>The Eelbash remailer is a last-hop remailer.

>It provides full FROM headers.

>Disclaimers are put into newsgroups as needed.
Oh great, tampering with mail again. XXXX you.

>If all else fails, the newsgroup will be temporarily blocked.
How the hell are we supposed to know if they are blocked?

>The Eelbash remailer allows PLAIN TEXT messages only.
All the easier for you to read them. You perverted XXXXing XXXXXXX.

>Flood filters are in place.
In-Out-In.  Make up your XXXXing mind.


You are not a remailer, you are a psycho. Get the XXXX out already.

Pingers, please remove Eelbash from your lists. He has violated every rule
in the book. Eelbash cannot be considered a remailer.

Remops, please block this XXXXXXX. You may be depriving someone of their
right to privacy. He only allows plain text messages for his perverted
viewing pleasure.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:30:05 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

Some very angry and disturbed tripe, below.

 
> 
> 
> Oh great, tampering with mail again. XXXX you.
> 
> How the hell are we supposed to know if they are blocked?

I'll let you know here.

> 
> All the easier for you to read them. You perverted XXXXing XXXXXXX.

Don't talk nonsense; all it means is that html is not allowed, and
binaries are not allowed.

> 
> In-Out-In.  Make up your XXXXing mind.

Although I have the highest respect for Twisty's corporate legal counsel,
I have more respect for somebody like Zax, who said yesterday that he has
flood filters in his remailer and even added some more.

That's why I put the filters back in.

>
>
> You are not a remailer, you are a psycho. Get the XXXX out already.
>
> Pingers, please remove Eelbash from your lists. He has violated every rule
> in the book. Eelbash cannot be considered a remailer.
>
> Remops, please block this XXXXXXX. You may be depriving someone of their
> right to privacy. He only allows plain text messages for his perverted
> viewing pleasure.

You are a sick young fellow (or girl); get help.

A copy of this post is at http://eelbash.yi.org:81/miscx/post/20051108002.




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

 iD8DBQFDcOeBYyZq98cTxEkRAlbVAJ4zf4LfqeCq
CacEfrJ95WW6tV7fzQCggybj
bkg9Tw2U3eKm4SIg3btutN8=
=mKXC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:22:46 +0000, Anonymous wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.yi.org> wrote: 
>
> Eelbash, you are a liar. LIAR.

I misspoke: the remailer will not accept html or binaries, such as .exe
files; it does accept encrypted messages at last hop, as any remailer does.

It also accepts non-pgp-encrypted messages - plain text messages in the
standard form:

::
anon-post-to: some.newsgroup

##
subject: some subject
from: some name
etc.
etc.

By the way, a quick look at capstrings shows that bigapple, george,
hastio, metacolo, panta, senshi, and vger also accept plain text messages.


>
> What it actually means is that messages do not have to be encrypted to be
> accepted.

Correct.

> HTML and binaries ARE accepted, if they are encrypted.

You are talking gibberish. If a message is encrypted, it is not possible
to know if it is html, or a binary, such as a .exe.

>
> Either you are a liar, or so truly incompetent that you honestly don't
> know what PLAIN TEXT accepted actually means. So which is it? Huge liar,
> or painfully incompetent?

Neither. Just an average lover of privacy trying to provide some to other
people, and looking in wonderment at the psychopaths, such as yourself,
that infest this newsgroup.

Again, I urge you to get help. You do not realize how sick you are, though
I am sure everyone else in your neighborhood does.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>
>
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

 iD8DBQFDcPScYyZq98cTxEkRAhUMAKCFXaJGDcKE
9lgnkhCcaGpgYzlI1QCfW3Cg
In8ublF//z5SyaUNRy6LcmU=
=qkFC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A copy of this post is at http://eelbash.yi.org:81/miscx/post/20061108003.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 8 Nov 2005, Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Nov 2005, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.yi.org> wrote: 
>
>Eelbash, you are a liar. LIAR.
>
>What it actually means is that messages do not have to be encrypted to be
>accepted. HTML and binaries ARE accepted, if they are encrypted.

I have not bothered to look at his cap string. Nor will I. But the way he
stated it implies that he will not accept encrypted messages. Only plain
text:

"The Eelbash remailer allows PLAIN TEXT messages only."

Can anyone really feel safe using his re-mailer? I sure as hell don't. Does
he have any clue what he is doing? Do you want to trust your confidential
mail to him?

BTW, twisty was concerned with altering the content of mail, not the issue
of permitting floods. Read his comments again. He has blocked attempted
floods. Freedom of speech does not give one the right to flood. Freedom of
speech does mean that the contents of a message cannot be altered by a
self-appointed censor.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.yi.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>Again, I urge you to get help. You do not realize how sick you are, though
>I am sure everyone else in your neighborhood does.

You do realize that you are writing back to several different people don't
you? Are you claiming them all to be sick?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:20:09 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> On 8 Nov 2005, Anonymous <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote: 
>
> I have not bothered to look at his cap string. Nor will I. But the way he
> stated it implies that he will not accept encrypted messages. Only plain
> text:
>
> "The Eelbash remailer allows PLAIN TEXT messages only."
>
> Can anyone really feel safe using his re-mailer? I sure as hell don't.
> Does he have any clue what he is doing? Do you want to trust your
> confidential mail to him?

7 years running remailers; 30 years programming while also running a
business; 3 years in the army conducting electronic warfare against
the commies.  What's not to trust?

>
> BTW, twisty was concerned with altering the content of mail, not the issue
> of permitting floods.

No kidding? I could have sworn he blocked me because I announced I had put
in filters to block floods - nothing about altering the content of mail

Maybe twisty misunderstood what he read. Or did I phrase it confusingly?

Well, here it is again:

Agressive flood filters are in place. If you send too many messages
in too rapid succession to the same email address or newsgroup, some
of them may not make it. Sorry about that, but, the psychos have
been busy and I am sure you will understand the need to keep them
from disrupting newsgroups or preying on individuals


I don't see anything there that talks about altering the content of email,
but that's the notice that twisty reacted to.


> Read his comments again. He has blocked attempted
> floods.

Well done, then.

> Freedom of speech does not give one the right to flood.

Certainly not.

> Freedom of
> speech does mean that the contents of a message cannot be altered by a
> self-appointed censor.

Couldn't agree more. If some [NO WAY]ing censor tries that, he should be
kicked out on his [NICHEVO].

A copy of this post is at http://eelbash.yi.org:81/miscx/post/20051108004



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

 iD8DBQFDcP7VYyZq98cTxEkRAgvRAJ9o8G7uOEMq
HAjGbgSs14CKaipFegCeOTwk
iKdcILnDQr/ZuiiyzEcNMjQ=
=5y4I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

> Although I have the highest respect for Twisty's corporate legal counsel,
> I have more respect for somebody like Zax, who said yesterday that he has
> flood filters in his remailer and even added some more.

Why don't you use your one remaining brain cell
to read what Zax wrote again.

He installed nntp filters. Those are for his
usenet server.

Banana isn't even an exit remailer! How would
he add filters for the flood on to his remailer
when the flood can't exit from his remailer and
he can't see it from his remailer?!

I guess Einstein was right. Stupidity really is
infinite.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.yi.org> wrote: 
>
>No kidding? I could have sworn he blocked me because I announced I had put
>in filters to block floods - nothing about altering the content of mail
>
>Maybe twisty misunderstood what he read. Or did I phrase it confusingly?
>
>Well, here it is again:
>
>Agressive flood filters are in place. If you send too many messages
>in too rapid succession to the same email address or newsgroup, some
>of them may not make it. Sorry about that, but, the psychos have
>been busy and I am sure you will understand the need to keep them
>from disrupting newsgroups or preying on individuals
>
>
>I don't see anything there that talks about altering the content of email,
>but that's the notice that twisty reacted to.
>

I happen to be a close friend of twisty. You can tell by my other posts
today. Here is what my friend wrote:

"The twisty re-mailer operates as a common carrier. It is a fully legal
service operating under a business class static IP. The ToS for the ISP
permit business class clients to operate their own mail systems as well as
domain hosting.

