nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
The Anonymizer does in fact only provide restricted access by http and NO IRC. For instance, the Anonymizer blocks Dejanews, Hotmail and mailto.cgi form I could understand that they block sites that explicitly request to be blocked to prevent abuse. But what if I want to make a mailto.cgi or IRC script available by http. Should people be disallowed from accessing this through The Anonymizer even if I do not request it? It should at least be possible to allow access to such scripts for The paid accounts. If they keep logs in case of a U. S. law violation, I see no problem of liability arosing from such access. They have also restricted their shell access for which you pay US $ 7 per moth to IRC. Does that sound more reasonable than blocking the nntp port? Does anyone know other ISPs who provide privacy and do not block abitrarily without _prior request_ from the site in question?
I think it's been pretty well established on this mailing list than Lance Cottrell is no friend of privacy and free speech. Sorry, "Dr." Vulis. I do not intend to provide you with ammunition in your flame war. Just for the record, I think that Lance Cottrell does a fairly good work to further freedom of speech while I have seen NO contribution from you.
For those who didn't get it: the original complaint was written by one of the many dissatisfied infonex customers, while the "anonymous" flame was written by one of the many C2Net/parekh/cottrell/medusa shills. Do not be confused by their using an anonymous remailer - they're an enemy of anonymity, privacy, and free speech. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps