Anonymous Servers - Deuxpi disclaimers and policies

Author

Deuxpi disclaimers and policies

Deuxpi Admin

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

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

Good day everyone! As planned, I am currently revising (and translating) the
policies of the remailer to better reflect my opinions and the way I will
operate the service. Since last evening, I think most of the major ideas have
been included in the current texts, but I am still unsure about some details and
wording. Please send me any comments and suggestions about the policies. Also, I
can probably answer some questions about the current state of Canadian laws
pertaining to remailers -- however IANAL!

Because English is not my native language, please don't hesitate to comment on
the wording (it should not sound like legalese!) If you can read French, the
text probably exposes my ideas in a better way.

The texts are available on the web site:
http://www.deuxpi.ca/wiki/Disclaimers (English)
http://www.deuxpi.ca/wiki/Avertisse...3%A9n%C3%A9raux (French)

Once the content of the policies settles, I will copy them to the Mixmaster
remailer-help replies.

On another matter, I am playing with the mail transport software (Postfix) to
support TLS. It seems to work very well, still I'd like have any feedback.

Big thanks to everybody,

- --
Deuxpi Admin <deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD80xozQ0RLMqB8s4RAp/jAJ9IQg1sydyZp2Pu57e1ewJ4Fq/14ACdHb29
qTr+c7UN2RcKrpo402kFU5c=
=UVis
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Deuxpi Admin

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

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

Sorry, the URL for the English text is incorrect. It should be:
http://www.deuxpi.ca/wiki/Disclaimer

- --
Deuxpi Admin <deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD80zdzQ0RLMqB8s4RApEPAJ4sMvUO2+gm
0W4/Tsw8aTZUqm9LKwCgkWPu
BxQyQJBYvaLvdzSnAIMTTN0=
=JAHP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Fritz Wuehler

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

In article <dsvict$ecl$1@bananasplit.info>
Deuxpi Admin <deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> The texts are available on the web site:
> http://www.deuxpi.ca/wiki/Disclaimers (English)

Hey look eelbash, yet another remailer operator who publicly states
their common-sense way of dealing with abuse. And no, it's not content
filtering.

***
Observance of the use policy of the anonymous posting service

The operator can, following the reception of a complaint, stop immediately and for a reasonable period of time the posting of electronic messages to a Usenet newsgroup in the case where a user performs one of the following actions:

The transmission of unsollicited messages (spam) ;
The transmission of information of defamatory or obscene nature, containing hate litterature, child pornography, or invading privacy.

You can obtain at any time the list of blocked Usenet newsgroups by sending an email to
***

admin

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

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

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:53:09 +0100, Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> In article <dsvict$ecl$1@bananasplit.info> Deuxpi Admin
> <deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca> wrote:
>
> Hey look eelbash, yet another remailer operator who publicly states their
> common-sense way of dealing with abuse. And no, it's not content
> filtering.

No it isn't, and it is a sensible way of dealing with abuse.

It does block the entire group, however, instead of targetting the
messages that carry the abuse.

That's probably not a big deal, unless the group is one that is used a lot
for anonymous messages.

I guess the problem I have with your attitude, is that I don't see what is
wrong with targetting just the abusive messsages by filtering on their
content.

Actually, I do see one problem from the operator's point of view: it's
more work.

Please let us know from your point of view what is wrong with targetting
just the abusive messages.

>
> ***
> Observance of the use policy of the anonymous posting service
>
> The operator can, following the reception of a complaint, stop immediately
> and for a reasonable period of time the posting of electronic messages to
> a Usenet newsgroup in the case where a user performs one of the following
> actions:
>
> The transmission of unsollicited messages (spam) ; The transmission of
> information of defamatory or obscene nature, containing hate litterature,
> child pornography, or invading privacy.
>
> You can obtain at any time the list of blocked Usenet newsgroups by
> sending an email to ***
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD9OgTEC+g9Qawm6QRAmgtAKDZfkhzajXu
5l5RwGKWL6VbhH6sGgCguz9M
z9Ti0Dtrn7JdXRJcbrCt9eg=
=QzwA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Zax

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:03:53 -0500, admin wrote in
Message-Id: <pan.2006.02.16.21.03.53.311847@eelbash.org>:

> Please let us know from your point of view what is wrong with targetting
> just the abusive messages.

Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with it providing you apply
common sense and use the best solution to deal with the problem.

Unless your remailer is being selectively targeted as the exitnode for
the abuse, leave the filtering to the mail2news / news operator, they
are better placed to deal with it and take the heat for Usenet abuse
anyway.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBQ/ T73GoLu9HNUqmMAQrt3Af+JUqVwtkCA5qxFBOI7P
cA6B3OcwappomI
hXlOfVvhmgzJZ7UpcpGTIaPtKJxuuMNRynOMPvcI
r8APh4NE2/U486FQoeDEqbCO
GugqwLraDFG1uUjxBGNJcFWWWhanWEbRhJf2TgL7
iovWQkv5c+P2kTu20jcU1lvp
IH1eKUxkltVMCwF8ZnHJHF8pYq8TyrliSaKQG/U6pmNV/41SyVn2PXClBVlNUYKH
In8KXhJgaNEda7X0meOB0JUZo9WrJ1Xt5rz2LiBN
lmRXwrdKFwCBT7bS7qNHUGMr
6NxF27cDm2oFmiT7DmLYHnw26edXDs1FX7LF2g59
CFJ8zWGHjjLKww==
=O4AV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

George Orwell

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:25:32 +0000, Zax wrote:

>
> Unless your remailer is being selectively targeted as the exitnode for the
> abuse, leave the filtering to the mail2news / news operator, they are
> better placed to deal with it and take the heat for Usenet abuse anyway.
>
I like that idea, but lets end the confusion. Every mail2news gateway
should remove all mention of the exit remailer that the post came through.

I see message after message with a complaint address for the remailer and
another complaint address for the mail2news gateway. Let's just simplify
it and have only the mail2news gateways complaint address.

Deuxpi Admin

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

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

> It does block the entire group, however, instead of targetting the
> messages that carry the abuse.
>
> That's probably not a big deal, unless the group is one that is used a lot
> for anonymous messages.

For the moment, I block newsgroups only as a convenience to its readers.
Honestly, I don't feel absolutely comfortable handling these situations even
that way and I am thinking more about blocking only in the most critical cases
(i.e. when I can reasonably judge that the postings go against the CHRA).

> I guess the problem I have with your attitude, is that I don't see what is
> wrong with targetting just the abusive messsages by filtering on their
> content.
>
> Actually, I do see one problem from the operator's point of view: it's
> more work.
>
> Please let us know from your point of view what is wrong with targetting
> just the abusive messages.

Simply put, when you filter on content without the expressed consent of your
users, you are supporting censorship no matter how good *you* think your
intentions are. You also act as an editor and publisher of the information. It
is up to you if you want to play this dangerous role.

My opinion it that it is best for a remailer operator to have a clear policy,
stick to it, and respond to complaints reasonably. It does not need to be more
work than that.

Food for thought:
http://www.catalaw.com/logic/docs/jj-libel.html
http://michaelgeist.ca/component/op...914/Itemid,113/

- --
Deuxpi Admin <deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD9RUfzQ0RLMqB8s4RAg5IAJ9DDSE4fi7F
daPaNMxRA+vit6DmawCfSHTs
DSupz4r64ZSWtaCAD4HgkDM=
=lzSA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

admin

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

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

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:13:19 -0500, Deuxpi Admin wrote:

>
> Simply put, when you filter on content without the expressed consent of
> your users, you are supporting censorship

Sure, that makes sense: somebody complains about a message from your
remailer that shows up in a newsgroup.

You fix it by blocking the newsgroup. That is good.

You fix it by filtering something that is unique to the message, so that
only the message is blocked. That is censorship.

Is it possible you don't know what you are talking about?

> no matter how good *you* think
> your intentions are. You also act as an editor and publisher of the
> information.

Why is blocking a newsgroup not acting as editor and publisher, while
targetting one message *is* acting as editor and publisher?

> It is up to you if you want to play this dangerous role.

Why is....ah, to hell with it.

>
> My opinion it that it is best for a remailer operator to have a clear
> policy, stick to it, and respond to complaints reasonably. It does not
> need to be more work than that.