By operating a re-mailer, I am legally bound to operate as a common
carrier. To maintain my status as a common carrier and avoid potential
legal problems, under the direct advice of my corporate legal counsel, I
cannot nor will not tamper with any messages sent through this re-mailer.

However, I am permitted to block incoming or outgoing IPs or addresses to
prevent abuse or flooding, or other re-mailers that may be complicit in
violating the common carrier laws.

Since this re-mailer operates within the USA, it is subject to the
applicable laws for a common carrier.

To avoid potential conflict with these laws, I have no choice but to
source and destination block the Eelbash re-mailer as it may at any time
decide to be in violation of the common carrier laws.

I apologize for the inconvenience, but avoiding a possible legal violation
takes precedence."

As you can plainly see, it was not a concern about flooding or flood
filters. He was concerned about altering of message content. For example
when you started the "civil remailer", you violated your common carrier
status under the US laws.

By adding disclaimers to messages sent to some, but not all newsgroups, you
may find yourself in a position that conflicts with the US laws. In effect,
you are changing the message content by acting as a censor to some groups
but not applying it equally to all. That is his dilemma. As I mentioned
before, he is a close friend. We talked about this last night. On the
advice of others and his counsel, he will not write anything more about it.

I am exempted. I do not operate a remailer and have no intention of doing
so.

My suggestions are simple, if you alter message content, you can be in
trouble. If you add lines to some messages, but not all, you are acting as
a censor and can be in violation of certain aspects of the law. If you add
a universal disclaimer to the message body that is added to all messages,
you are OK. Blocking floods is OK. Blocking harrassment mail is OK.

The biggest problem is selectively adding additional comments. That in
effect makes you a censor. Take that into consideration please for your own
well being.

Howard M.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <pan.2005.11.08.18.01.09.668123@eelbash.yi.org>
Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.yi.org> wrote:
>
> Although I have the highest respect for Twisty's corporate legal counsel,
> I have more respect for somebody like Zax, who said yesterday that he has
> flood filters in his remailer and even added some more.
>
> That's why I put the filters back in.

Here you go twisting the truth again to hear what it is you want to
hear.

Zax did *not* say that he had put flood filters in his remailer and
added some more.

What Zax said was that his private news server, which he offers up to
the public and has nothing to do with his remailer, had some filters
added to kill the flood. That's all.

You heard in your little head that he added filters to his remailer
because that's what you want to hear. He never said that, and he never
did that.

He filters junk out on his *news server*. Not his remailer. Not his
mail2news, but his *news server*. Got it?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:57:13 +0000, Howard wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005, Eelbash Admin <admin@eelbash.yi.org> wrote: 
> I happen to be a close friend of twisty. You can tell by my other posts
> today.

Which ones were they? I don't recall seeing any.


> Here is what my friend wrote:
>
> "The twisty re-mailer operates as a common carrier. It is a fully legal
> service operating under a business class static IP. The ToS for the ISP
> permit business class clients to operate their own mail systems as well
> as domain hosting.
>
> By operating a re-mailer, I am legally bound to operate as a common
> carrier. To maintain my status as a common carrier and avoid potential
> legal problems, under the direct advice of my corporate legal counsel, I
> cannot nor will not tamper with any messages sent through this
> re-mailer.
>
> However, I am permitted to block incoming or outgoing IPs or addresses
> to prevent abuse or flooding, or other re-mailers that may be complicit
> in violating the common carrier laws.
>
> Since this re-mailer operates within the USA, it is subject to the
> applicable laws for a common carrier.
>
> To avoid potential conflict with these laws, I have no choice but to
> source and destination block the Eelbash re-mailer as it may at any time
> decide to be in violation of the common carrier laws.
>
> I apologize for the inconvenience, but avoiding a possible legal
> violation takes precedence."
>
> As you can plainly see, it was not a concern about flooding or flood
> filters. He was concerned about altering of message content.

