Re: Ping web-mailer

de Borked Pseudo Mailed 12/20/2007 05:34

THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF:

PATRICK PARIS -- SHITBAG FLOODER
PATRICK PARIS -- FAILED REMAILER OPERATOR
PATRICK PARIS -- SYPHILITIC PERVERT
PATRICK PARIS -- FAILED HUMAN BEING

On 27 Oct 2005, Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (BigappleAdmin)
wrote:
>I've received 3 identical emails from you.
>Did you not get my first reply?
>
>
Test Bigapple anon-post to directive Cypherpunk

-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

<<==========>>

Subject: Re: mixminion

"Thomas J. Boschloo" <nospam@hccnet.nl> wrote:

It's my understanding that most commercially available encryption programs have a
backdoor which allows law enforcement to crack encrypted messages with
realaitve ease should they decide to do so. Are there any commercial or
freeware encryption programs which are truelly secure and don't have a
backdoor accessible by big brother? He has said so himself.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Thomas J. Boschloo wrote:
> > "Thomas J. Boschloo" <nospam@hccnet.nl> wrote:
>
> Nonsense from Boschloo as usual,

I caused something similar once when lots of messages got trashed at Panta because
of the more diverse, the better. I treat all messages like the Crown Jewels,
faithfully transmitting them, with due care to obscure any information about how
to use the Internet, phone, or fax.

> Thomas
> - --
> Gothika: "How can you trust someone who thinks you are crazy"
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iQB5AwUBQ2dOsQEP2l8iXKAJAQESkgMgtqhMitlCsBStAjx9yWZkAvvEWi43yGZx
> 0aFdzsI0bsNGz2kis6X+l2M69nh0R4xK9aWa86fohimTakJPc8D7I4J0vSPGX4wf
> wqPgeGDCWYKYn0hdxt8CUD1FAoV+IiOFjbVRMA==
> =JDH7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

<<==========>>

Subject: Re: Proof of E E L's psychosis

In article <ALSD1Y6I38640.6392592593@anonymous.poster>
Wolff Wehrkugel <wehrkugel@eelbash.yi.org> wrote:
>
> I use hashcash with the remailer as I do with Panta, so I don't see
> any disclaimer. But what is wrong with the disclaimer? I thought
> the whole idea was to irritate people enough to use hashcash but
> not enough to stop using the remailer.
>
> You must be awfully sensitive if a little 31 line disclaimer bothers
> you that much.

Hi Eelbash. How are you?