On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
Hi[cut]
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Nope, you just don't like the outcome
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now, I would never have offered space for a similar service. But since Olivier has much more experience in the hierarchy than you, and above all much more support, he also has my almost unconditional support.
As I already told you in the past, try to improve your service
because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
about what happens outside your server. I remind you
that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
Hi[cut]
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:35:10 +0100
llp <<[email protected]> > wrote:
Apr�s m�re r�flexion, Ivo Gandolfo a �crit :
On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
Hi[cut]
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from
the
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Nope, you just don't like the outcome
I'm not the only one who doesn't like people who want to be little
dictator and impose their vision of "flood" through cancels.
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<[email protected]>
If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now,
I would never have offered space for a similar service. But since
Olivier has much more experience in the hierarchy than you, and
above all much more support, he also has my almost unconditional
support.
I understand that you support these abusive cancellations.
As I already told you in the past, try to improve your service
because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
about what happens outside your server. I remind you
that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
flood cancels on other servers.
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Can you share the message-id of some suspected messages that have been canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. It shouldn't but you never know.
Après mûre réflexion, Ivo Gandolfo a écrit :
On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
Hi[cut]
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from
the
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Nope, you just don't like the outcome
I'm not the only one who doesn't like people who want to be little
dictator and impose their vision of "flood" through cancels.
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<[email protected]>
If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now,
I would never have offered space for a similar service. But since
Olivier has much more experience in the hierarchy than you, and
above all much more support, he also has my almost unconditional
support.
I understand that you support these abusive cancellations.
As I already told you in the past, try to improve your service
because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
about what happens outside your server. I remind you
that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
flood cancels on other servers.
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
I'm not the only one who doesn't like people who want to be little
dictator and impose their vision of "flood" through cancels.
I understand that you support these abusive cancellations.
I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
flood cancels on other servers.
Hi
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the paganini.org server.
Path: "
paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spewcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail "
From: antiflood [email protected] X-Cancelled-by: antiflood
<[email protected]>
A pseudo-vote was held on the fr hierarchy but no *consensus* was
reached for these cancellations, which can therefore be described as
abusive.
I know that most servers already refuse cancellations of this type (too
many abuses have been made in the past) and now only accept
cancellations from authenticated sources.
But I wanted to bring this information to your attention in case your
server is not currently protected from these cancel.
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
On 27/12/2023 23:35, llp wrote:
I understand that you support these abusive cancellations.
I can't stand any cancel or nocem. But in some cases they
are a necessary evil.
I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
flood cancels on other servers.
(...) On your server you are free to do whatever you want,
but don't expect that shit to pass (or remain) on my server,
there is already too much shit on usenet (and thank
goodness that GG is closing) to add one other.
P.S. and if you're wondering, the aforementioned users have also tried to use my server, taking advantage of the policy that I'm an "open-server", too bad my filter works very well, and the little shit that manages to escape them is reported to me and I refine the filter so that it no longer passes. Apparently this put them off and they no longer use it.
The impression I get is that you want things done the way you want, period. What I'm trying to make you understand is that "your" vision of the world is not exactly what others see. It's clear that you don't like certain discussions, especially before you even opened a news server, but as has been pointed out to you several times, having become a newsadmin doesn't mean that everyone has to listen to you or do exactly what you want.
. . .
I can't stand any cancel or nocem. But in some cases they are a
necessary evil.
Nigel Reed vient de nous annoncer :snip
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:35:10 +0100 llp <<[email protected]> > wrote:
Apres mure reflexion, Ivo Gandolfo a ecrit :
As I already told you in the past, try to improve your service
because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
about what happens outside your server. I remind you
that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
flood cancels on other servers.
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Can you share the message-id of some suspected messages that have been
canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. It
shouldn't but you never know.
Two examples:
<[email protected]de> ><[email protected]>
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:51:15 +0100, llp <[email protected]>> wrote:
Nigel Reed vient de nous annoncer :snip
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:35:10 +0100 llp <<[email protected]> > wrote:
Apres mure reflexion, Ivo Gandolfo a ecrit :
As I already told you in the past, try to improve your service
because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
about what happens outside your server. I remind you
that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
flood cancels on other servers.
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Can you share the message-id of some suspected messages that have been
canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. It
shouldn't but you never know.
Two examples:
<[email protected]de> >><[email protected]>
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned, >disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history, >blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
Le 27/12/2023 � 22:44, llp a �crit :
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
paganini.org server.
Note, the only reason why llp is pissed is because flood was coming out of his server because he let an abuser use it and refused to delete his account.
In article <[email protected]>, D <J@M> wrote:snip
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:51:15 +0100, llp <[email protected]>> wrote:
Nigel Reed vient de nous annoncer :
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:35:10 +0100 llp <<[email protected]> > wrote: >>>>> Apres mure reflexion, Ivo Gandolfo a ecrit :
Can you share the message-id of some suspected messages that have been >>>> canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. ItTwo examples:
shouldn't but you never know.
<[email protected]de> >>><[email protected]>
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned, >>disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed, >>taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history, >>blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
What armageddon?
Le 28/12/2023 à 10:48, llp a écrit :
I remove proven abuse, not vendetta against other users.
A person who copies posts from one forum to another with followup to a
third one without adding anything but sometimes an insult (I'm not even
sure of that, he's hard to understand) is an abuser, wether you like it
or not, even if it's your friend.
