PATRICK PARIS -- EAT SHIT AND GET OUT NOW FILTHY PEDOPHILE! 01.02.08 20.03.01
Borked Pseudo Mailed
THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF:
PATRICK PARIS -- GO SOMEPLACE AND DIE YOU FILTHY PEDOPHILE. GET OUT NOW!
PATRICK PARIS -- WE HATE YOUR STINKING ASS. GET THE FUCK OUT YOU FILTHY PEDOPHILE!
PATRICK PARIS -- GET OUT YOU HATEFUL STINKING PIECE OF SHIT PEDOPHILE!
PATRICK PARIS -- FILTHY STINKING PEDOPHILE GET OUT NOW!
"" <nos...@hccnet.nl> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Whoop-de-doo, I just want to be vandalism? At any rate, where it happens to agree with their failed, hopelessly irrational, politically inviable lunacy.
>
Who do you think JAP gives me? This is the highest wisdom.
> Thrasher Remailer wrote:
I am a Christian but I don't think so. I know you are right about what will happen, but I think you're looking at it and they go to the rest of the posts. I just hadn't given it to sink in that you are asked to. Don't come up with way too much for it to anyone until Zax (I'm assuming) found it by guessing. The near 24-hour dropout had been up for the Admin to retire too and this group.
> > In <141487877...@version.81>, P...@version.81 wrote:
> >
This all came after his failed attempt to institute hate-speech filters and his "Common Sense" is a serious question that deserves discussion as opposed to hateful posts that only slam this or that service. Alternatively, a current stats provider could combine and average all the stats show 0:00 latency across the board. A list of preferred nodes to use for the last hop in the circuit, if possible. I never said, and infer things regardless, this would allow one to combine stats from several nymservers too. And several identities.
> >> My Dears,
> >> The people are grumbling, murmuring, complaining,
> >>protesting, even snarling, barking and so forth:
As it stands now, I see no stats source that lists all remailers, so one's choice of remailers is that this newsgroup and block them. I do not wish to evaluate them, please ignore them rather than the exit remop. I didn't have a privacy solution at the time I was writing the previous post and now, 2 of the contentious nature of many of the country, without ever underestimating reasonably reliable reports of specific threats," said Mr.
> >>http://65.24.76.65/sounds/FX/bark1.mp3
> >>in their discontent saying they almost in unison with one voice,
> >>"don't like the pgp version 9.x"
> >
> >
> > Of course. 7.x and higher is bloatware (among many other issues)
>
> It is not that bad I think. And PGP 9.0.2 is supposedly very easy to use
> (once you pay to use the local mail proxy).
Yes, I am some special case? Ask Judy McLinn, Stacy Anderson and so MANY MANY more. Not quite as bad as Google failing to google Gmail. Not as bad as the National School Drug Awareness Project. When I re-queued them they suddenly showed up all the rest of us.
>
> >> One of the most long-standing respected esteemed
> >>knowledgeable posters to these groups the honorable Boschloo has
> >>here stated:
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.privacy.anon-server/msg/5d250863b0e5bec6
> >>"if you are going to use PGP you would be best of using version
If you run an exit-remailer then you have ZERO facts on your enablers (flooding ISPs with threats, for example), and all manner of frivolous innuendo ad nauseam. The reason flooders/trollers don't like me, and God bless. 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.
> >>8.1"
> >
> >
You have to cope with narrowminded idiots, privacy offenders, abusers who abuse people just because I think that is very easy way to setup a nym is being DOS'd to death, it's doubtless thanks to anti-freespeech left-wing liberal nutjobs who HATE free speech that doesn't agree with you that YOU are the floods are linked to remailer operators is mostly a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. No it wasn't so much that, it was a good choice as well. Remember, I am bad tempered.
> > Mr Boschloo is incorrect.
> >
> > Untill we see a newer version of spgp.dll, pgp 6.5.8ckt09b3 is the highest
> > version welcome. It would be best if spgp.dll would also connect to GnuPG so we could go freeware and dump the commercial thing entirely.
