Why not 100%

Zax

unread,

Dec 12, 2003, 3:40:02 PM12/12/03

to

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

starwars wrote:

> Something wrong with the question below? Why no response?
>
> Thanks.
>
> In article <f65b4b150f2648ac...@remailer.metacolo.com>
> Anonymous Sender <anon...@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Please explain why some remailers don't achieve
>> 100% throughput. It's very mysterious to me. I don't
>> see why a remailer would lose mail. Unless there is
>> something seriously wrong with a sendmail server, it doesn't
>> drop mail on a regular basis. In other words, one
>> would not accept that as "normal". Anybody care to
>> enlighten me?

There’s nothing wrong with your question at all.

100% reliability is quite an accomplishment; it means the remailer
hasn’t dropped a single ping in the last 12 days. 12 days being the
length of time over which stats are retained and measured. According
to stats though, lots of remailers are pretty close to 100%. Take a
look at http://www.noreply.org/meta/meta.2.html for a good overview
of the network reliability based on nearly all pingers statistics.

Stats at the moment are based on single-hop chains. In other words,
the pinger sends a message to a remailer and the remailer responds to
the pinger. This is a good way to test each remailer, but the
methodology isn’t inline with good remailer use policy which dictates
using a number of remailers between the source and destination. In
other words, the reliability stats you see for each remailer are not
representative of the overall reliability you can expect when sending
a message.

Example:
You send a message through chain r1,r2,r3,r4
r1 = 95%, r2 = 94%, r3 = 95%, r4=99%
Chain reliability is r1*r2*r3*r4 = 0.95x0.94x0.95x0.99 = 84%

The above example is only true in a scenario where a single copy is
sent; of course reliability goes up in cases of more copies.

This probably gives a good representation of the remailer performance
in terms of emails, but posting to Usenet is a different story. Now
your message is at the mercy of elements outside the remailer
network, such as Mail2News Gateways and NNTP propagation. I think
it’s a fair assumption that most, if not all M2N’s are going to
employ some form of filtering. In the case of my own, SpamAssassin
is used to vet incoming Emails. Most news servers will also have
some kind of filtering, the industry standard being a Perl package
called Cleanfeed that can filter out an awful lot of messages when
configured to do so.

As a final note on Usenet postings, some news servers are known to
filter all remailer or M2N postings. This doesn’t just impact the
users of those servers, but also has a knock-on impact to all message
propagation. This is probably the greatest cause of perceived
message loss when posting via remailers.

HTH?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP9onOZSmegmO1XdDEQKWjwCg8IhHd74MGSuu6ZTboiX6j2nAMKEAoKte
RK6TKRMc2wZnrePEg6ARAdTO
=zlGq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bluejay

unread,

Dec 12, 2003, 10:00:56 PM12/12/03

to

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

On 13 Dec 2003 02:29:10 -0000, Anonymous
<Bigapple...@Optonline.Net> wrote:

snip

>Secure Beer, a notorious HOLOCAUST DENIER, continues his campaign of
>insane destruction.
>
>His 'answer' is 90 percent irrelevancies and abuse. What an
>embarrassment to the newsgroup. If you want to know why it has become
>the cesspool of insanity it now is, look no furthe than Secure Beer, a
> notorious Denier and Anti-Semite. See his posts in alt.revisionism if
> you do not believe me about his bigotry.

Uh, where is the link, Froggie?

>Or read his posts here to see that his agenda is to destroy the
>newsgroup.
>

Uh, where is the link, Froggie?

(Do you *actually* think anyone is ever again going to believe even
half of your lying crap, Frog? Thanks to my pages, even newbies will
smarten up overnight about you.)
- --
* Bluejay *

Get Help Installing QuickSilver Here
http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/qs/menu.html

Read About The Frog Who Would Be King
http://www.quicksilvermail.net/bluejay/frog
http://saddle.yoll.net/frog/
http://www.cotse.net/users/drsnoid/frog/

If you are one of those who would like to rid this group
of The Frog From Hell, here is your chance to host a mirror
of my Frog site. Just unzip and dump everything into one
directory, upload them to your site, and you'll have the
identical anti-frog site that I had up on Cotse.

http://www.quicksilvermail.net/bluejay/frog/frog-archived-pages.zip
(This site will have the most recent file additions)

http://www.cotse.net/users/drsnoid/frog/

Bluejay Public Key:
http://www.cotse.net/users/bluejay/bluejay-pub-key.txt

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

iQA/AwUBP9qAmb0qIgPfZwtYEQK+SwCgxkGSXDzD+N+ps7hriIaDmWV0CW8AnAhx
HvSB64Vdk6tCU/jkcKB3u+T4
=2+/6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thomas J. Boschloo

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 10:18:01 AM12/13/03

to

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 16:42:06 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender
<anon...@remailer.metacolo.com> wrote:

>Please explain why some remailers don't achieve
>100% throughput. It's very mysterious to me. I don't
>see why a remailer would lose mail. Unless there is
>something seriously wrong with a sendmail server, it doesn't
>drop mail on a regular basis. In other words, one
>would not accept that as "normal". Anybody care to
>enlighten me?

I don't know much about stats generation, but a big reason for stats
to be below 100% seems to me to be that remailers that have a long
latency might have the last ping message still in their (reordering)
pools!

RProcess also had something (paranoid) to say on reliability in the
past, but it seems remailers are a lot more reliable now then they
were in the past when he wrote those documents.
<http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/1999_09_DoS_remail_vuln.html>

You didn't say if you were talking about remailer-stats requests by
the way, but I figure you wanted to know about the more general stats
like provided by EFGA in this newsgroup..

Regards,
Thomas J.
--
The Orz: "Don't forget to enjoy the *sauce*"
Support <http://sc2.sourceforge.net>

Tarapia Tapioco

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 5:47:41 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Congo Admin <ad...@bogg.dynu.com> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:40:09 +0100, in alt.privacy.anon-server,
>edo <nob...@cryptorebels.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:

>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Thomas J. Boschloo <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>RProcess also had something (paranoid) to say on reliability in
>>>>the past, but it seems remailers are a lot more reliable now then
>>>>they were in the past when he wrote those documents.
>>>><http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/1999_09_DoS_remail_vuln.html>
>>>

>>>They're only more reliable because TLA's are now running half of
>>>them. Since September 11th there have been a lot of remailers
>>>suddenly appearing with excellent uptimes and stats. They know
>>>that most people will only use 99% and above uptime remailers, and
>>>most people prefer remailers with low latencies. That is why the
>>>network is more reliable now.
>>
>>Uh-huh. I think your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
>
>Why is his assertion so preposterous? If remailers really are
>effective in keeping a sender's identity anonymous, do you think the
>US government, or any other government, is going to sit by and do
>nothing about it?
>
>It's more likely, I think, that they can use traffic analysis to
>figure out who senders are, or set up in the Trojan business and give
>away software - firewalls, trojan detectors, etc., which are really
>keyloggers, and trojans themselves. Or co-opt OS vendors - Sun
>Microsystems, for example.
>
>But if all else fails, then running as many remailers as possible is
>a good strategy.

1) Running as many owned remailers as possible (the
"gardner-compliant" remailers)
2) Promoting second-rate software (like QuickSilver)
3) Attacking non-owned remailers (flood, defamation, designer abuse)
4) Attacking trojan/bug-free privacy software (like JBN2)
5) Flooding apas to effectively prohibit the diffusion of technical
knowledge

are all different chapters of the same strategy

Notice that most "gardner-compliant" remailers are middleman and don't
allow any access to usenet: this is the best position to collect
users' addresses while minimizing problems with the public.

Tarapia Tapioco

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 6:02:54 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Thomas J. Boschloo <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote:

>>RProcess also had something (paranoid) to say on reliability in the
>>past, but it seems remailers are a lot more reliable now then they
>>were in the past when he wrote those documents.
>><http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/1999_09_DoS_remail_vuln.html>
>

>They're only more reliable because TLA's are now running half of them. Since
>September 11th there have been a lot of remailers suddenly appearing with
>excellent uptimes and stats. They know that most people will only use 99% and
>above uptime remailers, and most people prefer remailers with low latencies.
>That is why the network is more reliable now.

It's common knowledge that Len Sassaman shut down his remailer when he
thought it would please the FBI, and he reopened it as soon as his
masters decided it was more profitable to have Randseed operating
under their control and bending the remailer network for them.

The list of "Gardner-compliant remailers" is a good aproximation of
the list of remailers owned by the FBI and other TLA.

Vive LE Frog!!

Stephen K. Gielda

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 6:48:29 PM12/13/03

to

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

In article <13f046c195a9a8f6...@firenze.linux.it>,
comes...@ntani.firenze.linux.it says...

