Re: Zax blocking nyms again.
Dave U. Random
Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> What a Jerk!
What have you done for *me* lately, jerk?
Anonymous
winding you up as you would expetc ? I just say you are some of those
extra people on this planet that wars , epidemic , sickneses ,
natural/unnatural olochausts haven't manage to terminate and giv us a
bith more of fresh hear to breath without your stinky ass and soul ,
have fun as long as you can ... and go to god .
Kulin Remailer
Not nyms (plural), just yours.
Nomen Nescio
Nomen Nescio
I'm guessing English isn't your first language for doing insults?
Or your second.... or third.
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 00:45:58 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote in
Message-Id: <dd2bef513212c161...@mixmaster.it>:
> As a nym user myself. I would like to hear from ZAX and see the
> post that constituted someone's nym being disabled or blocked.
That would be tricky as I've never disabled or blocked any nym. In fact
I've never had cause to take any action whatsoever against any nym
holder.
There are a few blocked recipient addresses where people have asked (via
email) not to receive messages from my services and they of course have
that right. There are also a few blocked Newsgroups owing to abuse
through the mail2news gateway but they tend to only be in place for a
short period until the abuser gets bored. Other than this, there are
no constraints placed on Nyms.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrFuGYACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0MNTACfVMeRa645QgFyCMSZvpVZurjl
fD4An3r3h8yzyif+3W9K0FDcqueNrYPc
=RjfK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
pub 1024D/8ED57743 2003-07-08 Bananasplit Operator
Key fingerprint = 796F 67E0 E890 A0BB BDAE EBB4 94A6 7A09 8ED5 7743
uid Admin <admin.bananasplit.info>
Anonymous
> I'm guessing English isn't your first language for doing insults?
> Or your second.... or third.
Good guess and up yours , we don't need idiots like you insinuating shit
about persons like Zax , first because none cares a god damn crap about
you useless , second you just waste bandwith . You better off dead ,
marry christmas ... 666
George Orwell
Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> Can't bit-bucket this method or straight remailers, though.
>
> See you around lier, Jerk.
That would be "liar".
We'll suppose Zax is blocking your particular nym. My question to you
would be why? Did he block it just randomly? The why would be much more
interesting and illuminating.
Other than that you sound like someone who fucked something up and is
blaming somebody else, like the 99.99% of posts like yours I've read in
apas.
Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
https://www.mixmaster.it
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:46:09 +0000, Nobody wrote in
Message-Id: <qvecc59b0tskeuc7o...@4ax.com>:
> Really. I made a clone nym except for the nickname and that one works
> just fine. I resend a config for my main nym and all confirmations and
> ACKs return fine. So I send a test through both nyms yesterday (which
> are a clone of one another except for the nickname) my test nym shows
> and my main nym never does. My main nym has been working fine for
> at least six months. Until, obviously, his panties got twisted.
Your Nym stops working after six months and so suddenly I'm Mr Evil
Jerk? Wow, you really have style when it comes to asking for help.
How about you begin by stating which Nym you're talking about?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrGX60ACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0PLmwCeOplPfupp1+LdjDI8AoHwx1bp
HI4AoNCc3PEG0eeAN4EoYfw/Z63vMEiM
=JAu8
George Orwell
Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> George Orwell wrote:
>
> >In article <il7cc5h6vg99b8fr3...@4ax.com>
> >Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can't bit-bucket this method or straight remailers, though.
> >>
> >> See you around lier, Jerk.
> >
> >That would be "liar".
>
>
> >We'll suppose Zax is blocking your particular nym. My question to you
> >would be why? Did he block it just randomly? The why would be much more
> >interesting and illuminating.
>
> Just read their replies. If Zax was a man he would tell the truth as
> to why. He will just keep insisting that he is innocent and isn't blocking
> anything. Well twenty-eight other people who have known Zax for a
> number of years (from a common group in which we have all been
> members) and I do know the truth. And it is pathetic on his/their part.
>
> He can't show any post from me showing why because, there is none
> which would constitute blocking me. Blocking me is the only thing left
> that he can control because he/they are inept verbally. No matter the
> subject.
>
> >Other than that you sound like someone who fucked something up and is
> >blaming somebody else, like the 99.99% of posts like yours I've read in
> >apas.
>
> just fine. I resend a config for my main nym and all confirmations and
> ACKs return fine. So I send a test through both nyms yesterday (which
> are a clone of one another except for the nickname) my test nym shows
> and my main nym never does. My main nym has been working fine for
> at least six months. Until, obviously, his panties got twisted.
>
I am.
You're leaving us with an enigma and you could clear it all up. Since I'm
not privvy to the information that 28 people and you know, who am I
supposed to believe? I know Zax's reputation and real name and have
observed the time, dedication and expertise he has contributed to all of
this and then there is you, who is just an anonymous schmuck like anybody
else who can post whatever he wants.
I know that somebody "named" Gregory Hall has pissed off Zax, and Zax
sometimes plays games with him. That's the only case of which I'm aware
that Zax purposely jacks around with somebody (and justifiably so in my
opinion). It's super hard to believe that Zax would block a nym simply
because of the nym's handle.
So do us all a favor and just come out a say it - why would Zax block that
nym? If he says one thing and you (or 28 other people) aren't going to
come forward and provide real information as to why he's lying I'm going to
have to believe Zax and that your troubles are either self-induced or lie
elsewhere. You say if Zax was a man he'd say the truth so I'm issuing the
same challenge to you.
