No matter what you have heard concerning Secure Beer from Frog The Troll, he is worth reading. He seems much more rational on his worse day than Frog and Cheshire seem on their best day. His argument is to delist not only Frog, but Cheshire, too. The reason is their extensive filtering of posts. In Cheshire's case this filtering is ridiculous because he is a middleman, not an exit remailer. This nonsense perpetrated by him is simply a power play for importance. --------------------------------------------------------------- http://freedom.gmsociety.org/pipermail/remops/2003-May/012658.html [Remops] Re: Complete disregard of end-users by Sassaman. AGAIN. Plus another kick under the belt against whistle-blowers. Secure Beer almostt@beer.com Fri May 16 15:35:03 2003 Previous message: [Remops] HEADS UP - citrus's stats web page has moved. Next message: [Remops] Re: Complete disregard of end-users by Sassaman. AGAIN. Plus another kick under the belt against whistle-blowers. Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On Fri May 16 2003 Katherine wrote: >Whether this is done from ego (ie he can't code C and so can't claim to >be a large part of mixmaster development) or from darker motives, who can >say? But then, who cares? > >So can pingers please just remove him from their lists? Let him go >private or whatever the hell he's talking about and be done with it. > >Oh, and speaking of partitioning attacks: does anyone out there really >think it's a good idea to have a "private" remailer, where you distribute >the key? Knowing who has the keys is a nice way to limit your list of >suspects, isn't it? There's no privacy in that at all. > >He's flooding newsgroups, flooding the mailboxes of any who want to >disagree with him, he has no problem monitoring and filtering mail but >cries when someone asks him to be honest about it, he "outs" users, he >lists the email of enemies in the abuse address of remailer messages... >At what point will people just delist him? > >In my opinion the integrity of the remailer network is the issue. So, >ladies and gentlemen remops: What say ye? > >Kat > Needless to say, I agree with Katherine's call for a de-list of Frog's Remailer. Cheshire Remailer should be de-listed also. However, I'm not going to pretend that Katherine hasn't made a flipflop on this issue. Up until today (and explicit stated on this list as recently as Jan 2003)... Subject: Re: IS Frog-Admin the Flooder? http://freedom.gmsociety.org/pipermail/remops/2003-January/012023.html ...Katherine and Bryan Fordham and the large majority of contrib- utors to this list have argued that it is not the remop/ stats maintainer's responsibility to ban rogue remailers but rather it is up to the users to make that decision. I don't mean to be pick on Katherine. She has every right to change her mind :) And I'm glad that minds are being changed. But I am frustrated that the same advice and warnings when I expressed them over the years have been dismissed (and in APA-S, censored) for so long. I've warned against the actions of Frog and Cheshire (formerly Eelbash) and urged that they be banned as early as 2000. I take some comfort in knowing that I was not the only one to warn about the dangers of rogue remailers and got ignored. Check out this post by Stray Cat from the year 2000 where he recommended Eelbash (now Cheshire) be blacklisted http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20000707080342.14582.qmail%40nym.alias.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain Even in this strongly-worded post Stray Cat still does some fence-sitting by insisting that remops should be free to operate any way they please. Three years of fence-sitting have passed since then. Can we now finally agree that "My remailer. My rules." is not serving the network's reputation very well at all? The damage that Frog-Admin alone has caused is substantial and serious. I believe an adherence to something like a Remop's Code of Conduct is necessary in order to exclude from the network obvious rogues like Frog and Cheshire who are openly hostile to the anonymity and free speech that they pretend to uphold. I truly hope that that sort of communal action will one day become a real possibility instead of its current status: a cypherpunk (read Randite) impossibility. IMO, until that threat is addressed we will continue to see a small number of rogues (de facto provocateurs) like Frog and Cheshire tearing up the network from the inside. Mixmaster III, as I understand, will make it easier for users to exclude remailers they don't like. But that ability exists at present and it hasn't prevented Frog's abuses which include fudging user's message directives and blocking messages he disapproves of from arriving in Usenet. Respectfully, SB P.S It has just occurred to me that banning a remailer from the network does not prevent that same remailer from re-entering the network under another identity. Eelbash/ Cheshire is testament to that. But a code of conduct, if applied equally to all remailers, would at least be one measure of control. Currently there are none. ---------- Why be boringcat@badjob.com when you can be beerlover@beer.com? Sign up for Beer Mail today - http://www.beer.com !