You mean the non-abuse supporting. Regardless of whether or not gardner
is a valid or abusive complainer, placing anyone's info in the abuse
contact headers is the wrong way to handle it. It is not getting him
fired. It's not even affecting him, except perhaps to strengthen his
case that remailers are only used for abuse and also prove that fact to
his employers. And it damages the image of remailers in general because
it gives those against them something to point at as solid proof of
abuse.

> 2) Promoting second-rate software (like QuickSilver)

Attacking any privacy software.

> 3) Attacking non-owned remailers (flood, defamation, designer abuse)

A definite possibility.

> 4) Attacking trojan/bug-free privacy software (like JBN2)

Attacking any privacy software.

> 5) Flooding apas to effectively prohibit the diffusion of technical
> knowledge

It's very obvious that those against remailers are doing the flooding,
it serves no other purpose and it is accomplishing nothing but making
the remailers look bad. Therefore that is the goal of all the
multiposts, to make the remailers look bad.

>
> are all different chapters of the same strategy
>
> Notice that most "gardner-compliant" remailers are middleman and don't
> allow any access to usenet: this is the best position to collect
> users' addresses while minimizing problems with the public.
>

Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
final destination. If TLA's want access to that info, they'll need to
run entry point and exit point remailers along with as many others as
possible.

/steve
- --
Protect yourself on-line. Hide your identifying details in e-mail,
usenet, and more. A privacy service like no other.
No one gives you more control over your e-mail than we do!
http://www.cotse.net/servicedetails.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBP9ulO6/Zpuf9zw+1EQI1oQCfV1m2gtqSB09pyQGEYof6bHF4ZuEAoKKI
OPc2nBMfxVWDLh6Y3KGTqhwI
=BJBl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Anonymous via the Cypherpunks Tonga Remailer

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 10:58:36 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay
sponsor

Middleman remailers are statistically more likely to be chosen as 1st
remailer, where they can monitor the real IP of remailer users.

Frog-Admin already exposed another lie by Gielda, when Bluejay
repeatedly boasted that he had managed to post disruptive material
thru Frog, and Gielda repeatedly denied it was possible.
see post:

Message-ID: <NVWZVGQU3795...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
From: Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Frog-Admin)
Subject: [INFO] Frog introduces bottom disclaimer
Newsgroups:
alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.support.grief,alt.atheism,alt.dads-rights.
unmoderated,soc.men
Organization:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?><((((=BA>_Happy_Lobster_&_Partners_<=B0))))><?=
X-Comment: In Case of Emergency, Flush the Toilet
X-Mailer: JackB.Nymble Version 2.1
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above
address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail
services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP
!!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
X-Remailer-Contact: http://80.65.224.85/POL/ In case my abuse address
is unreachable: It is because it has been flooded by <m...@uiuc.edu>,
please contact <ab...@uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 2003 13:53:53 +0100
Lines: 83
X-Mail2News-Contact: http://80.65.224.85/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Following news:MPG.1a2e30004...@news.supernews.com by
Stephen K. Gielda

|Cotse cannot send e-mail to Frog, all mail to and from Frog is blocked.
|Any Usenet posts from cotse have cotse stamped all over the headers, if
|it isn't in the headers it didn't come from cotse.

_____________________________________________________________________
1) The basic principle of remailers is to remove *ALL* incoming
identification marks
to replace them by the remailer's

2) In
news:Ymx1ZWpheQ==.65b8c50385693f73...@1069599141.cotse.ne
t
The "BlueJay" character
(responsible for all those months's stalking + latest calls for
murder/castration/arson)
boasts that he managed to abuse the Frog remailer + m2news
and the content shows it was indeed "design abuse", meant only to
harass the remailer operator
( news:X9AZBAYU3794...@Gilgamesh-frog.org )

>Message-ID:
><Ymx1ZWpheQ==.65b8c50385693f73...@1069599141.cotse.net>
>Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:52:21 -0000 (GMT)
>Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server
>X-Abuse-To: ab...@cotse.net
>Subject: - Frog Turns Off Remailer Because Bluejay Got In!!
>From: "Bluejay" <Blu...@All.Mail.Is.Trashed>

>Horseshit!
>
>He shut it down because I got into his server with my Calling All Slimey
>Amphibians post.
>
>LOL!
>
>I sent about a half-dozen more posts through. When they never showed up,
>desptite his claimed and ridiculous retention time of 15 seconds, I knew
>he had shut down the machine.
>
>Frog you're a liar. You turned off the machine rather than be humilated
>by single post more of mine getting through.

