In article <MPG.1d9d09dbab1c5557989b46@news.newsreader.com>
Stephen K. Gielda <steve@packetderm.com.bogus> wrote:
>
> In article <43332815$0$11074$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, nospam@hccnet.nl
> says... 
>
> It's not that, it's more that I cannot see any possible reason for the
> number of times he's started up a remailer only to run it for a week or
> two and shut it down again.  About the only thing I can think of would
> be that he sets up his remailer when he targets someone and then starts
> announcing the easy post, non-anonymous service, knowing that his target
> is looking for the fastest and easiest way to post and will most likely
> start using it.
>
> Of course I could be wrong, but the number of times he's now surfaced
> only to again shut down within a week or two makes no sense.  Even pure
> incompetence would have resigned it all by now.  If he had ISP issues,
> after about the fourth try he'd have given up.  If he was legitimate and
> really didn't want to be segmented from the remailer network, he would
> have opened again on the qt, working to be anonymous from his past.  But
> no, he wants to be segmented and he only runs for a couple weeks before
> shutting down again.  It's looking like it must be something else to it
> and a specific target when he starts it up again, CoS run maybe?

It does seem to raise it's ugly head when certain accusations are
running rampant. Good call.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]