a drop from only 1/3 ignoring you just a few
weeks ago.

Is there just a little spark of sentience in you somewhere that lets
you mull over the question of why that is?

> I view it as making it easy for a user to be free of the rubbish from

Your views are those of a self-absorbed, obsessive, person. Not one
other operator shares your vision. Not one. It's a hard pill to
swallow, impossible for some, but when such a vast majority disagrees
with an individual for such a long time on so many issues, it's
undeniably not the majority that's at fault.

You'd think that someone with a "superior intellect" would be able to
wrap that brainpower around this plain and obvious truth, wouldn't you?

> remailers unless he wants to receive it. One person out of 50 has
> opted-in so far. That should tell you something about how much people
> value the emails they receive through remailers.

If that's what you believe then you must feel you're engaging in a
fruitless, annoying hobby. Why are you here? What drives you to
participate if you truly believe you're doing something nobody needs or
wants? For a normal person the motivation is the cause of free speech.
Apparently your motivations lie elsewhere, as you've now so clearly
demonstrated. You seem to have purposefully set out to find fault with
the thing you claim to be supporting, and blindly discarded a whole body
of alternate explanations and issues so you could do it.

>
> But anyone who wants to continue receiving emails just replies to the
> first message and he has opted-in. Nothing else needs to be done.

There certainly is something else that needs to be done. The recipient
needs to notify the sender in some fashion, that they don't care to be
monitored and archived by someone like you. They need to agree to not
send mails through your remailer, and avoid this breach of privacy
entirely.

>
> How that is equivalent to shutting down emails, or to the other
> nonsense below, is beyond me.

Most things, apparently, are "beyond you" Jiang.

Nobody expects any straight talk to finally penetrate that Neanderthal
skull of yours after it's been hardened by years of forcibly repelling
clues, but it has to be said anyway. There's a reason more and more
operators are blacklisting you, and why you're "picked on" by users. It
has nothing at all to do with them being mean spirited or in collusion
against the remailer network, and everything to do with your long
history of unsuitability to the goals of the remailer network, your
obvious and often astoundingly bizarre attempts to abuse the remailer
network to fill some "gap" in your life, and the gross arrogance you
try to defend it all with.

Sometimes believing everyone dislikes you isn't just paranoia, Jiang.

>
>
>
>
>

Anonyma

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

Eelbash Admin wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:06:09 +0000, Alex de Joode wrote:
>
>
> So asking someone to opt in to continue receiving emails is as
> destructive to the emailing aspect of remailers as shutting down
> emails altogther?

No Jackass, it's MORE destructive. It's flies in the face of everything
the remailer network stands for by keeping a list of destinations. It's
a retarded idea that looks more like some attempt to monitor and log
remailer use than anything else. It's bad enough we have to worry about
TLA's doing traffic analysis and message collation, now we have a
XXXXup RemOp doing it, and actually defending the practice.

You're an idiot.

<flush rest of eelbash sniveling>

Eelbash Admin

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:31:43 +0000, J.Alfred wrote:

> Hypothetically, if two people send messages to the same recipient, and the
> first one doesn't prompt an "opt-in" reply, then the second won't make it
> either from a different person.

Right, but the main thing is that the recipient has the power to decide if
he wants to opt-in or not. If he thinks it's a good idea to receive emails
through a remailer, he'll opt in, else he won't.

If subsequent emails don't reach him, that was because he didn't want them
to.

Eelbash Admin

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

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

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:52:02 -0500, Anonyma wrote:

>
> No Jackass, it's MORE destructive. It's flies in the face of everything
> the remailer network stands for by keeping a list of destinations.

You mean like the list of dest-block destinations that is kept in
Reliable's folder?

So that flies in the face of everything the remailer network stands for?

Shocking stuff. I didn't realize RProcess was such a hater of Free Speech.

*
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFdJMjEC+g9Qawm6QRAtZWAJ9w38kO/qq9Ufa1oSo4OwGBtUyWXgCg28Rm
GMOdQwSYZJWXWiQPfxwwicQ=
=O+aS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Anonyma

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>Eelbash Admin wrote:
>
>You'd think that someone with a "superior intellect" would be able to
>wrap that brainpower around this plain and obvious truth, wouldn't you?