_____________________________________________________
Both 1) theory and 2) practice meet:
We are clearly in a case where a post originated by COTSE was finally
bearing identification marks from FROG.
The statement by Stephen K. Gielda is a plain, calm, deliberate lie.
- -This statement was an offence to anybody's intelligence
- -This statement is an indication, cover-up for *all* the nefarious
activities by the paying clients from COTSE, trying to make
goodwill/unpaid volunteers remailer operators responsible for their
unsavory activities.

MY SERVICE IS NOT FOR STALKING or HARASSING,
IT IS OPEN FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY
Politiques FR
http://frogadmin.yi.org/POL/Pol_FR.html
Policies EN
http://frogadmin.yi.org/POL/Pol_EN.html

There are few things more REPULSIVE than a free service being abused
for means it was not intended for.
Having such free service abused by greedy opportunists is one of those
"MORE REPULSIVE" acts.

I am not a psychiatrist and I don't know for which sick purposes
"BLUEJAY" is abusing the network, but in the case of Stephen K.
Gielda, the answer is: for $5.95 a month.

__________________________________________
Within 24 hours, all posts/mails emerging from Frog will bear a
disclaimer:
"This free remailing service is not meant for stalking/harassment
If you find the content of this post to be grossly abusive,
it *probably* originated from a client of Stephen K. Gielda (COTSE)
for $5.95 a month
see http://.... for
various examples of harassing posts/mails known to be issued by
COTSE's Clients
references and how to report COTSE to your local police"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBP8SPh4DgT488d3zFAQHVNggAvpn1HwuLdkEE8CblY7hivNBio0V9dPLJ
hbZd/HTB4agxXUUtGcIzs+P67hWqRWOU9GD8LpKbdscj7U1OpcZJTwgPSE9F45TI
igoQ2CtZnUo3yeu1D07NTrvSdm4AJhMGqLzir6VdWmi/mEPmLWzz0/vyfg1VlI0L
WqUQVmL4JEtrq3KdPAq3kdXqPEjhe0/liFuwrV4Trslxep7+FEUCdt5rnhMxYxZE
24q/KhZzQfvexeYqOblBhR+foce+2+eyMdevOtcuiBncXdubmA1Q/hbnbUl0OMug
T5lmfIcD5XUJdBFwkaIbMq8FjjSZdi2pixO8dG4P7LTz9F8qgqQ48Q==
=pEbU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

George Orwell

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:01:53 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

Anonymous

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:06:39 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

Anonymous

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:07:48 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay
sponsor

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Anonymous

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:10:44 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

Anonymous

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:15:30 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay
sponsor

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Nomen Nescio

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:20:02 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

edo

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:25:27 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

starwars

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:24:18 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

futureworlds

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:26:21 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:40:08 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

Anonymous Sender

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:52:18 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

Anonymous

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:51:58 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay
sponsor

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Anonymous

unread,

Dec 13, 2003, 11:56:09 PM12/13/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 12:00:06 AM12/14/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

Anonymous

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 12:18:37 AM12/14/03

to

Bluejay wrote:

<snip>

You have some very good points but.....

was it really necessary to crosspost it to alt.privacy as well as apas
when the orginal post was only made to apas?

This kind of behaviour just adds to the mess and doesn't help your cause
at all.

Think about that eh?

Stephen K. Gielda

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 12:30:52 AM12/14/03

to

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

In article <f16a7c3df9342403...@itys.net>,
an...@anon.itys.net says...

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
> >final destination.
>

> Middleman remailers are statistically more likely to be chosen as 1st
> remailer, where they can monitor the real IP of remailer users.
>

Then that would make them an entry point for you, no longer a middleman.
A properly chained messages will use multiple middleman remailers which
can only tell what remailer gave them the message and what one they are
sending to. Those middlemen will not know where the message originated
nor it's final destination. The entry point knows the origin, the exit
point the destination, the middleman neither.

/steve
- --
You simply cannot get more server side control of
your e-mail without running your own mail server and
knowing how to program.
http://www.cotse.net/privacyservice.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBP9v1ga/Zpuf9zw+1EQIPTwCdEBMTuZZWgL/edtGkstzzZIkzF+EAoP5X
O1HKAllMsJ+lt12OlVgFbn0C
=imUv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

An Metet

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 1:41:48 AM12/14/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay
sponsor

Middleman remailers are statistically more likely to be chosen as 1st

remailer, where they can monitor the real IP of remailer users.

Frog-Admin already exposed another lie by Gielda, when Bluejay

Nomen Nescio

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 2:10:07 AM12/14/03

to

In article <ZWxpcw==.8351f929c567c0c6...@1071379117.cotse.net>
"Anonymous" <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:

> Bluejay wrote:

> <snip>

> You have some very good points but.....