Anon
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:46:09 +0000, Nobody wrote in
> Message-Id: <qvecc59b0tskeuc7o...@4ax.com>:
>
>> Really. I made a clone nym except for the nickname and that one works
>> just fine. I resend a config for my main nym and all confirmations and
>> ACKs return fine. So I send a test through both nyms yesterday (which
>> are a clone of one another except for the nickname) my test nym shows
>> and my main nym never does. My main nym has been working fine for
>> at least six months. Until, obviously, his panties got twisted.
>
> Your Nym stops working after six months and so suddenly I'm Mr Evil
> Jerk? Wow, you really have style when it comes to asking for help.
>
> How about you begin by stating which Nym you're talking about?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEAREKAAYFAkrGX60ACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0PLmwCeOplPfupp1+LdjDI8AoHwx1bp
> HI4AoNCc3PEG0eeAN4EoYfw/Z63vMEiM
> =JAu8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This could just be a government trouble maker (FBI? NSA?) who
is trying to slander remops. It certainly is not from a
mature person.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
George Orwell wrote:
> In article <il7cc5h6vg99b8fr3...@4ax.com>
> Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > Can't bit-bucket this method or straight remailers, though.
> >
> > See you around lier, Jerk.
>
> That would be "liar".
>
> We'll suppose Zax is blocking your particular nym. My question to you
> would be why? Did he block it just randomly? The why would be much more
> interesting and illuminating.
> Other than that you sound like someone who fucked something up and is
> blaming somebody else, like the 99.99% of posts like yours I've read in
> apas.
Actually, Steve has been publicly busted in more than one lie. Like
when he claimed he didn't call another aspiring remailer operator a
pain in the ass and then had the logs from the #remops IRC channel
posted to prove that he did.
At which point the IRC channel went private, so along with being a
liar you can add coward to his resume. In a realm that's SUPPOSE to
be all about free speech, he's hiding his own for no other reason
than not having what he ACTUALLY says become inconvenient or
uncomfortable. :(
raster
here. I used to have 34 very nice freeware programs out on the web
until a couple of jerks on the freeware news group started giving me
some grief about some of my notification messages concerning my
freeware updates. I decided that I didn't need such persons leveling
accusation at me anymore and decided to delete all my freeware programs
and go out of the freeware business. I am not sure about the situation
with Zac, but I do have the common decency and common sense to let well
enough alone. He is delivering a vital service and I would hate to
loose him.
> George Orwell wrote:
>
>> In article <il7cc5h6vg99b8fr3...@4ax.com>
>> Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Can't bit-bucket this method or straight remailers, though.
>>>
>>> See you around lier, Jerk.
>>
>> That would be "liar".
>
> Thanks for the correction.
>
>> We'll suppose Zax is blocking your particular nym. My question to you
>> would be why? Did he block it just randomly? The why would be much more
>> interesting and illuminating.
>
> He & I both know why, and so do several others who have replied.
> Just read their replies. If Zax was a man he would tell the truth as
> to why. He will just keep insisting that he is innocent and isn't blocking
> anything. Well twenty-eight other people who have known Zax for a
> number of years (from a common group in which we have all been
> members) and I do know the truth. And it is pathetic on his/their part.
>
> He can't show any post from me showing why because, there is none
> which would constitute blocking me. Blocking me is the only thing left
> that he can control because he/they are inept verbally. No matter the
> subject.
>
>> Other than that you sound like someone who fucked something up and is
>> blaming somebody else, like the 99.99% of posts like yours I've read in
>> apas.
>
> Really. I made a clone nym except for the nickname and that one works
> just fine. I resend a config for my main nym and all confirmations and
> ACKs return fine. So I send a test through both nyms yesterday (which
> are a clone of one another except for the nickname) my test nym shows
> and my main nym never does. My main nym has been working fine for
> at least six months. Until, obviously, his panties got twisted.
>
> Have a nice day.
George Orwell
noauth <an...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
>
> George Orwell wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> >So do us all a favor and just come out a say it - why would Zax block that
> >nym?
>
>
> >If he says one thing and you (or 28 other people) aren't going to
> >come forward and provide real information as to why he's lying I'm going to
> >have to believe Zax and that your troubles are either self-induced or lie
> >elsewhere. You say if Zax was a man he'd say the truth so I'm issuing the
> >same challenge to you.
>
> tactics. Besides, who cares if you want to challenge. Zax has already
> lied and if that isn't enough, nothing anyone has to say will be.
>
> To the OP:
> I believe you 100% that something stinks in Denmark. And I see plenty
> of people here who agree. (some old timers included) Like the other
> guy said, don't let the others here who have their lips stuck to their
> buddys ass get to you. Zax is now a proven liar by his own friend. How
> beautiful whas that. <heh>
So I left for a couple of days and now check back to see what developed.
Since nobody will just spell it out, tell me if what I glean from all the
innuendo is the deal:
In some prehistoric time, Zax and some of you were the denizens of some
Usenet groups, presumably the alt.ipl.* heirarchy. This outfit
disintegrated (for the most part) as a result of typical junior-high
squabbling.
Now apparently the claim is that Zax is blocking a particular nym based on
an old grudge? If not a grudge, maybe just because he's mean and has the
power to do so?