Not all Orientals have a "superior intellect", but they all certainly seen
to feel that they do.

>
>Most things, apparently, are "beyond you" Jiang.
>
>Nobody expects any straight talk to finally penetrate that Neanderthal
>skull of yours after it's been hardened by years of forcibly repelling
>clues, but it has to be said anyway. There's a reason more and more
>operators are blacklisting you, and why you're "picked on" by users. It
>has nothing at all to do with them being mean spirited or in collusion
>against the remailer network, and everything to do with your long
>history of unsuitability to the goals of the remailer network, your
>obvious and often astoundingly bizarre attempts to abuse the remailer
>network to fill some "gap" in your life, and the gross arrogance you
>try to defend it all with.
>
>Sometimes believing everyone dislikes you isn't just paranoia, Jiang.

Well said, well said indeed.

Eelbash Admin

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:37:21 -0500, Anonyma wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> Not all Orientals have a "superior intellect", but they all certainly seen
> to feel that they do.

By the way, I don't much care personally, but 'oriental' is not a term
liked by most Asians, which is how you should refer to people originating
in that part of the world.

Anonyma

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

J.Alfred Prufrock wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Not all emails are the same, even if they are going to the same
> person.
>
> Hypothetically, if two people send messages to the same recipient, and
> the first one doesn't prompt an "opt-in" reply, then the second won't
> make it either from a different person.

Good point. Valuable mail could be lost just because this stupid gimmick
could be used to shut off addresses. In fact a bad guy could
effectively kill the possibility that an anonymous whistle blower could
work them this way.

Lets say EvilCo suspects some insider is getting ready to expose their
plans for world domination. EvilCo only has to send a bunch of crap
mail to likely destinations to get them to opt out of any further
mailings, and as a result the evidence against might never get through.
EvilCo takes over the world and we all end up speaking Gatesese. In
fact if I was EvilCo I'd start getting addresses opted out right now,
before anyone finds out about my world domination plans.

Yes I agree, the scheme sucks.

>
> If the second mail would have been desirable to receive, it would be
> lost pissing off the second sender (who would not have known about
> the block) and the recipient who ignored the first email.
>
> Sorry, your scheme sucks.
>
> JAP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Non scrivetemi

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:37:21 -0500, Anonyma wrote:
>
>By the way, I don't much care personally, but 'oriental' is not a term
>liked by most Asians, which is how you should refer to people originating
>in that part of the world.

Tough shit. If your ancestors are from the Orient, that makes you Oriental.
Why are Orientals ashamed of their heritage?

I mean, the last 200 or 300 years, yeah, there is a whole lot to be ashamed
of. But in antiquity they were hardly embarrassing at all. They invented a
bunch of stuff, like gunpowder and spaghetti and ice cream.

EelBasher

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

Eelbash Admin

2006-12-04, 7:14 pm

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:24:02 +0000, EelBasher wrote:

>
> Of course. People are lazy, if you do this opt in shit they won't because
> they cannot be bothered. Opt out is the only proper way to do things.

Ridiculous. The opt-in consists of replying to the email. they don't even
have to enter anything. If somebody really cared about receiving emails
from a remailer, he would make that much effort.

The truth is, people have no interest in receiving such emails. They scan
the disclaimer and see 'if you do nothing you will receive no more
emails', and they think 'Thank God. At least I'm protected by one remailer
from the insane idiots of usenet'.

>
> In this thing you have finaly gone too far.

Amazing. Somebody comes up with a simple way to protect people from
remailer abusers, and you think it is 'gone too far'.

>
> I am now going to actively campaign against you and your remailer until
> both are shut down forever.

Take your best shot.

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 1:14 am

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

On 5 Dec 2006, EelBasher <anonymous@panta-rhei.eu.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>Of course. People are lazy, if you do this opt in shit they won't because
>they cannot be bothered. Opt out is the only proper way to do things.
>
>In this thing you have finaly gone too far.
>
>I am now going to actively campaign against you and your remailer until
>both are shut down forever.
>
>EelBasher

While you have stolen my name, I approve of the activities, so I will not
be forced to smite you.