Ivo Gandolfo a exprim� avec pr�cision :[...]
You can do what you like on your server, but don't insist on imposing
your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.
I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
You should think about it and only publish nocems.
I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.
Not every server administrator has the same idea of what flood is.
Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
seem to be a good thing for usenet.
Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
of the sort on other server administrators.
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
Ivo Gandolfo a exprim� avec pr�cision :[...]
You can do what you like on your server, but don't insist on imposing
your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.
If I understand the situation correctly (<http://al.howardknight.net/> doesn't show the Path for the cancels for which you gave the message-ids), they are not "your cancels", but those of one of his users.
I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
You should think about it and only publish nocems.
I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.
As noel explained, there's no such thing as "abusive cancels". Cancels
are a non-issue. They already were when I was running a (real) server
two decades ago, and they still are. Just drop any you get and live
happily ever after.
[...]
Not every server administrator has the same idea of what flood is.
Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
seem to be a good thing for usenet.
The very fact that these cancels are unauthenticated (non-Approved:)
only reinforces them being a non-issue.
Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
of the sort on other server administrators.
And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,
but his server, his rules.
cut
. . .
You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
of the sort on other server administrators.
And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
from its server.
P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,
When Ivo asked for a feed, I answered his call.
I have nothing against him
but his server, his rules.
Not when its actions have consequences for an other server and users.
The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these >systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
to impose these cancels.
I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated >cancels like most servers.
Will you start cancelling all of The Doctor's messages now?
[...]
On 29/12/2023 01:21 (+0100), Adam H. Kerman answered llp :
[...]
Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some details.
1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages, especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
[cut]
3) There is no controversy about canceled spams.
About the canceled flood, only llp and a few others complain,
but the cancellation follows a positive vote with the users [cut]
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
[cut]
There are unlikely to be any servers willing to process those cancel messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable.
He should be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.
Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
of the sort on other server administrators.
And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
from its server.
There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
imposed on other News administrators.
[cut]
The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
to impose these cancels.
Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.
I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
cancels like most servers.
Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
abuse OF Usenet.
On 29/12/2023 01:21 (+0100), Adam H. Kerman answered llp :
[...]
Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some details.
1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages, especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
[cut]
3) There is no controversy about canceled spams.
About the canceled flood, only llp and a few others complain,
but the cancellation follows a positive vote with the users [cut]
I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
llp <[email protected]> writes:
I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now ignored by default.
https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/blob/main/doc/pod/inn.conf.pod#user-content-docancels
(supersedes <umm5gb$3mvvm$[email protected]>)
Le 29/12/2023, Adam H. Kerman:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
of the sort on other server administrators.
And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
from its server.
There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News >>administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
imposed on other News administrators.
I published this initial message because, contrary to what you
seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic >configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.
[cut]
The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these >>>abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these >>>systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think >>>it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency >>>to impose these cancels.
Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.
You're right, of course.
I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated >>>cancels like most servers.
Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I >>explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious >>abuse OF Usenet.
What do you think of a personal reputation of a an issuer who make
3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user
(Pierre Arribaut). I have the mids if you want.
llp <[email protected]> writes:
I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now ignored by default.
https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/blob/main/doc/pod/inn.conf.pod#user-content-docancels
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
llp <[email protected]> writes:
I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now
ignored by default.
As they absolutely should be, or do you want me to issue a couple of
hundred cancels spread over several newsgroups?
(This something I have no idea how to do and no intention of trying, but
we have a few people around who would love the opportunity).
https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/blob/main/doc/pod/inn.conf.pod#user-content-docancels
On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
Hi[cut]
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Nope, you just don't like the outcome
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now, I would never have offered space for a similar service. But since Olivier has much more experience in the hierarchy than you, and above all much more support, he also has my almost unconditional support. [cut]
And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
[cut]
Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
(I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
made over a year in one go).
Ivo Gandolfo a formul� la demande :
On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
Hi[cut]
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Nope, you just don't like the outcome
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now, I would >> never have offered space for a similar service. But since Olivier has much >> more experience in the hierarchy than you, and above all much more support, >> he also has my almost unconditional support. [cut]
And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
See <un9ljj$16r4$[email protected]>
I quote:
"A false manipulation on the cancellation robot targeting
the anonymous Zorro has unfortunately cancelled many legitimate
articles [cut] between December 5, 2023 and January 5, 2024
(one month, therefore)."
Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
(I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
made over a year in one go).
Sincerely.
On 05/01/2024 22:57, llp wrote:
And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
[cut]
Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
(I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
made over a year in one go).
Absolutely, actually even more so now. And I don't even try to explain why, either you wouldn't understand it or you're so full of preconceptions that you wouldn't want to understand it anyway.
[cut] And despite being 40 years old I still have enough energy to manage something like usenet,
in fact right now I'm working to expand the service I offer,
and Olivier is part of this future, whether you like it or not.
Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
Absolutely, actually even more so now.
However, in order that I don't risk to cancel other legitimate posts,
for the anonymous hateful Zorro I will let you stop him to use your
server instead of me trying to cancel him afterwards.
Of course he uses a VPN so it is hard to stop him completely, but here
is the current list of posting-hosts he used on paganini :
posting-host="aJqRCYORex+qw7Hdj/favw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="ip1JLA9M/LlzVZplJtZivw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="ohsf5uaZzF4yAIVnImWjbA.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="zjSVH+s/XBbZv26RHT63rg.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="HFwRVUvzuKpUDkNDm25+uw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="anR4YpMNijul/+hpGOvYXQ.user.paganini.bofh.team"
And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$[email protected]>.
On 05/01/2024 22:57, llp wrote:
And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
[cut]
Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
(I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
made over a year in one go).
Absolutely, actually even more so now. And I don't even try to explain
why, either you wouldn't understand it or you're so full of
preconceptions that you wouldn't want to understand it anyway.
But unlike Marc, I don't get offended if someone insults me, persecutes
me or does bad things against me, also because in 100% of cases I will
agree with them. And despite being 40 years old I still have enough
energy to manage something like usenet, in fact right now I'm working to expand the service I offer, and Olivier is part of this future, whether
you like it or not.
Sincerely
Ahhh this thread reminds me of the mid 90's...
This kids, is why you never ever, honor cancels, drop em stone cold dead
at the door.
The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
any properly configured server.
[...] or by robot (the bleachbot of Xavier Roche is still active,
but too bad is not yet maintained).
Le 06/01/2024 � 16:59, Frank Slootweg wrote :
The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
Maybe on the Big8? On Usenet-fr (fr.*), this methode has existed for
(at least) more than two decades, either by hand (for instance by Denis Li�geois) or by robot (the bleachbot of Xavier Roche is still active,
but too bad is not yet maintained).
Of course, someone who would abuse of the cancels would be signaled to his/her news admin and see their account removed. If I was thought to
be abusing, there would be two ways of stopping me, either by making
remove my account on usenet-fr.net (where my bot reads the articles)
or by making remove my IHAVE access to paganini.bofh.team (where my
bot sends both cancels, and cancel reports to fr.usenet.abus.rapports).
All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
any properly configured server.
Note that the anonymous llp, who now owns his own news server, refuses
all cancels on his server and is not directly touched by them. But he
has a grudge against me since before November 2020, when he used for
the first time the pseudonym LaLibreParole (later changed to llp) for aggressing me. That is why he does everything he can to denigrate me.
I am very sorry that this fight had to arrive on this group.
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$[email protected]>.
I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
any properly configured server.
. . .
On Usenet and NetNews in general. A 'local' hierarchy, i.e. like fr.*,
*could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for >'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
. . .
Le 06/01/2024 � 16:59, Frank Slootweg wrote :
The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
Of course, someone who would abuse of the cancels would be signaled to his/her news admin and see their account removed.
Note that the anonymous llp, who now owns his own news server, refuses
all cancels on his server
I am very sorry that this fight had to arrive on this group.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
. . .
On Usenet and NetNews in general. A 'local' hierarchy, i.e. like fr.*,
*could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for >'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
I'm being pedantic, but fr.* is a regional hierarchy. A local hierarchy
isn't Usenet at all because articles aren't intended to be distributed
to peers. The newsgroups are local to that News site only.
I'm being pedantic, but fr.* is a regional hierarchy.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by >>consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$[email protected]>.
I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
From what we've been told, the cancels are processed at two specific
servers that are very old and aren't set up for NoCeMs. I have no idea
what protects these servers from massive numbers of cancel messages
being issued as denial-of-service attacks. But apparently these two
servers are never going to be updated.
The issuer of the cancels is not expecting the cancel messages to be
acted upon at any other News site.
The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
Oh, c'mon. skirv maintains the cron job on his cancellable spam FAQ
that's several decades old and intended to guide those issuing
third-party cancels as spam countermeasures.
As always, it depends on the reputation of the issuer of the cancel
messages.
Cancel messages aren't trusted generally due to past abuse in denial of service attacks, not because it's impossible for the judgement of any
issuer of cancel messages to be trusted who maintained a good reputation.
All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
any properly configured server.
Le 06/01/2024 � 16:59, Frank Slootweg a �crit :
The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if
the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do
is leave usenet ?
All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
any properly configured server.
I think you didn't ask the users, maybe because they were the ennemy :)
It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
Anyway, as has been said, also by me, this whole business is mainly a non-issue, because these cancels shouldn't affect other - properly
configured servers.
On Usenet and NetNews in general. A 'local' hierarchy, i.e. like fr.*, *could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for 'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
Just "decided by consensus" by some random group of people is not a
defined formal procedure. I assume there is no defined formal procedure, otherwise people/you would by pointing to that procedure and that organizational body would be issueing the cancels, not you.
Realize that while in the old days local hierarchies were indeed that, local to some country, city, etc., that is no longer true. Local
hierarchies like fr.*, nl.* (for our country), etc. are carried by
servers the world over.
For example the fr.* hierarchy - or a least a part of it (416 groups)
- is carried by my NSP (News SP) News.Individual.Net. So I, a Dutch
user, can access a French hierarchy via a German server.
So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
specifically said so.)
[...]
BTW, you needing two servers (usenet-fr.net and paganini.bofh.team)
looks dodgy in and of itself. Why can't you use one?
Note that the anonymous llp, who now owns his own news server, refuses
all cancels on his server and is not directly touched by them. But he
has a grudge against me since before November 2020, when he used for
the first time the pseudonym LaLibreParole (later changed to llp) for
aggressing me. That is why he does everything he can to denigrate me.
I am very sorry that this fight had to arrive on this group.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of allI don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$[email protected]>.
articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
From what we've been told, the cancels are processed at two specific
servers that are very old and aren't set up for NoCeMs. I have no idea
what protects these servers from massive numbers of cancel messages
being issued as denial-of-service attacks. But apparently these two
servers are never going to be updated.
The issuer of the cancels is not expecting the cancel messages to be
acted upon at any other News site.
OK. Thanks for the details. So the issuer of the cancels has
reasonable expectations.
It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
Anyway, as has been said, also by me, this whole business is mainly a non-issue, because these cancels shouldn't affect other - properly
configured servers.
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I'm being pedantic, but fr.* is a regional hierarchy.
Actually, the fr.* hierarchy is more than regional: it is not limited to >French people but welcomes French-speaking users from all over the world.
Le 06/01/2024 à 21:10, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
Though it is possible to prevent articles to reach some specific servers
by Path: pre-loading, it would be difficult to do the opposite.
However, if a server wants to receive cancels from miakibot only, or
at the contrary to receive all cancels but those of the miakibot, it
can be done according to the Path: which is always on the form :
...!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!(variable)!cyberspam!not-for-mail
where the '(variable)' part describes the way of cancelling (byfrom, bysubject or bymid) and if it is a spamcancel, an mmfcancel or a
spewcancel.
Anyway, as has been said, also by me, this whole business is mainly a
non-issue, because these cancels shouldn't affect other - properly
configured servers.
Exactly. Because of that, you would never have seen llp complained
if he didn't have a grudge against me.
Le 06/01/2024 � 21:20, Frank Slootweg a �crit :
So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if >> the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do >> is leave usenet ?
If nothing helps, use your killfile. If for some reason you don't want
to do that, deal with it or indeed leave Usenet.
There was a man called Marc Schaefer, he had been running a usenet server
for nearly 30 years, but he had to stop, he had to turn off his server and put offline his INN documentation in French because he was bullied. The
"fun part" is that he was bullied by "llp", the same guy that now wants to destroy Paganini. So if you want people to leave usenet (well, the few of them that are still there), you can just go on like that, it's perfect.
I think you didn't ask the users, maybe because they were the ennemy :)
Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. Which users? Who
should do the asking? What should they ask? Who is whose 'enemy' and
why?
It's an old joke, but maybe, just maybe, newsmasters should listen to the people using their services, running INN doesn't make you instantly a genious, and usenet is also full of this little creatures that are called humans and which can suffer too, you know.
Le 06/01/2024 � 19:58, Frank Slootweg a �crit�:[...]
Of course you can. But if you were reading the fr.* newsgroups which
are polluted by Zorro, then you would have received the article asking
if this anonymous hateful should be cancelled or not, and you would have
had the possibility to vote pro or against the cancellation. Even Zorro himself had this possibility, and of course he voted NO, however the
majority was for the YES.
So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
specifically said so.)
Your assuming is correct, the cancels affect only fr.* groups, the
very same groups that were so frequently polluted by Zorro, and where
it was asked to users to vote pro or against.
[...]
BTW, you needing two servers (usenet-fr.net and paganini.bofh.team)
looks dodgy in and of itself. Why can't you use one?
It is a technical limitation of my bot which takes too long to read
on a server outside France. The fact is I never succeeded in reading
all fr.* at once on paganini.bofh.team which is in Italy. Probably
I could accelerate things if I redesign the bot, but it is not
possible for now.
On the other hand, I don't want to issue cancels via a server where
the admin is not fully willing to help cancelling spams and flood.
Ivo Gandolfo is this admin at paganini.bofh.team, thanks to him.
Thus, I have no other choice than read from usenet-fr.net and write
through paganini.bofh.team.
Le 07/01/2024 a 15:01, Frank Slootweg a ecrit :snip
I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
People are leaving usenet because it's not safe
Le 07/01/2024 � 15:01, Frank Slootweg a �crit :
I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was
a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
If one is using a paid server, address your concerns to the NSP (News SP). If one is using a free/private server, use their abuse channel, if any, or/and move to another server. If you have problems with (a user
of) another server, use their abuse channel, if any, or filter posts
from that server.
That does *not* solve the problem.
Finally, from the somewhat-funny department: I had to whitelist you, because I filter gmail.com posters in this group because of the amount
of loons/etc..
You are intolerant to Gmail but tolerant to abusers, what a strange way to see things. People are leaving usenet because it's not safe, but people
here only seem to care about the tld in the mail. I won't go further, but
I understand why you agree with llp, this must be Elon Musk's fan club :)
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 06/01/2024 � 19:58, Frank Slootweg a �crit�:[...]
Of course you can. But if you were reading the fr.* newsgroups which
are polluted by Zorro, then you would have received the article asking
if this anonymous hateful should be cancelled or not, and you would have
had the possibility to vote pro or against the cancellation. Even Zorro
himself had this possibility, and of course he voted NO, however the
majority was for the YES.
So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been >>> posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
specifically said so.)
Your assuming is correct, the cancels affect only fr.* groups, the
very same groups that were so frequently polluted by Zorro, and where
it was asked to users to vote pro or against.
What's so special about 'Zorro' that he can not be filtered,
killfiled, ignored, etc.?
[...]
Thus, I have no other choice than read from usenet-fr.net and write
through paganini.bofh.team.
I was more thinking of the other way around, why can't you do the
reading and cancelling on usenet-fr.net?
After all, usenet-fr.net is one of the only two (someone seems to be talking about three without naming names) affected servers.
