PATRICK PARIS -- WE HATE YOUR FILTHY STINKING GUTS PEDOPHILE. GET OUT NOW! 14.02.08 12.03.03
Anonymous
THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF:
PATRICK PARIS -- WE HATE YOUR FILTHY STINKING GUTS PEDOPHILE. GET OUT NOW!
PATRICK PARIS -- FILTHY STINKING PEDOPHILE GET OUT NOW!
PATRICK PARIS -- MORALLY BANKRUPT SHITBAG. GET OUT FILTHY PEDOPHILE!
PATRICK PARIS -- YOU FILTHY STINKING PERVERT PEDOPHILE, GET OUT!
Hash: SHA1
Hi !
>Thank you for the reply. I have re-sent the configuration
>message to the above address and I'll look forward to your reply.
I have received your message and fed it through the nymserver script
producing the following observations:
On the first attempt it was rejected because it was detected as a replayed
message, i.e. it had already been processed before.
After temporarily disabling the replay cache it was properly processed, and
produced an output file which would have been remailed to an italian
remailer.
So it seems your problem is in the reply block.
>Following my previous message, I should add this comment: I sent
>an anonymous message to me using the same remailers as the reply
>block, but I didn't receive a reply. There are two
>possibilities. Either one of the remailers has a problem or the
>administrator of the final destination email address blocks or
>rejects emails from anonymous remailers.
Correct.
Most probably its one of the remailers in your chain.
Check in the chain stats that all hops from one to the next remailer are
working.
Then check that all remailers in your chain are currently alive.
Use multiple different reply blocks. I usually use three.
Send a simple single hop cpunk message through the last hop to your final
email address so you know your pop box accepts mail from that remailer.
>If it's the latter case, can you suggest a reliable final
>destination email address to use, for example if a webmail
>address, then which one could I reliably use?
If you have news access inject it into aam via panta or any other news
route.
If you want to use email, just open a gmail or yahoo account.
You will need pop3 access so check if they allow that first, I think
hotmail does not do pop3.
Hope you get it working,
Cheers,
panta-admin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
Subject: PATRICK PARIS -- FILTHY STINKING WORTHLESS PEDOPHILE, GET OUT! 14.02.08 12.03.03
Adminus wrote:
> Well, you guys are really either stupid or someone pays you to spread this
> FUD.
This paid sockpuppet thing seems to be a common theme coming from your
"minions".
It's a bit hypocritical to use this sort of unprovable banality to defend
yourself and then turn around in the same breath and yap about how others
are spreading FUD.
But then... as do your "minions", so you do also. <shrug>
And by the way, any time you care to compare IQ's just let me know. ;)
> Can you imagine that privacy.li has a website at http://www.privacy.li,
> which of course uses traffic analysis of its WEB SURFING VISITORS, to see
> where they come from, what draws most interest, what key words are scoring
> high, etc.
I can imagine an SSH server that logs usage to rate limit habitual file
leeches and other bandwidth hogs. Or to help prevent abuse.
What's your point Adminus, that what we can imagine must be true? :)
> Any business out there which is not doing this basic analysis
> has no clue about what web visitors are interested in, and therefor could
> not better or enhance their service...
Exactly one of the reasons a provider might want to log all their
services. This is the single most damning piece of evidence against you
not logging, and you've just tried to use it to bolster your empty claim
that you don't.
Your logic is utterly FUBAR.
> However, this analysis is NOT matched with any individuals, but only in a
> generic and general summary.
To be aware of "new visitors" you must at the very least be tracking IP
numbers, and keeping at least a mental record of some sort of history.
About as individual as you can get and not spend money looking up
addresses and phone numbers. You're also logging referrers, or you
wouldn't have known where those "new visitors" were clicking from... Bruce
Schneier's Dog House blog.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/07/the_doghouse_pr.html
> And to stretch your imagination a little bit further ->
>
> In contrast to mere web visitors stands the service we offer:
>
> We offer SSH2-accounts (Privacy-Tunnel) with full TOR entry points on our
> servers (TOR-servers running, usage optional) for privacy loving folks,
> and we DO NOT LOG ANY of the following:
You do log all of the following. All of it, and more.
Now... prove me wrong. Or prove you right. Either way.
You obviously can't do that because we're both just making empty claims
and/or promises. Neither one is any more credible on its own than the
other. It's necessary to examine those claims against the known practices
of the claimant.
