From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 23:55:38 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: The Anonymizer and IRC
In-Reply-To: <NBXFie30w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <199712301551.QAA29333@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




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 forms.
> > 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.
My question arose out of curiousity not a maliscious intend.
Do NOT count on me in your compaign.

Thank you.