I don't see that, plainly or murkily. Hiis blocking of my remailer was a
direct result of my announcement that I was putting in flood filters.

Not that I care what his reason was. He can block for any reason.

But my announcement a day or two later that I was removing the flood
filters resulted in him unblocking me.

What else can anybody, even a lawyer, conclude but that the block was put
in as a result of the flood filters?

And why the need to keep announcing this legal gobbledygook?


> For example
> when you started the "civil remailer", you violated your common carrier
> status under the US laws.

I've got to tell you, that I have never seen such an irruption of legalese
as I have since Twisty arrived on the scene, and now you.

I have always thought of the remailer system as an informal group of
individuals, who, with little more than a list of the other remailers,
could independently work to provide an effective encrypted comm system for
anybody who needed to post anonymously.

Having a lawyer, or whoever you are, come in here to tell us what may
and may not be done is a bit chilling.

I doubt that any of the operators, certainly not me, have the financial
wherewithal to withstand some legal challenge thrown at them.

If the advent of the Twisty Admin and his friend Howard are harbingers of
what is in store for remops, it will mean the end of the remailer system,
at least in the US.



> By adding disclaimers to messages sent to some, but not all newsgroups,
> you may find yourself in a position that conflicts with the US laws. In
> effect, you are changing the message content by acting as a censor to
> some groups but not applying it equally to all. That is his dilemma. As
> I mentioned before, he is a close friend. We talked about this last
> night. On the advice of others and his counsel, he will not write
> anything more about it.

Amazing. A remop who will not even talk about his hobby.

Twisty, old man, if you are reading this, let me say that you seem like a
nice fellow, and your apparently strong interest in preserving privacy is
very welcome in a society where it is daily being shredded.

You appear to be somebody who works a lot with lawyers, while most of us
avoid them like the plague, and simply run our remailers out of our homes,
using whatever common sense and decency we can bring to the job.

This group is supposed to be a forum for an informal peer-to-peer
discussion among remops, as well as a source of information for people
wanting to know about remailers.

If one of the remops refuses to come here because of the 'advice of others
and his counsel', and instead, sends a friend to act as his spokesman,
then there is something very very wrong.

I hope you can see how odd your action appears compared to the way other
remops express themselves here.

If people feel they are walking through a legal minefield whenever they
speak to you, and you are calling your legal counsel and chewing over
every syllable, how do you expect them to act toward you?

The only way I can think of to act, is, with regret, to have nothing to
say to you. In fact, it might be best if you put your block of my remailer
back in place; I am thinking of doing the same with your remailer.


> I am exempted. I do not operate a remailer and have no intention of
> doing so.
>
> My suggestions are simple, if you alter message content, you can be in
> trouble. If you add lines to some messages, but not all, you are acting
> as a censor

Well, I put disclaimers in messages going to certain newsgroups that are
being disrupted; the idea being to discourage the psychopaths from using
the remailer to torment that group. All messages going through the
remailer to such newsgroups have the disclaimer, so maybe that makes it
kosher in a lawyer's eyes, but who knows?


> and can be in violation of certain aspects of the law. if you add a
> universal disclaimer to the message body that is added to all messages,
> you are OK. Blocking floods is OK. Blocking harrassment mail is OK.
>
> The biggest problem is selectively adding additional comments. That in
> effect makes you a censor.

See my comment just above.


>Take that into consideration please for your
> own well being.

Thanks for the free advice.

> Howard M.


A copy of this message is at

http://eelbash.yi.org:81/miscx/post/20051108005


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

 iD8DBQFDcSK8YyZq98cTxEkRArGOAKCAr87rpdfP
aAQGZo1nj+VjTJfqiwCggxVz
S2eBSgcti3BOclitrB7Gv8o=
=aso8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]