Since I'm just reading between the lines, please let me know if I'm wrong
about any of this.
You see, you might be calling me a Zax butt-kisser, but that's incorrect.
I'm simply trying to get at the truth and what that truth means to *me* and
anybody else who reads this group who couldn't give a damn about whatever
bullshit went on in your little cliques.
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:25:31 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote in
Message-Id: <9a6cd63faff94b22...@mixmaster.it>:
> In some prehistoric time, Zax and some of you were the denizens of some
> Usenet groups, presumably the alt.ipl.* heirarchy. This outfit
> disintegrated (for the most part) as a result of typical junior-high
> squabbling.
I just did some digging to find out what alt.ipl is all about. The ISC
have a control message dated 29th Sep 1996 for alt.ipl.discussion. It
was sent by Stra...@nym.alias.net so I assume the hierarchy is in some
way related to anonymity/security but I've never had any involvement
with it.
> Now apparently the claim is that Zax is blocking a particular nym based on
> an old grudge? If not a grudge, maybe just because he's mean and has the
> power to do so?
That does appear to be the claim, although my angry nymholder seems
unwilling to divulge what nym it is he's referring to so I'm unable to
do much but reiterate that I currently do not, nor ever have blocked a
nym from sending messages.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrKGksACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0NsXACfWqMfgwRNQi7R+2H7rSk9OHgr
+UQAnR5zyvWL0jLYmIzr03xUGCRqxiRa
=zZcZ
George Orwell
Zax <ad...@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:25:31 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote in
> Message-Id: <9a6cd63faff94b22...@mixmaster.it>:
>
> > an old grudge? If not a grudge, maybe just because he's mean and has the
> > power to do so?
> That does appear to be the claim, although my angry nymholder seems
> unwilling to divulge what nym it is he's referring to so I'm unable to
> do much but reiterate that I currently do not, nor ever have blocked a
> nym from sending messages.
Personally, I've tried creating a nym on mixmin a couple of times and have
been unsuccessful. The nyms were created but were dead in the water, no
acks, sends, receives, nothing. No big deal to me, I chalked it up to user
error on my part and I'm positive you wouldn't have blocked it. I think I
lack an understanding of exactly what type of encryption keys needed to be
generated for mixmin.
Maybe we could try this (watch people freak out as I post the mixmin nym
list which is freely available from listatnymdotmixmindotnet) -
If your nym is on this list and it isn't working correctly, raise your
right hand.
If your nym isn't on this list and you think it should be, raise your left
hand.
3am
abane
admin
agold
amir
anon
baal
bastard
bernz
bfreeman
blackjuju
blink
bnb
bnbpost
bseven
captain
captain_chaos
cloaked
config
confirm
cosmos
damatrix
daphne
deep_throat
dia
divwork
dytamite
ehunt
fallen
fluv
freetibet
ghost
girlfriend
grumpy
hidden
hrn
hs
ic
igenlode
inthebox
jigobama
johnm307
kirsten
krima
kristall2000
leah_goldblum
lilith
list
lucrezia
m2c
malex
marshall
martian
moira
neo
neph
neverwhere
ngirl
nobody
nymtst
oaf
om
orwell
outcast1
pete
peter_woller
phantom
phred
poseidon
postmaster
rabbit
reaper
red_hatchet
remailer-key
resistance
root
sadia
samara
samizdat
sammy
sand
sandy
santop
schley
seberingp
send
shapeshifter
siru
slayer
spock
spook
stealthmonger
stealthsorcerer
stealthsuite
strija
tester
the_lookout
theghost
ulisse
used
vix
wanderer
watcher
whopper
zax
zephyr
zorro
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:42:56 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote in
Message-Id: <59a4b5f3c7330e4d...@mixmaster.it>:
> Personally, I've tried creating a nym on mixmin a couple of times and have
> been unsuccessful. The nyms were created but were dead in the water, no
> acks, sends, receives, nothing. No big deal to me, I chalked it up to user
> error on my part and I'm positive you wouldn't have blocked it. I think I
> lack an understanding of exactly what type of encryption keys needed to be
> generated for mixmin.
It is frustrating, and made worse by the issues of IDEA support and
OpenPGP compatibility. It drove me to actually writing code for
generating Nyms when I was testing the server and it's been surprisingly
useful at various times since then. Having a consistent, reliable
method of generating Nyms was the only way I could be sure that errors
were server-side and not my own mistakes.
I'm frequently tempted to rewrite the Nymserver code as it's currently a
single huge Perl script with very little commenting or logging
functionality. I just wish there was some sense of direction for future
pseudonymous email so we could estimate the life expectancy of Type-I.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrLBXwACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0NnygCg/seB27hD3l1tanfSulcDTB+T
zEoAoOw9zrvpV9lVuODA3ZitXEFQ3xqK
=UbIY
Rance Muhammitz
Zax <ad...@bananasplit.info> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:42:56 +0200 (CEST), George Orwell wrote in
> Message-Id: <59a4b5f3c7330e4d...@mixmaster.it>:
>
> > Personally, I've tried creating a nym on mixmin a couple of times and have
> > been unsuccessful. The nyms were created but were dead in the water, no
> > acks, sends, receives, nothing. No big deal to me, I chalked it up to user
> > error on my part and I'm positive you wouldn't have blocked it. I think I
> > lack an understanding of exactly what type of encryption keys needed to be
> > generated for mixmin.