Well, what you have said above is gibberish as far as I am concerned.
Honestly, I don't think you know what you are talking about.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFD9SD1EC+g9Qawm6QRAqTcAKDC2fdIL+F4
C23On/yY7/SJMzzJHgCgjr6O
0OVc1LSNQEZ+M5dld5fzNVY=
=G1zh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A.Melon

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in
news:a71a959c2004bc289bb6946f60c2c6e0@ps
eudo.borked.net:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:53:09 +0100, Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>
>
> No it isn't, and it is a sensible way of dealing with abuse.
>
> It does block the entire group, however, instead of targetting the
> messages that carry the abuse.
>
> That's probably not a big deal, unless the group is one that is used a
> lot for anonymous messages.
>
> I guess the problem I have with your attitude, is that I don't see
> what is wrong with targetting just the abusive messsages by filtering
> on their content.
>
> Actually, I do see one problem from the operator's point of view: it's
> more work.
>
> Please let us know from your point of view what is wrong with
> targetting just the abusive messages.

He just did...

blocking the message based on content unique to it is censorship.
it also puts the remailer operator in the position of editor because she/he
is making go/no-go decisions for material posted via his machine which
gives her responsibility FOR that content. e.g. pass judgement on content
and you become liable for that content. Refrain from passing judgement on
content and you are a service provider, immune from editorial lawsuits.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

George Orwell wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:25:32 +0000, Zax wrote:
>
>
> I like that idea, but lets end the confusion. Every mail2news gateway
> should remove all mention of the exit remailer that the post came through.

No! You're confusing the role of a M2N gateway. They have nothing at all
to do with anonymous posting, and in fact, people use them to post when
they have no access to a NNTP server that accepts their posts.

M2N gateways have been round a LOT longer than remailers. They're
something all together different, invented for a completely different
reason.

Borked Pseudo Mailed

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

A.Melon wrote:

> Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in
> news:a71a959c2004bc289bb6946f60c2c6e0@ps
eudo.borked.net:
>
>
> He just did...
>
> blocking the message based on content unique to it is censorship. it also
> puts the remailer operator in the position of editor because she/he is
> making go/no-go decisions for material posted via his machine which gives
> her responsibility FOR that content. e.g. pass judgement on content and
> you become liable for that content. Refrain from passing judgement on
> content and you are a service provider, immune from editorial lawsuits.

I, for one, disagree. Blocking posts with things like credit card or bank
account information, or blatant, harassing forgeries isn't censorship,
it's common sense and responsibility. It doesn't matter who you are, or
what you "stand for", you have no business passing that sort of
information if you have any way to effectively prevent it. And that sort
of speech isn't covered under "free speech" so it's NOT censorship. To
censor something, it has to be acceptable and lawful in the first place.

All that said, the RemOp in questions here is a nut case who takes
responsibility and common sense, and twists them into something we can't
even recognize for God know what purpose. Then tries to defend them
the same way net stalkers defend posting their crap. By trying to lump
what they do with what normal people do when it's not.

twistycreek

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

>Well, what you have said above is gibberish as far as I am concerned.

Eelbash, you are a moron. A total XXXXin idiot with no ability to learn
from what others tell you. You get a wrong idea in your head and then tell
yourself over and over that you're right in spite of everyones honest
efforts to correct you. You sir/mam are a world class idiot. You are an
embaresment to all Canadians.

Anonymous

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

In article <pan.2006.02.17.01.07.02.784145@eelbash.org>
admin <admin@eelbash.org> wrote:
>
>
> Why is blocking a newsgroup not acting as editor and publisher, while
> targetting one message *is* acting as editor and publisher?

Blocking a message based on destination is like the post office not
delivering a letter with a certain address on the envelope.

Blocking a message based on content is like the post office opening all
mail everywhere and deciding based on what's inside on whether to
deliver it.

Mail companies aren't allowed to do the latter.

Blocking a message based on destination is like a phone company blocking
telephone calls to one number.

Blocking a message based on content is like listening in to all conversations
and cutting the call off if it contains a trigger word.

Phone companies aren't allowed to do the latter.

>
> Well, what you have said above is gibberish as far as I am concerned.
> Honestly, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Honestly, nobody here thinks that you know what you are talking about.