The Original Eelbasher

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQA/AwUBRXS/ OmDBv6yDhzHpEQLFiQCeNzjBt+V7eVkbn7nn1KPD
K9/mBpoAoJdd
PH3GwE75pySmq9+7lckf6Mhq
=jVmh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 1:14 am

In article <233d0$4574c2b8$cef8886b$19598@TEKSAVVY.COM>
Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> The truth is, people have no interest in receiving such emails. They scan
> the disclaimer and see 'if you do nothing you will receive no more
> emails', and they think 'Thank God. At least I'm protected by one remailer
> from the insane idiots of usenet'.

I've often wondered why you've continued to operate a remailer when you
obviously have such a low opinion of those who use them.

Tell you a story. For a short time I operated a service awhile back. It
accidentally came to my attention that yes, pedophiles were using it to
communicate in a newsgroup. Just talk, mind you, nothing remotely illegal.

It nauseated me. Obviously *I* was unfit for THE JOB. When I started I
thought I was, but I wasn't. No biggie, I pulled the plug and went on my
way.

None of that decreases my admiration and gratefulness to those who have the
stones to operate all the anonymous services within the spirit of the
Creators.

You are not a Creator, you're a Destroyer.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse

2006-12-05, 7:14 am

This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
Project mixminion server at firenze.linux.it. If you do not want to
receive anonymous messages, please contact antani-
admin@firenze.linux.it. For more information about anonymity, see
https://remailer.firenze.linux.it or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

The destroyers are those who do nothing against remailer abuse.

The creators are those who create new solutions to prohibit abuse and allow by that undisturbed proper use by those who really need remailers for protection of privacy and freedom of speech.

Our traffic analysis shows that there is a much too high percentage of abuse going through the remailers. That is contributing to a bad reputation.

We like very much the concept of remailers because there are many people who eally need them and that is the reason why we fight against remailer abuse. We want to keep alive the remailer network for those who need it but we don't want abusers.

Why don't you make better proposals for solutions to stop abuse instead of fighting against eelbash ? You are a destroyer because you destroy creative ideas.

Don't get us wrong critisism is OK but you should always combine it with a better solution proposal otherwise you are not critisizing in a positive manner, you are just destroying.

You are not focusing on the real problem (the remailer abuse) but just mobbing against eelbash. This is a rather poor behavior.

Sincerely

Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 7:14 am

J.Alfred Prufrock

2006-12-05, 7:14 am

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:31:43 +0000, J.Alfred wrote:
>
>
>Right, but the main thing is that the recipient has the power to decide if
>he wants to opt-in or not. If he thinks it's a good idea to receive emails
>through a remailer, he'll opt in, else he won't.
>
>If subsequent emails don't reach him, that was because he didn't want them
>to.

Recipients that aren't that aware of the remailer network may not know the
difference between blocking a remailer and blocking a person/sender.

I might not want to receive spam, but I'd like to receive legitimate
correspondence. Or I may wish to block Mary, but not Sam.
Your scheme would block indescriminately - Mary, Sam and Spam
are not all the same.

Where's my Sam emails!

JAP

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 7:14 am

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 7:14 am

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:24:02 +0000, EelBasher wrote:
>
>
>Ridiculous. The opt-in consists of replying to the email. they don't even
>have to enter anything. If somebody really cared about receiving emails
>from a remailer, he would make that much effort.

No they wouldn't. Instead they'd think "why does this person have to make
me jump through extra hoops to read his mail.. XXXX that shit. maybe next
time he won't use that damned eelshit remailer"

>The truth is, people have no interest in receiving such emails. They scan
>the disclaimer and see 'if you do nothing you will receive no more
>emails', and they think 'Thank God. At least I'm protected by one remailer
>from the insane idiots of usenet'.
>
>
>Amazing. Somebody comes up with a simple way to protect people from
>remailer abusers, and you think it is 'gone too far'.

This isnt the first attempt you've made to sabotage remailers, Your history
speaks for itself.

>
>Take your best shot.

I will, and so will many others.

[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

> First, quit abusing Usenet and learn how to create a properly formatted
> reply message.

> Second, I wasn't talking to you.

First, we are not abusing Usenet.
Second, you will not tell us on which post we comment - at least we will not comply with your commands.
Third, it was clear enough without the > to whoms rubbish we have responded - which is demonstrated by the fact that you responded.
Fourth, regardless whether you were talking to us, we take the freedom to comment on it - even if you don't like our comments.

You again demonstrated with your reply that you are obviously not able to focus on solutions to reduce abuse but rather would like to attack people personally.

Sincerely

Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

Nomen Nescio

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:19:33 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

> In article <233d0$4574c2b8$cef8886b$19598@TEKSAVVY.COM> Eelbash Admin
> <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> I've often wondered why you've continued to operate a remailer when you
> obviously have such a low opinion of those who use them.

I don't have a low opinion of those who use remailers. It's clear, though,
that a lot of the insane idiots who use remailers use them to send emails
in order to victimize people. Most complaints I get are from somebody
complaining about emails, and, as I'm seeing, most people don't
especially care to receive emails via remailers.

>
> Tell you a story. For a short time I operated a service awhile back. It
> accidentally came to my attention that yes, pedophiles were using it to
> communicate in a newsgroup. Just talk, mind you, nothing remotely illegal.
>
> It nauseated me. Obviously *I* was unfit for THE JOB. When I started I
> thought I was, but I wasn't. No biggie, I pulled the plug and went on my
> way.

My opinion of my remailer's users has nothing to do with my willingness to
carry their messages.

>
> None of that decreases my admiration and gratefulness to those who have
> the stones to operate all the anonymous services within the spirit of the
> Creators.
>
> You are not a Creator, you're a Destroyer.

You sound idiotic. I put in place a simple way to stop email abuse, and,
somehow, that makes me a 'Destroyer'.

Anonymous Remailer (austria)

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:06:09 +0000, Alex de Joode wrote:
>
>
>So asking someone to opt in to continue receiving emails is as
>destructive to the emailing aspect of remailers as shutting down emails
>altogther?
>
>I view it as making it easy for a user to be free of the rubbish from
>remailers unless he wants to receive it. One person out of 50 has opted-in
>so far. That should tell you something about how much people value the
>emails they receive through remailers.
>
>But anyone who wants to continue receiving emails just replies to the
>first message and he has opted-in. Nothing else needs to be done.
>
>How that is equivalent to shutting down emails, or to the other nonsense
>below, is beyond me.
>
>
>
>

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Non scrivetemi

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:37:21 -0500, Anonyma wrote:
>
>
>By the way, I don't much care personally, but 'oriental' is not a term
>liked by most Asians, which is how you should refer to people originating
>in that part of the world.

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
>Signature: 0x06B09BA4
>Date:
>Status: INVALID (Unknown)
>
>On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:52:02 -0500, Anonyma wrote:
>
>
>You mean like the list of dest-block destinations that is kept in
>Reliable's folder?
>
>So that flies in the face of everything the remailer network stands for?
>
>Shocking stuff. I didn't realize RProcess was such a hater of Free Speech.
>
>
>*
>=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, adejoode+usenet@wareztrader.com (Alex de Joode) wrote:
>Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>[..]
>: Personally, after seeing how little interest people have in receiving
>: emails through the remailer - that was an eye-opener, and considering how
>: unpleasant it can be for them to receive threats or insults through the
>: remailer, and how bomb threats and the like can cause problems for the
>: remailer to the point of it being shut down, I don't mind doing a little
>: maintenance; but others may feel differently.
>
>Why not shutdown delivering emails all together and only provide access to
>usenet ? Oh and why not use the same mechanism for delivering messages to
>a newsgroup ? Ask say 10 subscribers to that group to ACK messages destined
>for that group before they are delivered.
>
>Maybe shutdown eelbash.org all together if those results are also
>disappointing ?
>
>Cheers
>-AJ-

How about Eelbash be RDP'd instead? For the good of all legit remailers
and users.

[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at winnie.winstonsmith.info. If you do not want to receive
anonymous messages, please contact winnie-admin@winstonsmith.info

The remops belonging to Remailer Anti Abuse Association will NOT support to block eelbash.
Your propaganda campaign against eelbash is similiar to what Hitlers regime did against jewish people.
You are old iron heads not being able to think new.

Sincerely

Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

George Orwell

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:19:33 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
> I don't have a low opinion of those who use remailers. It's clear,

Of course you do. You've even verbalized it repeatedly in the form of
your "children and psychos" idiocy. Everything you say, and everything
you do, is an affront to remailer users. You've run the gambit from
calling them names, to censoring and editing their messages, to
actively, and mistakenly I might add, attacking them individually.

If there's one thing you demonstrated over the years you've polluted
the remailer community with your presence, it's a distain for remailer
users in general. Most people believe you sole purpose for running a
remailer is to attack anonymity, and that includes most remailer
operators.

> though, that a lot of the insane idiots who use remailers use them to
> send emails in order to victimize people. Most complaints I get are
> from somebody complaining about emails, and, as I'm seeing, most
> people don't especially care to receive emails via remailers.
>
>
>
> My opinion of my remailer's users has nothing to do with my
> willingness to carry their messages.

This is something else you're horribly mistaken about, even if it's only
at the level that your opinion manifests itself in ways that make people
dislike you and not use your services. Even if it weren't glaringly
apparent you have deep seeded issues with remailer users, your attitude
would make you someone people shunned. You're just that personality
type.

>
>
>
> You sound idiotic. I put in place a simple way to stop email abuse,
> and, somehow, that makes me a 'Destroyer'.

You are an idiot. No mistaking you for anything else. And the fact that
you want to destroy the remailer network has been made crystal clear so
many times most people can't keep track any more.

>

Nomen Nescio

2006-12-05, 1:12 pm

J.Alfred Prufrock wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> Recipients that aren't that aware of the remailer network may not
> know the difference between blocking a remailer and blocking a
> person/sender.
>
> I might not want to receive spam, but I'd like to receive legitimate
> correspondence. Or I may wish to block Mary, but not Sam.
> Your scheme would block indescriminately - Mary, Sam and Spam
> are not all the same.
>
> Where's my Sam emails!

You don't want them any more anyway. They have the stench of rotting eel
on them.

The best thing to do is to excommunicate JIang from the remailer
community. He serves no useful purpose, and he's over half way there
already. Why not finish the job and but this XXXXXXX out of our misery?

I can't think of a good reason either.

>
> JAP
>
>

[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at deuxpi.ca. If you do not want to receive anonymous
messages, please contact deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca. For more information
about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.

No, the idiot is YOU, not eelbash. The idiots are the abusers and those who do not understand that the abusers are the real danger for the remailer network and all who need this great network to use it properly.
With your ignorance of facts you are supporting the abusers and by that you are becoming an ingredient part of the idiotic abuser community

Sincerely

Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

> First, we are not abusing Usenet.
> Second, you will not tell us on which post we comment - at least we
> will not comply with your commands.
> Third, it was clear enough without the > to whoms rubbish we have
> responded - which is demonstrated by the fact that you responded.
> Fourth, regardless whether you were talking to us, we take the
> freedom to comment on it - even if you don't like our comments.
>
> You again demonstrated with your reply that you are obviously not
> able to focus on solutions to reduce abuse but rather would like
> to attack people personally.

talks like a frog, walks like a frog, smells like a frog...

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, "[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <noreply@runaway-anon.net>
wrote:
>
>
>First, we are not abusing Usenet.
>Second, you will not tell us on which post we comment - at least we will
>not comply with your commands.
>Third, it was clear enough without the > to whoms rubbish we have
>responded - which is demonstrated by the fact that you responded.
>Fourth, regardless whether you were talking to us, we take the freedom to
>comment on it - even if you don't like our comments.
>
>You again demonstrated with your reply that you are obviously not able to
>focus on solutions to reduce abuse but rather would like to attack people
>personally.
>

Shut up, you Oriental fruitcake!
You're fooling no one.

Anonymous

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, "[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <nobody@winstonsmith.info>
wrote:
>This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
>server at winnie.winstonsmith.info. If you do not want to receive
>anonymous messages, please contact winnie-admin@winstonsmith.info
>
>The remops belonging to Remailer Anti Abuse Association will NOT support
>to block eelbash.

Of course not, you can't block yourself, now, can you?

>Your propaganda campaign against eelbash is similiar to what Hitlers
>regime did against jewish people.
>You are old iron heads not being able to think new.

Uh huh.
You know, if I was Jewish, I would be mightily offended by your attempt to
draw equivalence between the Holocaust and people in a newsgroup figuring
out you're "Remailer Anti Abuse Association" is simply Yet Another Eelbash
Sock Puppet (YAESP).