> It is frustrating, and made worse by the issues of IDEA support and
> OpenPGP compatibility. It drove me to actually writing code for
> generating Nyms when I was testing the server and it's been surprisingly
> useful at various times since then. Having a consistent, reliable
> method of generating Nyms was the only way I could be sure that errors
> were server-side and not my own mistakes.
After I last wrote, I created this nym and got no satisfaction. No confirm
message appeared after creation, so I went through everything on my end
with a fine-toothed comb. Of course idiot me had an expired key for one of
my reply-block remailers! duh. I'll keep looking until I can find
something to blame on you.
Under what circumstances would a user who is using pgp6.58ckt be looking
for IDEA to mess with the creation and use of a mixmin nym? I don't think
about IDEA. Everything is so transparent, a user like me who really isn't
into the nuts and bolts of encryption might not be able to track down when
some IDEA-induced complication may have jacked with a nym.
Thanks, you jerk,
Rance
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 03:04:59 +0100 (BST), Rance Muhammitz wrote in
Message-Id: <200910080204...@fleegle.mixmin.net>:
> After I last wrote, I created this nym and got no satisfaction. No confirm
> message appeared after creation, so I went through everything on my end
> with a fine-toothed comb. Of course idiot me had an expired key for one of
> my reply-block remailers! duh. I'll keep looking until I can find
> something to blame on you.
Thanks! :)
> Under what circumstances would a user who is using pgp6.58ckt be
> looking for IDEA to mess with the creation and use of a mixmin nym? I
> don't think about IDEA. Everything is so transparent, a user like me
> who really isn't into the nuts and bolts of encryption might not be
> able to track down when some IDEA-induced complication may have jacked
> with a nym.
The IDEA issue is most problematic when old versions of PGP are used to
generate keys. The older versions, (prior to v3) rely on RSA keys and
only one cipher, IDEA. Later PGP versions by default use DH based keys
that include a list of your preferred ciphers, (DH is actually a
complete key-exchange mechanism). If you use an RSA based key,
Mixmaster must be compiled to support IDEA, otherwise it doesn't
understand them.
There are a few functions in Mixmaster that still rely entirely on IDEA.
One such example is esub which has been discussed a lot lately. Take a
look at remailer stats and you can be pretty confident that those with
esub in the capstring have IDEA support.
Symmetric encryption in Type-I is also pretty vague. If you use an
Encrypt-Key directive, Mixmaster will use IDEA by default if it's
compiled in. If not, then it will use 3DES. I'd like to change this
behaviour but there are no doubt still some people out there using
PGPv2.x which can't do 3DES.
Type-I is a classic example of something that's been out there so long
that it's very difficult to refine without breaking stuff. Of course
lots of stuff is already broken but the users and client apps have
learnt to work with it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrNr/8ACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0OsiwCg2Xtx7DX012+mYGtIPxL0bTY/
fD0AoPobWljXQ4rznpMTZ/HLE7hd9F+b
=92hd
Rance Muhammitz
Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> What a Jerk!
So where did you go, O Original Poster? Are you just making these hit-and-
run accusations without any followup or debate? You are entirely sure that
your precious nym has been blocked and no other explanations are feasible?
I guess I'm supposed to take it on your word that Zax is a liar; that's all
you and (ahem) your supporters have offered. That doesn't fly. You never
told the truth yourself, all I asked for was a Why. Why do you think Zax
would block your nym. All I got was some seriously vague shit about ipl,
something that Zax claims never to have been involved in. Perhaps you are
suffering from a case of mistaken identity? Come on, somebody as
experienced as you could certainly give the details without outing
yourself, after all, this sort of thing is tailor-made for remailers.
Rance
noauth
> In article <sok7c5dcvt4npvlnq...@4ax.com>
> Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > What a Jerk!
>
> So where did you go, O Original Poster? Are you just making these hit-and-
> run accusations without any followup or debate? You are entirely sure that
> your precious nym has been blocked and no other explanations are feasible?
> I guess I'm supposed to take it on your word that Zax is a liar;
No troll, the fact that Zax has been known to lie is documented.
Kulin Remailer
Researchers at the University of Vienna, Austria, have found out that men lie more than women.
Up to 200 lies per day are required to cope with reality. Men lie for example about car matters, women mainly about shopping.
Lying helps surviving in a tough society with a lot of competition. It is "as essential to life as air and water" (according to the researcher Prof P Stiegnitz). If you are interested in the topic: He's written a book about lying.
Rance Muhammitz
noauth <an...@remailer.gabrix.ath.cx> wrote:
>
So *I'm* a troll?
The subject of this thread is "Zax blocking nyms again", not "Zax is a
liar". I don't know or care if Zax is a liar. I said it once before and
I'll say it again - I'm simply trying to get at the truth and what that
truth means to *me*. Still, there is nobody stepping up and giving any
good reason WHY Zax has supposedly blocked a nym. How plain do I have to
be? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! Give us a good reason and a little backstory
with which we may judge whether your claim has merit. THEN we can decide
if Zax is lying for ourselves!
I'm a troll. yeah, right.
Rance
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 22:50:08 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote in
Message-Id: <571d59e394baa335...@remailer.privacy.at>:
> Actually, Steve has been publicly busted in more than one lie. Like
> when he claimed he didn't call another aspiring remailer operator a
> pain in the ass and then had the logs from the #remops IRC channel
> posted to prove that he did.