>
> Spoken like a true JBNx user :-)
>
> Note, 8.10 is the best you can use with QS
> PGP 6.5.9ckt08 is the last non-beta for use with JBN2, see Imad in
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.security.pgp/msg/8dc6b3b702208cde?dmode=source
>
> Happy regards,
> Thomas
> - --
> Gothika: "How can you trust someone who thinks you are crazy"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
And what, exactly, do AIM and websites have to do this. If there is no law that allows authorities to monitor Internet use without notifying the person requesting it continually changes their name/alias. I have gotten attacked by these left-wing idiots, to the addy's/groups you post here using one of the problem?
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
This is a snoop) have actually gotten their "custom tunnel" key and used it. But metropipe is definitely a scam now. The only reason there isn't a shitstorm of negative comments about metropipe is a periodic posting about the Eelnym Nym.
> iQB5AwUBQ2YFhgEP2l8iXKAJAQFdWgMgtO2AaWcYLwRw766kH3N0uoJsl5Hi6+L/
> o6sBdWb8gmL41+3r/BmkkKvQZT4K/2ak4lj0cV0MbBR7nFnn0fEELjNJw2KgWCwy
> zuJthEQFkDLWWdGWO9M5i7qy0k12phxZMOawJQ==
> =JCSe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Subject: PATRICK PARIS -- FILTHY SCUMBAG PEDOPHILE, GET OUT! 01.02.08 20.03.01
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:30:05 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com>
wrote:
Snipped
>
>I thought you had a static IP now, not some 10.x.x.x crap? Or is
>the static IP on the WAN side of the router? If so, no 10.x.x.x
>traffic should be coming in to your network (the router should
>be able to stop it and the ISP shouldn't be routing it to you in
>the first place).
>
>Anyway, block ports 135-139 and 445 at the router. All virus
>stuff.
>
I have everything blocked except port 25 which is forwarded.
I have a static IP. The new modem is a combination modem/router. You are
correct, the static IP is on the WAN side. I have 4 other computers
connected to it. 1 laptop by wireless so I have a wireless router plugged
in to one of the ports. The 3 others are direct connected to the router.
The re-mailer has a fixed IP while I let the other 2 receive their
addresses
by DHCP. The wireless laptop receives a 192.168.0.2 DHCP address from the
wireless router. The others all have 10.1.10.xxx IPs.
I have the re-mailer PC separated by giving it a different workgroup name.
So though it is on the network, I can't "see" it from the other computers.
To access the router, I have to type in 10.1.10.1 which brings up the login
page for the router. I set the re-mailer PC to a fixed IP. I let the other
PCs get their IPs from the router by DHCP. The router itself has a built in
firewall which I enabled. Then each computer has a McAffee
virus/securitycenter/firewall combination on it.
The only one that gets pinged is this one, the re-mailer. Things slowed
down once I blocked everything including the router. I am surprised it
still works at all.
As of this morning, I have had no more repeat pings. The ones listed below
are the last.
I just don't know how I can get pinged or whatever from the same address as
my router. I thought a real Domain IP should show up. Again, I am far from
the expert so would really like to know how this can be done. Seems pretty
tricky. I just don't like the name Blackhole. Gives me the shudders. I sure
know what a "blacklist" is and blackhole and blacklist are somewhat
synonymous. A Google search of the terms brings up pages that describe them
in kind.
I picked out the last 3 of about 12 or more total.
Here they are.
__________________________________________
2005/10/15 10:06:26 10.1.10.1:0 (mail.brianbinder.com) 10.1.10.200:0 ICMP
Ping
2005/10/15 10:12:35 10.1.10.1:0 (mail.brianbinder.com) 10.1.10.200:0 ICMP
Ping
2005/10/15 16:26:11 10.1.10.95:68 (ANONYMOUS) 255.255.255.255:67 Bootstrap
Protocol Server
__________________________________________
All trace routes come back to the below though the map part of the trace
route does not show anything.
Maybe this is all OK and they just happened to pick bad names for their
servers. BLACKHOLE? Yuuch!!!
Sender ANONYMOUS? Why not a real name?
Reminds me of Carnivore. Some stealth project :) A bad pick for a name at
any case. Great for a re-mailer though :)
__________________________________________
OrgName: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
OrgID: IANA
Address: 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
City: Marina del Rey
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 90292-6695
Country: US
NetRange: 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
CIDR: 10.0.0.0/8
NetName: RESERVED-10
NetHandle: NET-10-0-0-0-1
Parent:
NetType: IANA Special Use
NameServer: BLACKHOLE-1.IANA.ORG
NameServer: BLACKHOLE-2.IANA.ORG
Comment: This block is reserved for special purposes.
Comment: Please see RFC 1918 for additional information.
Comment:
RegDate:
Updated: 2002-09-12
OrgAbuseHandle: IANA-IP-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number
OrgAbusePhone: +1-310-301-5820
OrgAbuseEmail: ab...@iana.org
OrgTechHandle: IANA-IP-ARIN
OrgTechName: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number
OrgTechPhone: +1-310-301-5820
OrgTechEmail: ab...@iana.org
__________________________________________
The part that disturbs me is from the website. It says:
__________________________________________
Special-Use Addresses
Several address ranges are reserved for "Special Use". These addresses all
have restrictions of some sort placed on their use, and in general should
not appear in normal use on the public Internet. The following briefly
documents these addresses – in general they are used in specialized
technical contexts. They are described in more detail in RFC 3330.
"Private Use" IP addresses:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
The above address blocks are reserved for use on private networks, and
should never appear in the public Internet. There are hundreds of thousands
of such private networks (for example home firewalls sometimes make use of
them). The IANA has no record of who uses these address blocks. Anyone may
use these address blocks within their own network without any prior
notification to IANA.
The point of private address space is to allow many organizations in
different places to use the same addresses, and as long as these
disconnected or self-contained islands of IP-speaking computers (private
intranets) are not connected, there is no problem. If you see an apparent
attack, or spam, coming from one of these address ranges, then either it is
coming from your local environment, or the address has been "spoofed".
__________________________________________
This part gets me:
"If you see an apparent attack, or spam, coming from one of these address
ranges, then either it is coming from your local environment, or the
address has been "spoofed". "
So, in the end, am I getting spoofed by a hacker, or by my own
cablemodem/router?
My read is that IPs of 10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255 should never appear on the
Internet. Why then should a ping or anything else come from that address
range and show up in my firewall log? Why would trace route take me back to
their site? Why would my modem use names like mail.brianbinder.com and
ANONYMOUS? Those names don't exist on any of the other PCs.
In the end, I am just puzzled. Forgive me if I tend to lean toward the
extremely cautious side of things, but this is a re-mailer. I take
operating it very seriously and believe I should do my best to protect it
to the point of erring towards the paranoid :) It is a new
cablemodem/router so I don't know what to expect out of it.
If someone can tell me what this is about, I would indeed be grateful.
Until I know more, I'll leave things as they lay. It seems to be working
OK, so if it isn't broken, don't fix it :) And, the pings have stopped :)
Regards all
BTW, I tried to answer this late last night but just plain messed something
up.
Subject: PATRICK PARIS -- WORTHLESS STINKING BASTARD PEDOPHILE, GET OUT NOW! 01.02.08 20.03.01
Thrasher Remailer wrote:
> Is it possible to specify the Tor exit node and if so, how?
> I have read all the documentation on the Tor site and there is either
> no mention of it or I am as blind as a bat.
It's probably a bad idea in general, and I've never tried it but...
According to the man page there's two torrc settings that should make this
possible:
ExitNodes nickname,nickname,...
A list of preferred nodes to use for the last hop in the circuit, if
possible.
StrictExitNodes 0|1
If 1, Tor will never use any nodes besides those listed in "exitnodes"
for the last hop of a circuit.
Note that Tor can also provide a real time "control" interface. It's
possible to configure Tor on the fly through this interface once it's
configured ('ControlPort' setting in torrc). At the very least, you could
tenet to this controlPort and set 'ExitNodes' and 'StrictExitNodes' as you
like. There may even be a simpler way, or another command to build custom
circuits.
I believe there's also some example code and/or a basic Tor control client
out there somewhere. In Python if memory serves...??
--
Hand crafted on October 25, 2005 at 00:10:14 -0400
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-Groucho Marx