The Anonymizer and IRC

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?
A private interest can do anything, but anyway.

*                                                                   *
*===================================================================*
For subscription info see http://www.efga.org/about/maillist.html

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

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.

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