Flush!

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 3:20:02 AM12/14/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

An Metet

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 4:04:12 AM12/14/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 5:20:12 AM12/14/03

to

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

GO BACK TO YOUR SEWER, YOU SPAMMING PARASITE WITH $5.95 ETHICS

anon...@remailer.hastio.org

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 5:19:14 AM12/14/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay
sponsor

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 5:40:05 AM12/14/03

to

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

GO BACK TO YOUR SEWER, YOU SPAMMING PARASITE WITH $5.95 ETHICS

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

and he sells privacy.....

or does he lie purposedly to have the initial statements forgotten:

"Notice that most "gardner-compliant" remailers are middleman and
don't
allow any access to usenet: this is the best position to collect
users' addresses while minimizing problems with the public"

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 6:20:15 AM12/14/03

to

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>

wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <f16a7c3df9342403...@itys.net>,
>an...@anon.itys.net says...
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>> >final destination.
>>
>> Middleman remailers are statistically more likely to be chosen as 1st
>> remailer, where they can monitor the real IP of remailer users.
>>
>
>Then that would make them an entry point for you, no longer a middleman.
>A properly chained messages will use multiple middleman remailers which
>can only tell what remailer gave them the message and what one they are
>sending to. Those middlemen will not know where the message originated
>nor it's final destination. The entry point knows the origin, the exit
>point the destination, the middleman neither.

SWINING TURD CAN'T MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "A MIDDLEMAN REMAILER"

AND "A REMAILER USED AS MIDDLE"

and he sells privacy.....

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 6:40:12 AM12/14/03

to

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 6:40:13 AM12/14/03

GO BACK TO YOUR SEWER, YOU SPAMMING PARASITE WITH $5.95 ETHICS

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

GO BACK TO YOUR SEWER, YOU SPAMMING PARASITE WITH $5.95 ETHICS

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 7:40:06 AM12/14/03

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 7:45:45 AM12/14/03

to

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>final destination.

ANOTHER LIE from Stephen K Gielda, the $5.95 ethics owner and Bluejay
sponsor

Middleman remailers are statistically more likely to be chosen as 1st
remailer, where they can monitor the real IP of remailer users.

Frog-Admin already exposed another lie by Gielda, when Bluejay
repeatedly boasted that he had managed to post disruptive material
thru Frog, and Gielda repeatedly denied it was possible.
see post:

Message-ID: <NVWZVGQU3795...@Gilgamesh-frog.org>
From: Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header (Frog-Admin)
Subject: [INFO] Frog introduces bottom disclaimer
Newsgroups:
alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.support.grief,alt.atheism,alt.dads-rights.
unmoderated,soc.men
Organization:
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?><((((=BA>_Happy_Lobster_&_Partners_<=B0))))><?=
X-Comment: In Case of Emergency, Flush the Toilet
X-Mailer: JackB.Nymble Version 2.1
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above
address.
It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail
services.
You should NEVER trust ANY address on Usenet ANYWAYS: use PGP
!!!
Get information about complaints from the URL below
X-Remailer-Contact: http://80.65.224.85/POL/ In case my abuse address
is unreachable: It is because it has been flooded by <m...@uiuc.edu>,
please contact <ab...@uiuc.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 2003 13:53:53 +0100
Lines: 83
X-Mail2News-Contact: http://80.65.224.85/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Following news:MPG.1a2e30004...@news.supernews.com by
Stephen K. Gielda

|Cotse cannot send e-mail to Frog, all mail to and from Frog is blocked.
|Any Usenet posts from cotse have cotse stamped all over the headers, if
|it isn't in the headers it didn't come from cotse.

_____________________________________________________________________
1) The basic principle of remailers is to remove *ALL* incoming
identification marks
to replace them by the remailer's

2) In
news:Ymx1ZWpheQ==.65b8c50385693f73...@1069599141.cotse.ne
t
The "BlueJay" character
(responsible for all those months's stalking + latest calls for
murder/castration/arson)
boasts that he managed to abuse the Frog remailer + m2news
and the content shows it was indeed "design abuse", meant only to
harass the remailer operator
( news:X9AZBAYU3794...@Gilgamesh-frog.org )

>Message-ID:
><Ymx1ZWpheQ==.65b8c50385693f73...@1069599141.cotse.net>
>Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:52:21 -0000 (GMT)
>Newsgroups: alt.privacy.anon-server
>X-Abuse-To: ab...@cotse.net
>Subject: - Frog Turns Off Remailer Because Bluejay Got In!!
>From: "Bluejay" <Blu...@All.Mail.Is.Trashed>

>Horseshit!
>
>He shut it down because I got into his server with my Calling All Slimey
>Amphibians post.
>
>LOL!
>
>I sent about a half-dozen more posts through. When they never showed up,
>desptite his claimed and ridiculous retention time of 15 seconds, I knew
>he had shut down the machine.
>
>Frog you're a liar. You turned off the machine rather than be humilated
>by single post more of mine getting through.