I believe you're referring to this post:
<807f2a0aff40faa4...@hermetix.org>
Perhaps you can highlight where I refer to somebody as "a pain in the
ass", because I can't see it.
In honesty, that was a pretty damn frustrating episode. Myself and
others in the #remops channel devoted a lot of time to helping a
newcomer get a remailer and nymserver up and running. I'm sure even he
would agree that he lacked basic Linux skills so it was a case of
explaining each step at the keystroke level. In the end, after some
weeks of effort he got things working and then abruptly announced their
closure without even granting any period of notice to let messages
trickle through.
> At which point the IRC channel went private, so along with being a
> liar you can add coward to his resume. In a realm that's SUPPOSE to be
> all about free speech, he's hiding his own for no other reason than
> not having what he ACTUALLY says become inconvenient or uncomfortable.
> :(
Again you're twisting the truth. I wasn't then, nor ever have been the
operator of that channel so it wasn't my decision to lock it down. That
said, are you really surprised it was closed after conversations assumed
to be private within that channel were being logged and subsequently
posted to a public newsgroup by the very person who came there asking
for help? It wasn't my decision to make the channel private but I'll
publicly state that I agree with it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrTHfYACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0MYyQCcDSPFiy38KcUGrx+Jdk74/ifT
H1MAoOEF5Ts59q3RFofVkIY2Fzh83yuk
=YMK4
Rance Muhammitz
Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
>
> Rance Muhammitz wrote:
>
> >In article <sok7c5dcvt4npvlnq...@4ax.com>
> >Nobody <no...@none.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> What a Jerk!
> >
> >So where did you go, O Original Poster?
>
>
> >Are you just making these hit-and-
> >run accusations without any followup or debate?
>
> is
> *your* problem.
That is my problem. All I read was "Zax blocking nyms again" and "Zax is a
liar". That's not enough.
>
> >You are entirely sure that
> >your precious nym has been blocked and no other explanations are feasible?
>
> Already answered.
>
> >I guess I'm supposed to take it on your word that Zax is a liar; that's all
> >you and (ahem) your supporters have offered. That doesn't fly.
>
> No one cares what you want to believe. However, Zax said that he *never*
> has messed with anyone, while his own *good friend* said the he had in
> the past. No one here can do a thing about you lack of reading
> comprehension.
That "good friend" was me, I mentioned Gregory Hall.
Which is not a nym, but a Usenet moniker used by somebody who has made a
lot of enemies among nntp administrators.
> >You never
> >told the truth yourself, all I asked for was a Why. Why do you think Zax
> >would block your nym.
>
> Again, only Zax knows why he has decided to block the OP.
No, It's obvious that the OP knows also. Otherwise the OP would be asking
Zax nicely for help in determining what the problem is, unless the OP is
one of those types who believes the entire world is out to get them.
> >All I got was some seriously vague shit about ipl,
> >something that Zax claims never to have been involved in.
>
> You may not have been privy to a conversation years ago. It correlates to
> the naming of Zax's services. Nuff said. If that doesn't suit you, then,
> too
> bad. No one has the need to explain it to *you.*
Now we're getting somewhere. That's tangible. But yes, there is a need to
explain it to *all* of us because without explanation the only thing on
paper is "Zax is an evil bad meany" and you all sound like eight year old
girls on a playground. You need to explain further.
> >Perhaps you are suffering from a case of mistaken identity?
>
> One has to wonder why you continue to goat and rant on when the facts
> have already been established. You're only succeeding in showing your
> lack of intelligence. The end.
There are no facts which support the original claim. I can claim that your
mom gave a blowjob to Richard Nixon. You can call me a liar. That's all
this whole thread amounts to.
Rance
Anonymous
>
> Rance Muhammitz wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> They said that their main nym has stopped working. They made
> a new test nym that was an exact clone of their main nym. A clone
> would have the exact same settings except for the key & nickname.
>
> The test nym works just fine. So the only difference would be the nym
> key & the nickname. The nickname can be filtered upon. Get it?
>
> Without the use of remailers they tested the M2Ns directly using their
> main nym's address. All posted well, so the M2Ns can be ruled out.
>
> Without the use of remailers they posted directly to the nym server
> and nothing worked with their main nym. While their cloned nym still
> works perfectly with the same tests. Obviously, the broken/blocked
> bit is at the nym server.
>
> Re-submitting config request with the "-disable" directive in case the
> main nym had been disabled - all confirmations arrive fine. Yet posting
> still does not work for the main nym while the cloned nym does.
>
> Just how much clearer can this person make it?
>
> Now you tell me what's happening if Zax isn't filtering. I know, Zax's
> server code came to life and just hates this person's nickname.
>
> You will be ignored from this point on.
>
> Keep it up and someone may render his toy so unreliable that it is
> rendered useless. Nym servers do have an Achilles heel.
If all this is true, I can understand why someone would think a filter
would have been introduced. The only other explanation I can see, that the
size of the message is either rejected by the nymserver or mail2news
gateway. I know that mixmin and maybe some other news servers reject pgp
content of a certain size when they are given as binary. I wonder whether
this was tested? Or perhaps cleanfeed rejected some forbidden content seen
as spam?
