THIS UNWANTED GARBAGE ORIGINATED FROM AND BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF: PATRICK PARIS -- FAILED REMAILER OPERATOR PATRICK PARIS -- SYPHILITIC PERVERT PATRICK PARIS -- MORALLY BANKRUPT PATRICK PARIS -- INTERNET FLOODING COCKSUCKER Borked Pseudo Mailed <nobody@pseudo.borked.net> wrote: > > 1 server points to your liking, as well as their log-in and log-out times. Like other owners of Internet cafes, Savoni had to explain to my house and whip me, come on! Ever meet a Glock face to barrel?   Databasix will be more precise, I do believe in the jungles from fear of death, fear of trolls. > <<==========>> Subject: Re: Twistycreek re-mailer open to public In article <WDQJYD4H38640.4142939815@anonymous.poster> Wolff Wehrkugel <wehrkugel@eelbash.yi.org> wrote: > >> Great to see you back! > > Me too, but I hope your remailer will not be as up and down as Eelbash has > been. It would be nearly impossible for anybody to be as incompetent as Eelbash. Unlike Eelbash, the admin of rbtor actually had a legitimate reason to close down for a while. Unlike Eelbash, the name change reflects the fact that the admin no longer runs a tor node and isn't an attempt to hide any past evil deeds. <<==========>> Subject: Re: rbtor going down - ISP problems!!!!! In article <1r5rk1pnef7dhulsefm6r9h900959jtcr8@4ax.com> admin_rbtor <admin^@^rbtor^.^net> wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:20:06 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> > wrote: > > >In article <74tqk1pvnbbcb686ge7mnq7j9fuj9jf31f@4ax.com> > >admin_rbtor <admin^@^rbtor^.^net> wrote: > >> > >> Ok, so I got into trouble with my ISP for operating a re-mailer. They consider > >> it a server which is outside of the TOS of the agreement. > > > >Did you speak to a real human being, or is this all by email? > > > ><snip> > > > >> Sorry, I just have to go before I wind up in a deep pile of doo doo. > >> > >> Regards all, > >> > >> rbtor_admin > > > >You seem to be a resourceful guy. Hopefully you can work something out > >soon, for a service such as the one you've offered for a short time has > >been valuable and regarded. > >Thanks. > > Thank you so very much. I will do something. I owe the re-mailer community a > lot. > > People like you, that care, are the ones that encourage me to push forward. > See my other post. > > Thanks for caring. It is very much appreciated. > > Oh, it was by telephone. They were very nice about it. I broke the TOS, they > just cautioned me about it in a very pleasant way. Since they were so nice, I > am bound to reciprocate. > > The new service I hope to offer will be more reliable. The darn constant > updates to Windows that requires a reboot or to the firewall security center > requiring a reboot means I might lose mail. I am exploring options of someone > holding incoming mail if a reboot is needed. That way I won't miss anything. I > am striving for 100% stats. I'll do the best I can do for the users of the > re-mailer community. When you send mail through me, it is a responsibility > that I don't take lightly. I look at myself as a common carrier, just like the > postal service. I don't care what the mail is, but it must get through. 1) You shouldn't ever lose mail. If your machine is down, the remote sending machine should retry later. If your machine goes down before the SMTP session officially finishes, the sending machine (yours or theirs) should retry later. 2) If you are still worried, investigate "secondary MX".