_____________________________________________________
Both 1) theory and 2) practice meet:
We are clearly in a case where a post originated by COTSE was finally
bearing identification marks from FROG.
The statement by Stephen K. Gielda is a plain, calm, deliberate lie.
- -This statement was an offence to anybody's intelligence
- -This statement is an indication, cover-up for *all* the nefarious
activities by the paying clients from COTSE, trying to make
goodwill/unpaid volunteers remailer operators responsible for their
unsavory activities.

MY SERVICE IS NOT FOR STALKING or HARASSING,
IT IS OPEN FOR LEGITIMATE PURPOSES AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY
Politiques FR
http://frogadmin.yi.org/POL/Pol_FR.html
Policies EN
http://frogadmin.yi.org/POL/Pol_EN.html

There are few things more REPULSIVE than a free service being abused
for means it was not intended for.
Having such free service abused by greedy opportunists is one of those
"MORE REPULSIVE" acts.

I am not a psychiatrist and I don't know for which sick purposes
"BLUEJAY" is abusing the network, but in the case of Stephen K.
Gielda, the answer is: for $5.95 a month.

__________________________________________
Within 24 hours, all posts/mails emerging from Frog will bear a
disclaimer:
"This free remailing service is not meant for stalking/harassment
If you find the content of this post to be grossly abusive,
it *probably* originated from a client of Stephen K. Gielda (COTSE)
for $5.95 a month
see http://.... for
various examples of harassing posts/mails known to be issued by
COTSE's Clients
references and how to report COTSE to your local police"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBP8SPh4DgT488d3zFAQHVNggAvpn1HwuLdkEE8CblY7hivNBio0V9dPLJ
hbZd/HTB4agxXUUtGcIzs+P67hWqRWOU9GD8LpKbdscj7U1OpcZJTwgPSE9F45TI
igoQ2CtZnUo3yeu1D07NTrvSdm4AJhMGqLzir6VdWmi/mEPmLWzz0/vyfg1VlI0L
WqUQVmL4JEtrq3KdPAq3kdXqPEjhe0/liFuwrV4Trslxep7+FEUCdt5rnhMxYxZE
24q/KhZzQfvexeYqOblBhR+foce+2+eyMdevOtcuiBncXdubmA1Q/hbnbUl0OMug
T5lmfIcD5XUJdBFwkaIbMq8FjjSZdi2pixO8dG4P7LTz9F8qgqQ48Q==
=pEbU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

George Orwell

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 7:54:39 AM12/14/03

to

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

GO BACK TO YOUR SEWER, YOU SPAMMING PARASITE WITH $5.95 ETHICS

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 8:00:02 AM12/14/03

to

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 8:00:04 AM12/14/03

to

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <f16a7c3df9342403...@itys.net>,
>an...@anon.itys.net says...

>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Stephen K. Gielda <st...@packetderm-no-spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Middleman remailers cannot tell where the message came from nor it's
>> >final destination.
>>

>> Middleman remailers are statistically more likely to be chosen as 1st
>> remailer, where they can monitor the real IP of remailer users.
>>
>

>Then that would make them an entry point for you, no longer a middleman.
>A properly chained messages will use multiple middleman remailers which
>can only tell what remailer gave them the message and what one they are
>sending to. Those middlemen will not know where the message originated
>nor it's final destination. The entry point knows the origin, the exit
>point the destination, the middleman neither.

SWINING TURD CAN'T MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "A MIDDLEMAN REMAILER"
AND "A REMAILER USED AS MIDDLE"

and he sells privacy.....

or does he lie purposedly to have the initial statements forgotten:

"Notice that most "gardner-compliant" remailers are middleman and
don't
allow any access to usenet: this is the best position to collect
users' addresses while minimizing problems with the public"

"Middleman remailers are statistically more likely to be chosen as 1st

lcs Mixmaster Remailer

unread,

Dec 14, 2003, 8:00:05 AM12/14/03

to