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:44:04 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous wrote in
Message-Id: <2009101223440...@www.ecn.org>:
> I know that mixmin and maybe some other news servers reject pgp
> content of a certain size when they are given as binary. I wonder whether
> this was tested? Or perhaps cleanfeed rejected some forbidden content seen
> as spam?
Actually modern Cleanfeed versions are pretty tolerant of base64
encoded content and will certainly allow the posting of keys and
signatures to any newsgroups. Lengthy messages might get rejected in
general newsgroups but alt.anonymous.messages is exempted from any
binary filters.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrUQG8ACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0PlXgCg7jxVkk0emNjL+cffnZ7k4FUn
MDwAoNPyi+L7EHytSfLkE5Ulz1xmvKlw
=Sp9Q
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:06:21 +0100 (BST), Rance Muhammitz wrote in
Message-Id: <200910121906...@fleegle.mixmin.net>:
> That "good friend" was me, I mentioned Gregory Hall.
Actually this thread is very Gweg Hall like. Each time Gweg gets
cornered and unable to provide any evidence to support his false claims
he just backs off into a different sub-thread and starts again. It's an
effective trolling ploy.
In this thread I've asked the OP what Nym he's referring to and he's
failed to respond. Claims have been made of my lying and calling
another remop a PITA in #remops. Again, when challenged for evidence
there's been no response. If there's a response to this, it's a fair
bet that it will also be insubstantial.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrUSLEACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0P0ngCg0IzKSeIpapgmrzBRUBKi8BSF
l4oAoJzqlGtXR3gBMZBnxojoGsUUYhP0
=53NS
anon
on a news group as Zax has requested from the problem child who started
this thread, is Zax's public key not displayed somewhere, wherein the
complainer could send it to him via PGP encryption?
Zax
Message-Id: <2009101313045...@www.ecn.org>:
> You already know, Fool. Keep pretending like you don't though.
You snipped this bit:
>> If there's a response to this, it's a fair bet that it will also be
>> insubstantial.
--
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:53:43 -0500, anon wrote in
Message-Id: <hb1t8o$rv3$1...@news.mixmin.net>:
> As far as the argument that no one would want to display their nym name
> on a news group as Zax has requested from the problem child who started
> this thread, is Zax's public key not displayed somewhere, wherein the
> complainer could send it to him via PGP encryption?
Yes, if the OP preferred he could certainly do that. There's no
anonymity issue with disclosing a nym name to a public forum though,
providing it's done via anonymous means. The entire list of Nyms is
publicly available from the nymserver.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkrUh+QACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0P3pgCg9Zp+QePiopnprLqO5lHxdwZr
gGkAn0sbFzDxUaa4B/1qQ90eX9Wte5wR
=I9F4
Non scrivetemi
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 22:50:08 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote in
> Message-Id: <571d59e394baa335...@remailer.privacy.at>:
>
> > Actually, Steve has been publicly busted in more than one lie. Like
> > when he claimed he didn't call another aspiring remailer operator a
> > pain in the ass and then had the logs from the #remops IRC channel
> > posted to prove that he did.
>
> I believe you're referring to this post:
> <807f2a0aff40faa4...@hermetix.org>
>
> Perhaps you can highlight where I refer to somebody as "a pain in the
> ass", because I can't see it.
Excuse me, but what bizarre stretch of your imagination leads you
to believe that anyone was quoting you directly in the first place?
Sorry kid, but all the semantical quibbling in the world won't
erase the fact that you called an aspiring RemOp a pain in the ass,
flat out lied about doing so, and then got *your* ass handed to you
in public because of that lie.
> In honesty, that was a pretty damn frustrating episode. Myself and
Blah..... not a single soul said anything different. I'm sure it
*was* frustrating Steve. That's not the point, now is it? The point
is that when it's convenient for you you'll lie like a Persian rug
rather than own up to your own bullshit. The point is that you
could have been adult enough to explain your frustration right from
the start, but you made the choice to deny your own words instead.
The *point* is, Steve, that it's not only possible, but very
likely that you're lying about this whole nym blocking deal. It's
exactly the sort of thing you've lied about in the past. Which,
combined with what's bee posted in this thread, makes it almost a
certainty that you have some sort of "beef" with a user, maybe even
justifiably, and are doing something you know is wrong because of
it then lying about the whole thing.
> > At which point the IRC channel went private, so along with being a
> > liar you can add coward to his resume. In a realm that's SUPPOSE to be
> > all about free speech, he's hiding his own for no other reason than
> > not having what he ACTUALLY says become inconvenient or uncomfortable.
> > :(
> Again you're twisting the truth. I wasn't then, nor ever have been the
> operator of that channel so it wasn't my decision to lock it down. That
Again, nobody ever said you *were* any sort of channel op. That
means the only person doing any fact twisting here, is you. I can
only assume it's your desperation showing. You really don't like
having your slimy underbelly exposed, do you Steve?
The simple fact of the matter is that because of your lie, and the
public exposing of the same, a forum dedicated to the age old
principals of free speech and free flow went underground. Period.
> said, are you really surprised it was closed after conversations assumed
> to be private within that channel were being logged and subsequently
If you consider conversations on a public IRC channel to be
"private" you have issues that go well beyond being a petty liar.
> posted to a public newsgroup by the very person who came there asking
> for help?
Taking a wild stab at "pin the identity on the poster" now Steve?