>
>Sincerely
>
>Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
>(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must
>be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
admin@winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.

.... and is a whole family of frogs ...

Sincerely

Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>In article <20061205084012.1E9893FE7EC@mail.firenze.linux.it>
>"[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <nobody@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
>
>First, quit abusing Usenet and learn how to create a properly formatted
>reply message.

Seriously! XXXXing word-wrap, eelbash!

>
>Second, I wasn't talking to you.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, "[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca>
wrote:
>This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
>server at deuxpi.ca. If you do not want to receive anonymous
>messages, please contact deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca. For more information
>about anonymity, see http://mixminion.net.
>
>No, the idiot is YOU, not eelbash. The idiots are the abusers and those
>who do not understand that the abusers are the real danger for the
>remailer network and all who need this great network to use it properly.
>With your ignorance of facts you are supporting the abusers and by that
>you are becoming an ingredient part of the idiotic abuser community
>
>Sincerely
>
>Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
>(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must
>be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, "[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <nobody@firenze.linux.it>
wrote:
>This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
>Project mixminion server at firenze.linux.it. If you do not want to
>receive anonymous messages, please contact antani-
>admin@firenze.linux.it. For more information about anonymity, see
>https://remailer.firenze.linux.it or
>https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
>
>The destroyers are those who do nothing against remailer abuse.
>
>The creators are those who create new solutions to prohibit abuse and
>allow by that undisturbed proper use by those who really need remailers
>for protection of privacy and freedom of speech.
>
>Our traffic analysis shows that there is a much too high percentage of
>abuse going through the remailers. That is contributing to a bad reputation.
>
>We like very much the concept of remailers because there are many people
>who eally need them and that is the reason why we fight against remailer
>abuse. We want to keep alive the remailer network for those who need it
>but we don't want abusers.
>
>Why don't you make better proposals for solutions to stop abuse instead of
>fighting against eelbash ? You are a destroyer because you destroy
>creative ideas.
>
>Don't get us wrong critisism is OK but you should always combine it with a
>better solution proposal otherwise you are not critisizing in a positive
>manner, you are just destroying.
>
>You are not focusing on the real problem (the remailer abuse) but just
>mobbing against eelbash. This is a rather poor behavior.
>
>Sincerely
>
>Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
>(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must
>be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

On 05 Dec 2006, Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:19:33 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>
>I don't have a low opinion of those who use remailers. It's clear, though,
>that a lot of the insane idiots who use remailers use them to send emails
>in order to victimize people. Most complaints I get are from somebody
>complaining about emails, and, as I'm seeing, most people don't
>especially care to receive emails via remailers.
>
>
>
>My opinion of my remailer's users has nothing to do with my willingness to
>carry their messages.
>
>
>
>You sound idiotic. I put in place a simple way to stop email abuse, and,
>somehow, that makes me a 'Destroyer'.

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Nomen Nescio

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

On 5 Dec 2006, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
<anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
>talks like a frog, walks like a frog, smells like a frog...

Eelbash *IS* Frog!

nobody@cypherpunks.to

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

Lines: 25
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.privacy.anon-server:442495

In article < 2eb3dd390cf0365906352265f97dfffd@remaile
r.cyberiade.it>
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer <anonymous@remailer.cyberiade.it>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>
> Seriously! XXXXing word-wrap, eelbash!

I think it's interesting that RAAA tries to obfuscate his identity
by using mixminion, which I guess is kind of new and thrilling (but
seems to be a bit beyond him).

I wonder what sort of wonderous anti-abuse mechanism the eel can
kludge together to thwart us devious psychotic children who choose
to use mixminion as our means of destruction?

