http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/frog/eelbash.html

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

This is a Type III anonymous message, sent to you by the Mixminion
server at straylight.snikt.net.  If you do not want to receive
anonymous messages, please contact ADMIN.  For more information about
anonymity, see URL.

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

In <0H1BUBCI38743.0351157407@twistycreek.com> TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:[vbco
l=seagreen]
>http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/frog/eelbash.html
>
>[/vbcol]

Yeah, seen that before I have.

A small part of eelbash history it is and shamefull at that.


-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <20060126080317.E39D256B@blackwhale.net>
mixminion@snikt.net wrote:
>
>
> In <0H1BUBCI38743.0351157407@twistycreek.com> TwistyCreek <anon@comments.h
eader> wrote: 
>
> Yeah, seen that before I have.
>
> A small part of eelbash history it is and shamefull at that.

The real shame is that after all these years it continues on the very same
path.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Anonymous wrote:
 
>
> The real shame is that after all these years it continues on the very same
> path.

Absolutely insane, isn't it?

I can't help but by wonder why a real RemOp would consider allowing
traffic to pass through anything the lunatic controls, but still some do.

It's almost as unbelievable as realizing that one alleged RemOp could
maintain such an unshakable level of inanity for such a long time. I often
muse about whether Eelbash has to take breaks from his intense stupidity
to divert power to breathing... let his heart beat a few times... stuff
like that... <g>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, nobody@pseudo.borked.net (Borked Pseudo Mailed) wrote:
>Anonymous wrote:
> 
>
>Absolutely insane, isn't it?
>
>I can't help but by wonder why a real RemOp would consider allowing
>traffic to pass through anything the lunatic controls, but still some do.

I don't block messages from him or to him. That is up to the user to
conciously decide if he/she wants to use Eel. What I do is make sure he is
not in my capability string. In my case, if a user selected random, random
and I happened to be the first random, Eel is not in my capability string
so my re-mailer could not forward the message through him. If someone wants
to, they can intentionally chain through me to Eel and I would let the
message go through.

IOW, it is not up to me to interfere with a message if the user
intentionally picks a chain from me to him. It just won't happen by random.
I think that is a fair compromise to all users. A new user, unfamiliar with
chains doesn't have to be concerned. An experienced user that wants that
chain can make it (I don't know why anyone would want to but, what can I
say?)

Personally, I have a strong disagreement with adding the giant disclaimer
at the bottom of the message. It impugns the integrity of the sender
(IMHO).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The message above came through a remailer.
The original sender is unknown.
Any address shown in the From header is unverified.
Complaints? See the Comments in the headers.

 ****************************************
*



Or the "shouted out" PLEASE SEND COMPLAINTS TO IAMUPSET@HOTPOP.COM INCLUDE
THE NUMBER 777 IN THE SUBJECT to ensure that your email reaches me. PLEASE
SEND COMPLAINTS TO IAMUPSET@HOTPOP.COM in the headers.

Caps represent shouting and is poor netiquette when used incorrectly.


Others may not feel like me, so it is their decision to use or not use a
chain from me to him.
They have to conciously make that chain, it just won't happen by accident.

This is just my opinion and intend nothing further by expressing it.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <9b5af7dea756e7346117a572f6e82eeb@pseudo.borked.net>
nobody@pseudo.borked.net (Borked Pseudo Mailed) wrote:
>
> Anonymous wrote:
> 
>
> Absolutely insane, isn't it?
>
> I can't help but by wonder why a real RemOp would consider allowing
> traffic to pass through anything the lunatic controls, but still some do.
>
> It's almost as unbelievable as realizing that one alleged RemOp could
> maintain such an unshakable level of inanity for such a long time. I often
> muse about whether Eelbash has to take breaks from his intense stupidity
> to divert power to breathing... let his heart beat a few times... stuff
> like that... <g>

My musings are that the eelbash remailer is shared - a remailer remotely
administered by some regular remops who impersonate Eelbash Admin and take
turns doing wildly stupid things with the machine as some kind of freaky
joke.  It reminds me of the Ernie Kovacs show.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <QTPS7GVX38744.3247453704@twistycreek.com>
TwistyCreek <anon@comments.header> wrote:
>
> I don't block messages from him or to him. That is up to the user to
> conciously decide if he/she wants to use Eel. What I do is make sure he is
> not in my capability string. In my case, if a user selected random, random
> and I happened to be the first random, Eel is not in my capability string
> so my re-mailer could not forward the message through him. If someone want
s
> to, they can intentionally chain through me to Eel and I would let the
> message go through.

Huh? If you are the first remailer, both scenarios are the same.

If a user chooses random,random it isn't the first remailer in the
chain who chooses the second remailer; the client chooses both
remailers.

As the first remailer in the chain, you have no way of knowing if
eelbash was chosen by the user intentionally, or by their client
randomly.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:28:54 +0000 (GMT), Anonymous
<nobody@invalid.org> wrote:

>My musings are that the eelbash remailer is shared - a remailer
>remotely  administered by some regular remops who impersonate
>Eelbash  Admin and take turns  doing wildly stupid things with the
>machine as  some kind of freaky joke. It  reminds me of the Ernie
>Kovacs show.

Nice try, Assmodeous.

When are you people going to accept that this whole eelbash,
assmodeous, etc., affair is simply some dumb Asian Canuck XXXXX
having her post-menopausal jollies?
- --
Bluejay at Cotse dot Net

The eelbash/cheshire/bogg/asmodeous/parsifal Chronicles
http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/...claration2.html

PGP Key is here:
http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/...ey-11-18-04.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/ AwUBQ9o25OFjVI9fbU4iEQJXrgCeM4dyvl6rcacx
1nyPEDmLZUmr9pYAniLb
ScI4gh/cmorHfVRbDXAYVh0t
=Ph0D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

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

Bluejay wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:28:54 +0000 (GMT), Anonymous
> <nobody@invalid.org> wrote:
> 
>
> Nice try, Assmodeous.
>
> When are you people going to accept that this whole eelbash,
> assmodeous, etc., affair is simply some dumb Asian Canuck XXXXX
> having her post-menopausal jollies?
> - --
> Bluejay at Cotse dot Net
>
> The eelbash/cheshire/bogg/asmodeous/parsifal Chronicles
> http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/...claration2.html
>
> PGP Key is here:
> http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/...ey-11-18-04.txt
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use
> <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/ AwUBQ9o25OFjVI9fbU4iEQJXrgCeM4dyvl6rcacx
1nyPEDmLZUmr9pYAniLb
> ScI4gh/cmorHfVRbDXAYVh0t
> =Ph0D
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

It seems something went wrong with my pgp sig in the above post.

It is my post.

Let's see if the sig works this time. (Haven't used it in quite a
while. I guess it got rusty or something.)

Bluejay at Cotse dot Net

The eelbash/cheshire/bogg/asmodeous/parsifal Chronicles
http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/...claration2.html

PGP Key is here:
http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/...ey-11-18-04.txt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/ AwUBQ9pBBeFjVI9fbU4iEQL1HwCfa17NsnV8bryA
VdWyvsQUZd4x5VgAoNSc
jKc3nR7n6d7gIjNGlyxQdhyE
=Vehw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <MTEzODM3NzAxNS5ibHVlamF5.1138377016@nulluser.com>
"Bluejay" <bluejay-no-spam@cotse.net.invalid> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bluejay wrote:
> 


Nobody cares, XXXXXXX.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]