So You've gone from lying, to desperately twisting the facts, to
being wholly pathetic. Almost Eelbash-esque. Just like that
miscreant you're "outing" the wrong person. But hey... don't let
that deter you. By all means do feel free to keep digging that hole
of yours a little deeper.
> It wasn't my decision to make the channel private but I'll
> publicly state that I agree with it.
And I'll publicly state that exposing you as a liar was the right
thing to do. So was exposing the way you act when you think
nobody is watching It's good that we understand that beneath that
nice guy veneer you display most of the time, there exists a
personality that can't be trusted. A petty, immature liar. :(
Zax
Hash: SHA512
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 19:06:51 +0100 (CET), Non scrivetemi wrote in
Message-Id: <3dfdb0a7e5a188d7...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info>:
>> > Actually, Steve has been publicly busted in more than one lie. Like
>> > when he claimed he didn't call another aspiring remailer operator a
>> > pain in the ass and then had the logs from the #remops IRC channel
>> > posted to prove that he did.
>>
>> I believe you're referring to this post:
>> <807f2a0aff40faa4...@hermetix.org>
>>
>> Perhaps you can highlight where I refer to somebody as "a pain in the
>> ass", because I can't see it.
>
> Excuse me, but what bizarre stretch of your imagination leads you
> to believe that anyone was quoting you directly in the first place?
That's the best you can manage in reply to a 20 day old post? The
originator states I called another remop "a pain in the ass".
When actually presented with the very log in question, you backpedal to
"well not actually directly".
> Sorry kid
No good being patronising, you lied about what I'd said and calling me
kid isn't going to change what's archived.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEAREKAAYFAkruAQkACgkQlKZ6CY7Vd0MkUACgrjJAnALZuQ1wS+gbp74+IQyH
iXYAoMDFj/hinz64Mf9jffcBqZ/euHV3
=l9G9
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
Zax wrote:
> >> Perhaps you can highlight where I refer to somebody as "a pain in the
> >> ass", because I can't see it.
> >
> > Excuse me, but what bizarre stretch of your imagination leads you
> > to believe that anyone was quoting you directly in the first place?
>
> That's the best you can manage in reply to a 20 day old post? The
> originator states I called another remop "a pain in the ass".
No, liar, they did not. The quotation is a figment of your
frustration. Your failed attempt to sleaze your way out of a
situation that's apparently more uncomfortable for you than I
originally suspected. ;)
> When actually presented with the very log in question, you backpedal to
> "well not actually directly".
And speaking of personal bests kiddo, don't delude yourself into
believing nobody saw through your pathetic attempt to deflect the
truth with this "not actually directly" idiocy. You have zip,
you're caught with your pants around your ankles *again*,
everyone is seeing exactly what you're made of, and all you can do
is snip/run and wriggle about with pathetic semantics quibbling. Oh,
and let's not forget your amusing Eelbash-esque attempt to
intimidate me by guessing my identity. *snicker*
By the way, you see that third line in the above paragraph sonny?
Those two little double lines on either side of a section of text?
That means someone is quoting you verbatim. When they're not there
it's a good good chance someone is paraphrasing what you said. Have
someone help you look up "paraphrasing" in a dictionary if you're
still confused.
Now, since you were too much of a coward to address the lies
and bullshit I spotlighted in my previous post directly, it amuses
me to shove it all in your face again. Every time you play your
little games it's another more bit of proof that the image you
*try* to project and the real you are two completely different
critters. Hell, I'll even submit this reply to your MTA direct on
port 2525 since you're so flustered you've been reduced to being
another Eelbash.
So get ready to hunker down and fondle yourself as you desperately
try to sort out who I am from the logs you say you don't keep.
Maybe you can inject some sort of filtering or whatever to silence
your detractor, and then lie about doing that too. ;)
Enjoy...
<cutmark>
Nomen Nescio
> erase the fact that you called an aspiring RemOp a pain in the ass,
> flat out lied about doing so, and then got *your* ass handed to you
> in public because of that lie.
Again you say he "called an aspiring RemOp a pain in the ass" when he's proved
conclusively that he didn't. Why should anyone believe the rest of your
unsubstantiated diarrhoea? There isn't a shred of evidence or a citation to
support or deny a single thing you claim. You wouldn't recognize a fact if one
climbed up your trouser leg and lunched on your bollocks.
Dave U. Random
> > Sorry kid, but all the semantical quibbling in the world won't
> > erase the fact that you called an aspiring RemOp a pain in the ass,
> > flat out lied about doing so, and then got *your* ass handed to you
> > in public because of that lie.
>
> Again you say he "called an aspiring RemOp a pain in the ass" when he's proved
More semantics quibbling from the "peanut gallery"?
How quaint.
Now do you care to grow a pair and address the REAL issue here? Out
from under the cover of a remailer, like a big boy?
Didn't think so, but here it is again anyway:
Enjoy...
<cutmark>
Sorry kid, but all the semantical quibbling in the world won't
erase the fact that you called an aspiring RemOp a pain in the ass,
flat out lied about doing so, and then got *your* ass handed to you
in public because of that lie.