Can't you
cooperate with the admin of usenet-fr.net or let him/her do the
cancelling (via local cancel commands)? If - as has been hinted at - usenet-fr.net is no longer properly managed, why do people keep using
it? Not that there are no other servers in the world.
Frank Slootweg a �crit le Sun, 07 Jan 2024 16:34:27 dans news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
http://news2.nemoweb.net/
The person who programmed it didn't finish it and he seems occupied
by other things. One day it will be really fine, but for the moment
there is just a simple killfille with no options (just mail+from).
Finally, as to "I understand why you agree with llp", I don't agree
with him. And if you implicitly refer to the 'freedom of speech' mantra,
no I don't accept that no-limits mantra.
Ok, I'm a bit reassured, sorry about that, this person makes everybody nervous wherever he posts.
Frank Slootweg a �crit le Sun, 07 Jan 2024 16:34:27 dans news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
Eric M <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you >> never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using >> servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was >> a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
A news admin - and users for that matter - can do a kind of selective
UDP by filtering/dropping posts from rogue servers.
This is not a solution, the abuse will still be there, this is like
putting dust under the carpet so you can't see it, but it's still there.
It seems to me that you expect others to solve the abuse you face, but seem to do little to filter/ignore that abuse yourself.
I was not talking about myself, the whole time I gave the example of
someone who did exactly what you said, and he still had to leave usenet, because other people answered, and you can't control other people.
You want abuse to go away. I want world peace. Both are not going to happen. We have to do what we can do. Expecting others to solve the
abuse we are facing is not going to work.
We can at least *try* to do something, not give up because it's like that.
I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
I'm very happy to be a good guy :)
But I took Gmail only because it filtered spam, it was in 2005, you
could still receive spam for posting on newsgroups. Now I could change
but I don't want people who killfilled me to read me again.
As to being tolerant to abusers: I don't understand where you get that from. I'm just being realistic about what one can and can not do about abuse on Usenet.
And the conclusion is that nobody can do anything, which is not very optimistic.
If you see people leaving Usenet because it's not safe, then try to
help them making it safer for them. Often that can be done with better filtering (and of course advice to ignore the abusers). Often people
have very limited filtering tools or/and do not know how to use them. It would be in the Usenet spirit to help/educate these people.
You know, as Google closes it spam service I'm trying to redirect the few legitimate users to a regular server with regular tools. And it's already very hard to do. So explaining advanced filtering will not work.
BTW, from your headers I get the impression that you are using a webbrowser to access Usenet instead of a normal Usenet client. If that
is indeed the case, that - dependent on the (non-)capabilities of that
web UI (User Interface) - probably explains your problems filtering/ ignoring the abuse.
I can change that too, but that won't help other people to filter, and
that won't prevent abusers to change identity everyday.
So specifically, which program on your (Windows?) system do you use to read Usenet.
I've been using Outlook Express (sorry about that), Xnews, Gravity, Gnus, Pan, MesNews, Dialog, tin, slrn, and now Nemo because I quite like it :
http://news2.nemoweb.net/
The person who programmed it didn't finish it and he seems occupied
by other things. One day it will be really fine, but for the moment
there is just a simple killfille with no options (just mail+from).
Finally, as to "I understand why you agree with llp", I don't agree
with him. And if you implicitly refer to the 'freedom of speech' mantra,
no I don't accept that no-limits mantra.
Ok, I'm a bit reassured, sorry about that, this person makes everybody nervous wherever he posts.
Le 07/01/2024 � 17:48, Frank Slootweg a �crit :
[...]
If you have any workable suggestions to change things, please say so,
but just (implicitly) saying 'Things shouldn't be this way!' isn't
helping anybody.
Cancels are not evil, they can be a tool to clean up the groups. Maybe not everyone should cancel, but a few people could be allowed to delete the
most awful messages.
I was not talking about myself, the whole time I gave the example of
someone who did exactly what you said, and he still had to leave usenet, >> because other people answered, and you can't control other people.
And he couldn't ignore those responses? Why not? (Again, proper
filtering can help with that.)
He really did his best, but as is server was attacked, he had to answer to some of the fake news llp said.
You know, as Google closes it spam service I'm trying to redirect the few >> legitimate users to a regular server with regular tools. And it's already >> very hard to do. So explaining advanced filtering will not work.
Yes, but that's another category, users losing their service. Not
users leaving Usenet because of abuse. (And yes, there's some overlap between these groups.)
I talk with people who are not on usenet anymore and some of them are kind
of traumatized (but some of them just prefer Facebook, I admit).
Yes, EMAK (Excessive Morphing to Avoid Killfiles) is a difficult
problem. But again, filtering and whitelisting can help a lot.
Even with tin, I had to make more and more complex filters and I had to change them very often.
That's probably OK for some ex Google Groups user to use for a quick temporary solution. But not for someone who has real problems with abuse from others. Dialog would be an excellent solution for such users. (I
use Hamster. Dialog's filtering is based on Hamster's.)
I used Hamster with Xnews, 20 years ago, it was great, but I can't do this anymore, too complex.
. . .
Lighten up *and* easy does it!
I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
. . .
. . .
But as (others and) I said, cancels don't work. No properly configured
server accepts cancels. So cancels only have an effect on a few
incorrectly configured servers, which apparently includes two or three
of the named French servers. . . .
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
. . .
Lighten up *and* easy does it!
I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
Furthermore, just because a gmail address appears on From is not actual evidence that the Usenet user is a gmail user. Purported email
addresses on Usenet cannot be authenticated; Usenet doesn't work like
that. It really has nothing to do with one's personal opinion of whether gmail is a decent email service.
Le 07/01/2024 � 21:00, "Adam H. Kerman" a �crit :
They're not improperly configured. They're just old. Someone keeps
saying that one of the servers in question isn't administered. I don't understand how that's possible.
It's a big french ISP, they have a usenet service for ages, but they don't put money in it anymore, so there are missing messages, and some other messages arrive slowly when it works at all. So people leave it, but this
has absolutely nothing to do with the Miakibot who is trying to help. 30%
of french people on usenet have this server, that's a problem.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
. . .
Lighten up *and* easy does it!
I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons >>>in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using >>>gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
Furthermore, just because a gmail address appears on From is not actual >>evidence that the Usenet user is a gmail user. Purported email
addresses on Usenet cannot be authenticated; Usenet doesn't work like
that. It really has nothing to do with one's personal opinion of whether >>gmail is a decent email service.
Duh! Have you seen my 'email address'?
My point is just a - for me - statistical observation. In *this*
group, for *me* gmail.com posters are suspect until proven otherwise. My >client (and server), my rules and all that jazz.
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged.
Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail.
I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish
the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
Sn!pe wrote:
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged. >>Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail.
I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish >>the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
If your From: email address is valid and belongs to you, you don't need
to fill out the Reply-To: field in your newsreader.
The Reply-To: field is only useful if you put an invalid address in your >From: field (see the header of this message, in which the Reply-To:
address is the only valid one).
noel <[email protected]> wrote:
Ahhh this thread reminds me of the mid 90's...
This kids, is why you never ever, honor cancels, drop em stone cold
dead at the door.
Indeed! I found the "being 40 years old" part rather funny (no offense intended). Most of us (YTIU) are not 40 years old but have 40 years (and more) experience, expertise, etc..
[...]
He knows that. He's trying to distinguish possible email address
harvesters from personal communication.
I stand corrected.
I can't read French,
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged.
Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail.
I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish
the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
I post with live, unmunged, addresses so that I can validly complain
about abuse to forgers' NSPs; you can't do that if you use a munged
address.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
. . .
Lighten up *and* easy does it!
I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons >>>in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using >>>gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
Furthermore, just because a gmail address appears on From is not actual >>evidence that the Usenet user is a gmail user. Purported email
addresses on Usenet cannot be authenticated; Usenet doesn't work like >>that. It really has nothing to do with one's personal opinion of whether >>gmail is a decent email service.
Duh! Have you seen my 'email address'?
My point is just a - for me - statistical observation. In *this*
group, for *me* gmail.com posters are suspect until proven otherwise. My >client (and server), my rules and all that jazz.
I agreed with you.
I added a few more thoughts. The O.P. was ignoring
the obvious.
I'll say it flat out: It appears that the vast majority of purported
Gmail addresses I see on Usenet -- except those on articles written by
Google Groups users -- are forgeries.
On Jan 6, 2024 at 3:01:24 PM CST, "Olivier Miakinen" <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 06/01/2024 à 21:10, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
Though it is possible to prevent articles to reach some specific servers
by Path: pre-loading, it would be difficult to do the opposite.
However, if a server wants to receive cancels from miakibot only, or
at the contrary to receive all cancels but those of the miakibot, it
can be done according to the Path: which is always on the form :
...!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!(variable)!cyberspam!not-for-mail
where the '(variable)' part describes the way of cancelling (byfrom,
bysubject or bymid) and if it is a spamcancel, an mmfcancel or a
spewcancel.
Anyway, as has been said, also by me, this whole business is mainly a
non-issue, because these cancels shouldn't affect other - properly
configured servers.
Exactly. Because of that, you would never have seen llp complained
if he didn't have a grudge against me.
It should not be difficult to generate the cancels and configure the
small number of servers intended to honor them so they do not
propagate to the rest of Usenet.
Per RFC 1036:
"Only the author of the message or the local news administrator is allowed to send this message."
Cancelbots and the like have always been contentious, but as an operator my opinion is by RFC definition they should not be permitted and fall into the 'abuse' bucket. NoCeM was created in 1997 as an acceptable solution that does not go against existing standards. INN, C News, DNews, and others have support for NoCeM since around 1999-2000.
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged. >>Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail.
I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish >>the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
I post with live, unmunged, addresses so that I can validly complain
about abuse to forgers' NSPs; you can't do that if you use a munged >>address.
Perhaps not with a munged address and probably depending on how it's
munged.
But IMO, one can validly complain (about abuse to forgers' NSPs) if
one uses a non-address like mine.
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a
live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
I posted with a live, unmunged address for some two decades. When I
was no longer posting in an (semi-) official role, I switched to my
current non-address (which has been unchanged ever since, another two >decades).
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged. >>Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail. >>I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish >>the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
I post with live, unmunged, addresses so that I can validly complain >>about abuse to forgers' NSPs; you can't do that if you use a munged >>address.
Perhaps not with a munged address and probably depending on how it's
munged.
But IMO, one can validly complain (about abuse to forgers' NSPs) if
one uses a non-address like mine.
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a
live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
What does "live" mean? If the user posts to Usenet a working email address
on From that's unchecked, how is that a problem for the user? I assume
that "live" means that the mailbox is checked regularly.
I posted with a live, unmunged address for some two decades. When I
was no longer posting in an (semi-) official role, I switched to my
current non-address (which has been unchanged ever since, another two >decades).
Ok. But Sn!pe has a valid concern about forgery and you have no concern
about forgery. That's why the two of you have different philosophies in
what address to use on From.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged. >>>>Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail. >>>>I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish >>>>the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
I post with live, unmunged, addresses so that I can validly complain >>>>about abuse to forgers' NSPs; you can't do that if you use a munged >>>>address.
Perhaps not with a munged address and probably depending on how it's >>>munged.
But IMO, one can validly complain (about abuse to forgers' NSPs) if
one uses a non-address like mine.
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a >>>live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
What does "live" mean? If the user posts to Usenet a working email address >>on From that's unchecked, how is that a problem for the user? I assume
that "live" means that the mailbox is checked regularly.
"live" for me - and I assume also for Sn!pe - indeed means a working
(non-bouncing) mailbox which is checked regularly. And no, posting a
working email address on From that's unchecked (not checked) is not a >problem, but IMO not a sane thing to do. Why advertize an email address
if you don't check its mailbox?
I posted with a live, unmunged address for some two decades. When I
was no longer posting in an (semi-) official role, I switched to my >>>current non-address (which has been unchanged ever since, another two >>>decades).
Ok. But Sn!pe has a valid concern about forgery and you have no concern >>about forgery. That's why the two of you have different philosophies in >>what address to use on From.
I do have concerns about forgery, but they're no so strong that they
outweigh my desire for not giving an e-mail address when posting to
Usenet. So far, so good. Knock on wood.
OTOH, it surprises me that when known posters *are* forged (often real
forgeries, not 'just' froggeries), respondents who should 'know' these >posters, often fall for these forgeries, even when the bodies of these
forged posts are quite out of character (trolling, insults, etc.) for
these posters.
When I spot out of character material, I always check other headers to
see if it's a forgery or the poster is having a bad day.
noel <[email protected]> wrote:
Ahhh this thread reminds me of the mid 90's...
This kids, is why you never ever, honor cancels, drop em stone cold
dead at the door.
Indeed! I found the "being 40 years old" part rather funny (no offense
intended). Most of us (YTIU) are not 40 years old but have 40 years (and
more) experience, expertise, etc..
[...]
yep... age means nothing, plenty of "kids" (those in their twenties) can
ring rings around many my more mature age staff with knowledge, and yes I
not ashamed to publicly admit at times, in rare circustanvces of
course :P that includes me haha
Frank Slootweg a écrit le Sun, 07 Jan 2024 16:34:27 dans >news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
Eric M <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you >>> never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using >>> servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was >>> a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
A news admin - and users for that matter - can do a kind of selective
UDP by filtering/dropping posts from rogue servers.
This is not a solution, the abuse will still be there, this is like
putting dust under the carpet so you can't see it, but it's still there.
In article <659b9d53$[email protected]>, noel <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jan 2024 16:09:38 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
noel <[email protected]> wrote:
Ahhh this thread reminds me of the mid 90's...
This kids, is why you never ever, honor cancels, drop em stone cold
dead at the door.
Indeed! I found the "being 40 years old" part rather funny (no
offense
intended). Most of us (YTIU) are not 40 years old but have 40 years
(and more) experience, expertise, etc..
[...]
yep... age means nothing, plenty of "kids" (those in their twenties) can >>ring rings around many my more mature age staff with knowledge, and yes
I not ashamed to publicly admit at times, in rare circustanvces of
course :P that includes me haha
I am typing this on a VT220 which is more than 40 years old. My
keyboard is older than that guy.
--scott
This is not a solution, the abuse will still be there, this is like
putting dust under the carpet so you can't see it, but it's still there.
This is how Usenet works. This is a Usenet tradition. Because you
cannot stop people from being abusive. Abuse itself cannot be stopped,
it is inherent in having a system open to many users.
But what CAN be stopped are the consequences of the abuse. And when the abuse ceases to have any real effect, abusers no longer are a problem.
You can watch any of the many online services that attempt to eject
abusers in order to see how ineffective that process is. The Usenet
method may not be perfect, but it's been working effectively for
decades.
--scott
Le 09/01/2024 a 01:01, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) a ecrit :
You can watch any of the many online services that attempt to eject abusers >> in order to see how ineffective that process is.
I'm watching Twitter/x, no moderators left and the people are running
away.
The Usenet method may not be perfect, but it's been working effectively for >> decades.
And people are running away from usenet too. Nobody wants to contribute to >something that only brings you threats and insults. And this also applies
to newsmasters, I ran a server for a week and I stopped because it carried >only awful messages, it wasn't worth it. So you can do like everything is >normal and just watch the people leave (or die, this happens), or you can
try to change things for the better.
Le 09/01/2024 � 16:23, victor a �crit :
Is when some people are saying usenet is dangerous is it mean
politically? I'd really like to know if it's just political disagreement
or not.
You did not understand, but this is normal as it was your first post on usenet :)
Le 07/01/2024 à 15:01, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't
exist.
No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's
all
you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are
using servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard.
UDP was a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue
newsmasters.
