On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, David McNab wrote:
Make sure to use an offshore anonymous mailing facility, like hushmail
or better.
This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask someone: would a
standard webmail site, ie Hotmail, Yahoo, etc., if accessed *entirely*
thru anonymizing proxies,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 03:20:02PM -0400, Aaron Guy Davies wrote:
This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask someone: would a
standard webmail site, ie Hotmail, Yahoo, etc., if accessed *entirely*
thru anonymizing proxies, from account setup on, be considered securely
anonymous?
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 12:24:11 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian
Clarke) writes:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 03:20:02PM -0400, Aaron Guy Davies wrote:
This reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask someone:
would a
standard webmail site, ie Hotmail, Yahoo, etc., if accessed
*entirely*
.
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Guy Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 07:20
Subject: Re: [freenet-chat] Re: Node operators responsibility
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, David McNab wrote:
Make sure to use an offshore anonymous mailing facility, like
Does it define providers?
Seth Johnson
Nomen Nescio wrote:
IANAL either, but IMHO proxy caches fall under the provisions of article 1,
paragraph 5, section 3 of the Information and Communication Services Act,
available online at http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html:
(3) Providers
IANAL, but looks good to me.
Seth Johnson
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Seth Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does it define providers?
Article 1, paragraph 3: Definitions
For the purposes of this Act
1. the term providers means natural or legal persons or associations of
persons who
In local.freenet, you wrote:
IANAL either, but IMHO proxy caches fall under the provisions of article 1,
paragraph 5, section 3 of the Information and Communication Services Act,
available online at http://www.iid.de/rahmen/iukdgebt.html:
(3) Providers shall not be responsible for any