> In honesty, that was a pretty damn frustrating episode. Myself and
Nomen Nescio
> believing nobody saw through your pathetic attempt to deflect the
> truth with this "not actually directly" idiocy. You have zip,
> you're caught with your pants around your ankles *again*,
> everyone is seeing exactly what you're made of, and all you can do
> is snip/run and wriggle about with pathetic semantics quibbling. Oh,
> and let's not forget your amusing Eelbash-esque attempt to
> intimidate me by guessing my identity. *snicker*
remop "a pain in the ass" and you lied. Stick your paraphrasing bullshit up
your ass.
> Now, since you were too much of a coward to address the lies
> and bullshit I spotlighted in my previous post directly, it amuses
> me to shove it all in your face again. Every time you play your
> little games it's another more bit of proof that the image you
> *try* to project and the real you are two completely different
> critters. Hell, I'll even submit this reply to your MTA direct on
> port 2525 since you're so flustered you've been reduced to being
> another Eelbash.
Summary: You need his MTA to post your shite with.
> Sorry kid, but all the semantical quibbling in the world won't
> erase the fact that you called an aspiring RemOp a pain in the ass,
> flat out lied about doing so, and then got *your* ass handed to you
> in public because of that lie.
When in a hole, stop digging. It's very clear you lied about what he said so
why go on about it? Don't you look stupid enough already?
> Blah..... not a single soul said anything different. I'm sure it
> *was* frustrating Steve. That's not the point, now is it? The point
> is that when it's convenient for you you'll lie like a Persian rug
> rather than own up to your own bullshit. The point is that you
> could have been adult enough to explain your frustration right from
> the start, but you made the choice to deny your own words instead.
> The *point* is, Steve, that it's not only possible, but very
> likely that you're lying about this whole nym blocking deal. It's
> exactly the sort of thing you've lied about in the past. Which,
> combined with what's bee posted in this thread, makes it almost a
> certainty that you have some sort of "beef" with a user, maybe even
> justifiably, and are doing something you know is wrong because of
> it then lying about the whole thing.
He didn't lie, you did. For fucks sake, repeating your lies over and over
doesn't make them turn into facts.
> Again, nobody ever said you *were* any sort of channel op. That
> means the only person doing any fact twisting here, is you. I can
> only assume it's your desperation showing. You really don't like
> having your slimy underbelly exposed, do you Steve?
When it comes to twisting facts, you make a piss poor job of it. Stick to
obviously lying, you're good at that.
> The simple fact of the matter is that because of your lie, and the
> public exposing of the same, a forum dedicated to the age old
> principals of free speech and free flow went underground. Period.
Same old chestnut. He's not lying, *you are*. He posted proof of your lie,
stop digging!
> So You've gone from lying, to desperately twisting the facts, to
> being wholly pathetic. Almost Eelbash-esque. Just like that
> miscreant you're "outing" the wrong person. But hey... don't let
> that deter you. By all means do feel free to keep digging that hole
> of yours a little deeper.
PKB. Your hole is getting deeper by the paragraph.
> And I'll publicly state that exposing you as a liar was the right
> thing to do. So was exposing the way you act when you think
> nobody is watching It's good that we understand that beneath that
> nice guy veneer you display most of the time, there exists a
> personality that can't be trusted. A petty, immature liar. :(
You called him a liar twice in that paragraph and it still doesn't make it
fact. You fucked up! He posted the chat log and didn't call any remop a pain
in the ass. Either post some proof or STFU.
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > And speaking of personal bests kiddo, don't delude yourself into
> > believing nobody saw through your pathetic attempt to deflect the
> > truth with this "not actually directly" idiocy. You have zip,
> > you're caught with your pants around your ankles *again*,
> > everyone is seeing exactly what you're made of, and all you can do
> > is snip/run and wriggle about with pathetic semantics quibbling. Oh,
> > and let's not forget your amusing Eelbash-esque attempt to
> > intimidate me by guessing my identity. *snicker*
> Nice attempt at obfuscation, but you fucked up. You stated he called another
> remop "a pain in the ass" and you lied. Stick your paraphrasing bullshit up
> your ass.
And yet more semantics quibbling from the peanut gallery.
You really need to just grow a pair and fess up to your own
bullshit kid. You'd smell a lot better. Start with the incident in
the subject of this thread, move on to your lying regarding what
you said about other RemOps in a "private" *laugh* irc channel, and
for extra points own up to your pathetic little attempt to "out"
the guy exposing all your bullshit.
>
> > Now, since you were too much of a coward to address the lies
> > and bullshit I spotlighted in my previous post directly, it amuses
> > me to shove it all in your face again. Every time you play your
> > little games it's another more bit of proof that the image you
> > *try* to project and the real you are two completely different
> > critters. Hell, I'll even submit this reply to your MTA direct on
> > port 2525 since you're so flustered you've been reduced to being
> > another Eelbash.
> Summary: You need his MTA to post your shite with.
I don't *need* your MTA for anything dummy, I just wanted to twist
your panties. WE know now that you're not only a bald faced liar,
you're a fucking sneak.
<rest of your drivel snipped, unread>
noauth
> remop "a pain in the ass" and you lied. Stick your paraphrasing bullshit up
> your ass.
please dont feed the trolls
Anonymous
> If you consider conversations on a public IRC channel to be
> "private" you have issues that go well beyond being a petty liar.
Conversations on the remops IRC channel are expected to be "private".
Admission into the circle was tightly controlled even before the enigmatic
channel key. It is not and never was a public support channel. When channel
logs were being posted to a public newsgroup it was misuse of trust.
Another pain in the ass.