From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:26:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Anonymizer and IRC
In-Reply-To: <199712281825.TAA04672@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <NBXFie30w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps