The Anonymizer and IRC

[Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM]

nobody at REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:

>
>
> On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>
> > nobody at 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