P.S.

Additionally, I think we can all agree that the real dilemma for the (former
) Thrasher remailer user is the potential problem with citing the news group
(s) which Thrasher has apparently blocked, whether the blocking began from t
he user's first test of Thr
asher, or more notably, subsequently, that is after the user had previously 
successfully posted one or more messages to the group(s) in question using T
hrasher, and perhaps also using other remailers to post separate messages to
 the same groups over time,
thereby betraying that particular user's track record for posting to those g
roups using anonymous remailers.

Even if the user had consistently employed the "X-No-Archive" directive in m
ost if not all of his/her posts to those groups, the savvy e-detective could
 then poll the suspect's frequented group(s), asking any long-time group reg
ulars if they might recall
some "unpopular" user who'd often posted through the remailers, be it Thrash
er or whatever. Usually, it's the one they disagreed with the most. That's t
he one who'd they most likely remember as being a "troublemaker."

While such a fishing expedition would prove difficult if not impossible in g
roups frequented by many dozens or even hundreds of unique anonymous posters
 who've used many various remailers, etc., it would be more conclusive to si
ngle out a particular poste
r if the groups in question have been regularly frequented by no more than, 
say, less than a dozen distinctively independent remailer users. It's the _r
egularity_ of posting history that would be the most glaring red flag to hel
p identify some particular
user, at least by name, alias, agenda or writing style, obviously highlighti
ng that user's objection to Thrasher blocking that user's favorite group(s).

But even those immature trolls who've used "sock-puppets", thereby abusing t
he remailers, to post messages to popular news groups, they've left telltale
 fingerprints which through casual or more rarely needed careful analysis of
 their writing habits can b
etray their identity and/or agenda. So whether you're a troll or not, your e
-paper trail is telling in the eyes of a good e-detective.

This means that identifying anyone who has posted frequently to certain grou
ps that may have been blocked by Thrasher would be wholeheartedly discourage
d from citing those groups allegedly being blocked if those same groups have
 been only rarely frequente
d by other unique remailer users. This is because merely naming the group(s)
 could be easily construed as evidence that the one complaining about the re
mailer is also the same one who used to post, or may perhaps still post, to 
those groups through Thrash
er and possibly other anonymous remailers, the latter in conspicuous cases a
s a direct result of Thrasher's subsequent blockage of those groups which pr
eviously had worked successfully for that user.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]