In article < ac97c6255f1a4603d680e45c86228155@mixmast
er.it>
George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>
> References:
> <858bd3a9.0409261450.2e717da3@posting.google.com>
>
> In article
> <858bd3a9.0409261450.2e717da3@posting.google.com>
> yardleymj@yahoo.ca (Michael Yardley) wrote: 
>
> I'm coming to the same conclusion. This shit really
> sucks. Never know when or if a post will get posted to
> NGs. One remailer that works fine one day, either
> quits working or disappears the next.
> By the time you see my reply, you have probably
> forgotten what the subject was, if you do indeed see
> it.
> Strangely, instead of improving the service, some are
> going to great lengths to make it more complicated.
> Like hashXXXXingcash, whatever the XXXX that is. Like
> some nut is gonna spend his entire life flooding a
> XXXXing NG. Why not go after that cocksucka, instead
> of putting more stumbling blocks in the way of the end
> user?
> One thing is for damn sure, if they were selling this
> shit, they would be in the poorhouse. They are so
> unreliable, one would think the US Govt. is running
> them.
>
> I am in no way dissing QS, which works pretty good for
> me. The problem comes after the article leaves QS, or
> leaves my ISP, to be more correct.
>
> I'm also not blaming remailers, who are doing it for
> free, after all.
> It's just a XXXXed up situation, and until someone
> figures out a way to charge for it, make it halfass
> simple, and make it work most of the time, it's a
> pretty ridiculous affair.

It's not the remailers' fault but your's.

It's up to you to find a good source of stats and update them at least daily
,
and to choose an exit remailer that;

1. carries the newsgroup you wish to post to.

2. Is an exit remailer, and not a middleman.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]