THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF:
PATRICK PARIS -- SUCKED ONE SUCKED 'EM ALL
PATRICK PARIS -- MORALLY BANKRUPT
PATRICK PARIS -- INTERNET FLOODING COCKSUCKER
PATRICK PARIS -- THE HUMAN MAGGOT
etcI can say that I will
never jeopardize or invade
the privacy of
legitimateusers but people
I suspect of being in the
scumbag catergory and it
is Iwho must decide who is
or is not a scumbag have
in my humble opinion
noright to privacy I will
track them down like the
skunks they areAnd yes
I think that content is
something that must be
looked at andwhen it is
found to fall into the
scumbag category
Yes, I am just mentioning that.
according to
myjudgement may and
will be used to censor the
post I will not I
meanpossibly and in the
future allow Eelbash to
be used as a conduit
forevery species of
filthThen we have those
harassed by the enemy
out to crush them not
concerned with giving them
a fair price they can live
on And unfortunately
what the US says on
those matters still carries
the day worldwideAt the
moment I dont have to
tools to do the job
properly a keywordsearch
program is needed but
when I do the temptation
to use it may
beoverwhelmingPlease
out to crush them not
note that none of this is
the case now I am simply
reserving theright to do it
at some time in the
futureMoore do you
Malesa a young artist
after checking his email
at Savonis cafe APAS is
a technical newsgroup for
the help youve given me
even if you dont see this
message
to get someone mad at
meBut thats dog eat dog
capitalism for you Woe on
whomever tries to escape
the monster and the evil
empire If all remailers
used a disclaimer would
you choose another
remailer Get back to me
when you can write a
sentence which makes
sense Oh and show me a
relaible site where i can
download it with a
signature fileThe
remailer I am a new user
i want to download JBN
but cannot find a website
where i can download it
<<==========>>
Subject: WHO IS YOUR DADDY E,e'l.b@$h?
BOIL THAT EVIL EEL IN OIL
EelbashR
<<==========>>
Subject: Re: Pingers/Remops: Lunatic Eelbash at it again
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:
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.
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