Thrasher Remailer

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

In <d081a32e90fc219f6b297887b614338d@pseudo.borked.net>, nobody@pseudo.borked.net wrote:
>A.Melon wrote:
>
>
>I, for one, disagree. Blocking posts with things like credit card or bank
>account information, or blatant, harassing forgeries isn't censorship,
>it's common sense and responsibility. It doesn't matter who you are, or
>what you "stand for", you have no business passing that sort of
>information if you have any way to effectively prevent it. And that sort
>of speech isn't covered under "free speech" so it's NOT censorship. To
>censor something, it has to be acceptable and lawful in the first place.
>
>All that said, the RemOp in questions here is a nut case who takes
>responsibility and common sense, and twists them into something we can't
>even recognize for God know what purpose. Then tries to defend them
>the same way net stalkers defend posting their crap. By trying to lump
>what they do with what normal people do when it's not.

call a spade a spade. censoring message based on ANY of it's content OR it's destination is, in fact, censorship, period.

you disagree? don't like what I'm saying because you know it's truth?

Tough Shit

Anonymous

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:

>call a spade a spade. censoring message based on ANY of it's content OR
>it's destination is, in fact, censorship, period.
>
>you disagree? don't like what I'm saying because you know it's truth?
>
>Tough Shit

Um, if you want to get all technical and 100% correct and everything, it's
called "censorship" only when it's done by a government.

But since you want to go with commonly accepted usage, your argument does
NOT apply, either.

You disagree? Don't like what I'm saying because you know it's truth?

Tough Shit

TwistyCreek

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:57:55 +0000, Anonymous wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> wrote:
>
> Um, if you want to get all technical and 100% correct and everything, it's
> called "censorship" only when it's done by a government.
>
> But since you want to go with commonly accepted usage, your argument does
> NOT apply, either.
>
> You disagree? Don't like what I'm saying because you know it's truth?
> Tough Shit

What crap.

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

In article <8HB9XAQC38765.5726273148@twistycreek.com>
TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
> What crap.

Bad eelbash, that was a [BAD_WORD].

George Orwell

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext

In <dsvict$ecl$1@bananasplit.info> Deuxpi Admin <deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca> wrote:

>The texts are available on the web site:
>http://www.deuxpi.ca/wiki/Disclaimers (English)
>http://www.deuxpi.ca/wiki/Avertisse...3%A9n%C3%A9raux (French)
>
The pages were unavailable when i tried them at 21.09.
-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----

Deuxpi Admin

2006-02-17, 11:08 pm

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

>
> The pages were unavailable when i tried them at 21.09.

Sorry, we had a big storm over here that took the power down. Should be back up now.

- --
Deuxpi Admin <deuxpi-admin@deuxpi.ca>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD9l8azQ0RLMqB8s4RArgNAJ4ijpHtT4cv
P7xL3R9QCSQYAxpLZwCfdA1q
ktByvwioCbbnzIDTlUsIEqM=
=xksR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

George Orwell

2006-02-19, 8:22 am

Thrasher Remailer wrote:

> In <d081a32e90fc219f6b297887b614338d@pseudo.borked.net>,
> nobody@pseudo.borked.net wrote:
>
>
>
> call a spade a spade. censoring message based on ANY of it's content OR
> it's destination is, in fact, censorship, period.

It's not censorship at all, any more than jailing criminals is taking away
their right to freedom. You willingly abdicate your right to speak freely
when you cross certain moral boundaries, and thus can not be censored
anymore than any other criminal can claim his rights are violated by being
put in jail.

I know you don't like to deal with that simple truth, but life is as it is
none the less. Your disagreement is truly irrelevant.

>
> you disagree? don't like what I'm saying because you know it's truth?

If I were going to be emotionally "moved" by your arguments it would be
in the general direction of amusement. As it stands now I just look at
them as someone desperately trying to justify something by hiding behind a
principal that fails miserably when they try and twist it to their
purposes. It's the same juvenile "free speech" argument abusers everywhere
use. We even have SPAM that includes this perversion of an ideal in every
copy we see, along with someone's credit card info.

How I really feel about what you're saying is mostly bored after seeing
it foisted so many times, attached to predictably warped motives. It's not
even really all that interesting any more.

Sorry if you were hoping for a little more attention than that...

>
> Tough Shit