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-12-05, 7:13 pm

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, "[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <noreply@runaway-anon.net>
wrote:
>
>
>First, we are not abusing Usenet.
>Second, you will not tell us on which post we comment - at least we will
>not comply with your commands.
>Third, it was clear enough without the > to whoms rubbish we have
>responded - which is demonstrated by the fact that you responded.
>Fourth, regardless whether you were talking to us, we take the freedom to
>comment on it - even if you don't like our comments.
>
>You again demonstrated with your reply that you are obviously not able to
>focus on solutions to reduce abuse but rather would like to attack people
>personally.
>
>
>Sincerely
>
>Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
>(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must
>be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-12-06, 1:14 am

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, "[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <nobody@winstonsmith.info>
wrote:
>This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
>server at winnie.winstonsmith.info. If you do not want to receive
>anonymous messages, please contact winnie-admin@winstonsmith.info
>
>The remops belonging to Remailer Anti Abuse Association will NOT support
>to block eelbash.
>Your propaganda campaign against eelbash is similiar to what Hitlers
>regime did against jewish people.
>You are old iron heads not being able to think new.
>
>Sincerely
>
>Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
>(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must
>be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Halsey McBollocks

2006-12-06, 1:14 am

In article <88423e17701f49ee6269fc4b680d847d@deuxpi.ca>
Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> Eelbash Admin wrote:
>
>
> No Jackass, it's MORE destructive. It's flies in the face of everything
> the remailer network stands for by keeping a list of destinations. It's
> a retarded idea that looks more like some attempt to monitor and log
> remailer use than anything else. It's bad enough we have to worry about
> TLA's doing traffic analysis and message collation, now we have a
> XXXXup RemOp doing it, and actually defending the practice.
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> <flush rest of eelbash sniveling>

Up until now this eelbash thing was just ancient history to me. Now I'm
convinced the abuse was well earned when I see the ideas this person comes
up with.

I see some remailers don't include eelbash in their stats. I suppose this is
on purpose.

Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer

2006-12-06, 1:14 am

In article <a339f$457410a7$cef8886b$5603@TEKSAVVY.COM>
Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
> I've been running eelbash as opt-in for emails for several days and
> noticed a few things which might be of interest.
>
> The way exit emails to civilians are handled is to send the first email,
> but include a disclaimer that explains it will be the last email he
> receives, unless he opts in by replying and including the confirmation
> code in the subject line.
>
> Spam email is filtered out. It rarely gets through the remailer.

How many legitimate emails get trashed because your filters
THINK they're spam but they aren't? Answer? you have no way of
knowing unless you're reading emails that pass through your
"anonymous" remailer. Your filter only serve to reduce the
reliability of your remailer. Period.

>
> So far, about 50 emails going to civilians have been received. Of those
> 50 recipients, guess how many people have opted-in? One.
>
> I interpret that to mean that people are indifferent, at best, to email
> that is sent to them through remailers, and makes me think that the opt-in
> idea is a good one.

I interpret that to mean that 9 out of every 10 people are lazy
dickheads who can't be bothered to 'opt-in' because it's either
too much trouble or too complicated. Two of the most common
problems with the world today: ignorance and apathy.

> I don't see how emails going to a public address, such as a mailing list,
> will cause a problem, since the confirmation code is in the subject line
> of the first email, and anyone can send a reply using the public address
> of the mailing list, or whatever it is, as the 'from' address, and
> thereby opt-in. But who knows?

Here's the flaw in your reasoning: let's say I'm subscribed to
'mailing list A' and someone uses your system to send an
offensive message to that list. I don't like it and don't want
to see any more like it. However, there's some sick bastard on
the list who thinks it's too funny and sends your system the
necessary confirmation. Boom. I'm stuck getting them and the
only way for me to not get them is to leave the mailing list,
which I shouldn't have to do just ecause SOMEONE ELSE is sick.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

George Orwell

2006-12-06, 1:14 am

Halsey McBollocks wrote:

> In article <88423e17701f49ee6269fc4b680d847d@deuxpi.ca>
> Anonyma <anon-bounces@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> Up until now this eelbash thing was just ancient history to me. Now
> I'm convinced the abuse was well earned when I see the ideas this
> person comes up with.

It's only a matter of time before the eelbash stench makes you ill no
matter how strong your stomach is.

>
> I see some remailers don't include eelbash in their stats. I suppose
> this is on purpose.

It is in deed. Some operators permanently blacklisted the jerk a long
time ago, some are recent converts. Some put temporary bans on the jerk
while he's doing something notably stupid like at present. A select few
ban the jerk for set periods of time but remove them in the hopes that
the jerk will somehow manage to buy, borrow, or steal a clue. But at
one point in time or another every attentive remop involved in the
remailer network has discarded Jinag Wu as they would any bit of
useless refuse, and he's about to earn his second RDP because more and
more operators just don't care to deal with the jerk.