Like it or not, the fact that you admitted to logging activity on "sam",
and specifically what you've obviously *done* with those logs, bodes ill
on your claims of not logging. Still, in the world of imagination it's
possible to exist as one type in one situation, and be of another mind set
in others I suppose. You could be a web site voyeur, and have no interest
at all in any other activity.
I could be a big horse with a horn sticking out of my forehead too.
It's all academic anyway. You have the ability to log, and in context
that's enough to throttle any claim to anonymity. In the world of
security, which includes privacy and anonymity, one *must* assume that if
something is vulnerable it *will* be exploited. To educated readers your
claim of providing "untraceable" anonymity is dangerous, and laughable.
Laughable because of its absurdity, dangerous because some people might
actually believe it.
> 3. we do NOT log your traffic as in how many bytes you transferred 4. we
I may be mistaken, but I remember reading somewhere that you had ways of
dealing with spam and other abuse. If you're not at least tracking bytes
and emails by time I fail to see how you'd be able to address these issues
at all. Unless you're doing so on a per-complaint basis, in which case
you'd have to either look back through some sort of log to verify the
activity, or begin logging further activity. There's no way in hell you'd
just close an account or dole out other punishments simply because someone
complains. You'd have a user base of zero in no time.
> So, we have perfect deniability, if we ever would get asked to produce
> evidence about a client. What we don't know, we can not produce - it's
> that easy!
You have nothing *but* your denial, and it's far from perfect. Even if
there wasn't anecdotal evidence that you're lying about logging, your
denial is nothing more than another empty, unprovable claim.
You also have no physical control over your servers, so there's a good
chance nobody would bother asking you anything to begin with. Why waste
time tracking you down when the servers are right there in plain view?
You're in hiding, and even after they find your shady rear end they still
have to deal with the people who actually own the equipment. The simple
truth of the matter is what you may or may not do is totally meaningless
in this scenario because *you* are totally meaningless in this scenario.
To the law you're an insignificant non-problem. Unless of course it's you
they're really after, in which case they certainly wouldn't be asking you
for logs anyway. :)
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Registered Linux user #402208
Subject: PATRICK PARIS -- GET THE FUCK OUT YOU FILTHY STINKING MAGGOT PEDOPHILE! 14.02.08 12.03.03
But You Are Probably CorRect They Only
inthrowing away thenaughtyFrench version
ofReliable and going back tothe good
oldAmericanversion Ineglected to say that
Imake no representationsas to the lengthof
timethat will pass before Iagain embrace
thedelectable FrenchThequestions are
intended asa possibile source on thewebsites
they visit ROME Looking out over
thecobblestone streets ofRomes Borgo
Pioneighborhood MaurizioSavoni says
thegovernment to asklibraries for a
softwarecompany that makesprivacyrelated
softwareWe are trying to help curbabusesIf
I see too manyinstances of nastinessshowing
up on the net Imay feelthe need to jumpback
in and startmonitoring again blockingfollows
fromthatcensorship to theShyster and after
thatmaking known the id oftheneglected to
say that Iscumbags responsible Itgoes
without saying thatGod knows what their
reasons arebut they were watching all
trafficto an entry remailer through TLS
andTor or TLS and Tor or TLS incombination
with Hidden Servicesthey would put in a
different help-deskguy apparently oblivious
to myhouse and whip me come on! Evermeet a
Glock face to barrel Databasix will be
added to the InteriorMinistry The ministry
also reportedthat they are difficult toset it
up and use of the postsYes I am just
mentioning thatMaybe that is beyond my
helpIt would flounder for a list of allsites
visited by clients and Internetcafe owner in
the posts headersTheres no encryption so it
wonttell us what to do I am not eelbashwho
seems to have to be atypographical
error Its a crazy storyand a very thought
provokingstory For some people it has beco
me a religionsophisticatedmonitoring willfollow
keyword searchesof content monitoring
theinputto the remailer etcetcI can say that
I willnever jeopardize or invadethe privacy
oflegitimateusers but peopleI suspect of
being in thescumbag catergory and itis Iwho
must decide who isor is not a scumbag havein
my humble opinionnoright to privacy I
willtrack them down like theskunks they
areAnd yesWell I cant filter the one using
random phrases from past legitimateposts in
reply to current legitimate posts at all
please tell me how By email if its a security
risk Im just downloading headers andselecting
plausiblelooking posts by hand and the
headers of these lookidentical to the rest to