Of course to a warped mind like Jiang's all this means everyone else is
wrong, and he's the only one that's right. It's really pretty pathetic.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-12-06, 1:14 am

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, "[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse"
<nobody@geonosis.homelinux.net> wrote:
>This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
>Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
>you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
>admin@winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
>https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
>https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
>
>.... and is a whole family of frogs ...
>
>Sincerely
>
>Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
>(Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must
>be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Anonymous Remailer (austria)

2006-12-06, 1:15 pm

In article <20061205084012.1E9893FE7EC@mail.firenze.linux.it>
"[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <nobody@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
>
> This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
> Project mixminion server at firenze.linux.it. If you do not want to
> receive anonymous messages, please contact antani-
> admin@firenze.linux.it. For more information about anonymity, see
> https://remailer.firenze.linux.it or
> https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
>
> The destroyers are those who do nothing against remailer abuse.
>
> The creators are those who create new solutions to prohibit abuse and allow by that undisturbed proper use by those who really need remailers for protection of privacy and freedom of speech.
>
> Our traffic analysis shows that there is a much too high percentage of abuse going through the remailers. That is contributing to a bad reputation.
>
> We like very much the concept of remailers because there are many people who eally need them and that is the reason why we fight against remailer abuse. We want to keep alive the remailer network for those who need it but we don't want abusers.
>
> Why don't you make better proposals for solutions to stop abuse instead of fighting against eelbash ? You are a destroyer because you destroy creative ideas.
>
> Don't get us wrong critisism is OK but you should always combine it with a better solution proposal otherwise you are not critisizing in a positive manner, you are just destroying.
>
> You are not focusing on the real problem (the remailer abuse) but just mobbing against eelbash. This is a rather poor behavior.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
> (Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Non scrivetemi

2006-12-06, 7:13 pm

In article <20061205204006.F11148FBE@geonosis.homelinux.net>
"[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <nobody@geonosis.homelinux.net> wrote:
>
> This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Winston Smith
> Project Geonosis mixminion server at geonosis.winstonsmith.info. If
> you do not want to receive anonymous messages, please contact pbox-
> admin@winstonsmith.info. For information about anonymity, see
> https://www.winstonsmith.info/pws or
> https://e-privacy.firenze.linux.it.
>
> ... and is a whole family of frogs ...
>
> Sincerely
>
> Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
> (Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Fritz Wuehler

2006-12-07, 1:13 pm

In article <6316C68030B@192.168.0.9>
"[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse" <noreply@runaway-anon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> First, we are not abusing Usenet.
> Second, you will not tell us on which post we comment - at least we will not comply with your commands.
> Third, it was clear enough without the > to whoms rubbish we have responded - which is demonstrated by the fact that you responded.
> Fourth, regardless whether you were talking to us, we take the freedom to comment on it - even if you don't like our comments.
>
> You again demonstrated with your reply that you are obviously not able to focus on solutions to reduce abuse but rather would like to attack people personally.
>
>
> Sincerely
>
> Remailer Anti Abuse Association (RAAA)
> (Only those remailer users who abuse remailers for violation of law must be concerned, the others don't worry, be happy !)

SHUT UP EELBASH!

Thomas J. Boschloo

2006-12-08, 7:13 pm

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

[Anon] StopRemailerAbuse wrote:
>
> No, the idiot is YOU, not eelbash. The idiots are the abusers and those who do not understand that the abusers are the real danger for the remailer network and all who need this great network to use it properly.

You mean abuse like this?
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/r...anon/penet.html

Oh sorry, you are not allowed to visit this link as a scientology member
right!

Why don't you go watch Magnolia. It is a great movie! With great actors.

Thomas
- --
It is ironic, that ultimately, it is the politicians that push for the
use for lie detectors
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQB5AwUBRXnnMAEP2l8iXKAJAQEmGgMeLEQiS9BT
L6FPY7ETgc4K+9AhsMl/8iHf
tqAs8Fc7/ tjgqseEivjFf7dMDdo0CyyGfY5T9g4HCtyy36wqz
+4WHIrW4pQZkbt3
c8Ey2vVO1GAbNGsF2EtF9NHnWUx3PzsJyNcQoA==

=pVj5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----