If one is using a paid server, address your concerns to the NSP (News
SP). If one is using a free/private server, use their abuse channel, if
any, or/and move to another server. If you have problems with (a user
of) another server, use their abuse channel, if any, or filter posts
from that server.
That does *not* solve the problem.
Finally, from the somewhat-funny department: I had to whitelist you,
because I filter gmail.com posters in this group because of the amount
of loons/etc..
You are intolerant to Gmail but tolerant to abusers, what a strange way
to see things. People are leaving usenet because it's not safe, but
people here only seem to care about the tld in the mail. I won't go
further, but I understand why you agree with llp, this must be Elon
Musk's fan club :)
Le 09/01/2024 à 16:23, victor a écrit :
Is when some people are saying usenet is dangerous is it mean
politically? I'd really like to know if it's just political
disagreement or not.
You did not understand, but this is normal as it was your first post on usenet :)
snipLe 07/01/2024 a 15:01, Frank Slootweg a ecrit :
I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't
exist.
Is when some people are saying usenet is dangerous is it mean
politically? I'd really like to know if it's just political disagreement
or not.
Le 09/01/2024 à 17:02, Olivier Miakinen a écrit :
You did not understand, but this is normal as it was your first post
on usenet :)
:-D
Anonymous people always come to tell me I'm wrong like on french
newsgroups, strange :)
BTW, this proves they are hard to filter.
Le 09/01/2024 � 17:02, Olivier Miakinen a �crit :
You did not understand, but this is normal as it was your first post on
usenet :)
:-D
Anonymous people always come to tell me I'm wrong like on french
newsgroups, strange :)
Le 09/01/2024 à 17:34, victor a écrit :
So it is political filter or no?
I will reply as if you were not one of my "friends".
No, it was never political, because you could disable every filter,
that's what you never understood, "victor".
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations [...]
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Le 09/01/2024 à 17:57, Olivier Miakinen a écrit :
This is all the more strange when this anonymous has never written on
Usenet, and does not know how to read French, but knows how to quote
someone (Marc Schaefer) who wrote in French in French-speaking groups.
And this anonymous is so familiar with Marc Schaefer that he only
quotes his first name, Marc.
He probably has been reading us for a long time and suddenly decided to subscribe to nanau.
So, so strange.
But please don't suspect LLP from being this anonymous, the poor LLP
has been so often accused of that, that he is all unhappy each time.
He has the same problem than LLP to understand how Alphanet worked, and
he tells exactly the same fake news, but let's not accuse him, he would
say we harass him :)
On Tue, 09 Jan 24 17:02:37 +0000, Eric M wrote:
Le 09/01/2024 � 17:57, Olivier Miakinen a �crit :
This is all the more strange when this anonymous has never written on
Usenet, and does not know how to read French, but knows how to quote
someone (Marc Schaefer) who wrote in French in French-speaking groups.
And this anonymous is so familiar with Marc Schaefer that he only
quotes his first name, Marc.
He probably has been reading us for a long time and suddenly decided to
subscribe to nanau.
So, so strange.
But please don't suspect LLP from being this anonymous, the poor LLP
has been so often accused of that, that he is all unhappy each time.
He has the same problem than LLP to understand how Alphanet worked, and
he tells exactly the same fake news, but let's not accuse him, he would
say we harass him :)
It is true I am not new and I use anonymous really to not start an argument, but maybe that was wrong to do.
I don't want to argue, I just want to know if the abuse was political views or threats, which one. I want to know because I think filtering political views is wrong but filtering threats is fine. The answer will finally end my curiosity of what had been going on.
victor a utilisé son clavier pour écrire :
On Tue, 09 Jan 24 17:02:37 +0000, Eric M wrote:
Le 09/01/2024 à 17:57, Olivier Miakinen a écrit :
This is all the more strange when this anonymous has never written on
Usenet, and does not know how to read French, but knows how to quote
someone (Marc Schaefer) who wrote in French in French-speaking
groups.
And this anonymous is so familiar with Marc Schaefer that he only
quotes his first name, Marc.
He probably has been reading us for a long time and suddenly decided
to subscribe to nanau.
So, so strange.
But please don't suspect LLP from being this anonymous, the poor LLP
has been so often accused of that, that he is all unhappy each time.
He has the same problem than LLP to understand how Alphanet worked,
and he tells exactly the same fake news, but let's not accuse him, he
would say we harass him :)
Olivier and Eric M: two quasi-professional stalkers who see me in every
post. You seem obsessed with me. Should I be worried?
It is true I am not new and I use anonymous really to not start an
argument, but maybe that was wrong to do.
I don't want to argue, I just want to know if the abuse was
political
views or threats, which one. I want to know because I think filtering
political views is wrong but filtering threats is fine. The answer will
finally end my curiosity of what had been going on.
Marc Schaefer is a Swiss politician.
He issued nocems for *every* message posted on fr.soc.politique.
He also issued nocems for every person who dared to contradict him (or
simply to doubt him), whether on a tehcnical group,
covid or the environment.
On the other hand, it should be pointed out that Marc's attempts to
control usenet-fr only began with covid and the first cancellations from
his server done by olivier miakinen. Before that, he was a very decent
person who worked for the usenet-fr community.
Le 27/12/2023 22:44, the anonymous llp wrote :
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations [...]
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
It's time to come back to the facts.
The bot 'miakibot' cancels most spam and some flood
on the French-speaking hierarchy fr.*
This makes most of the users of several servers very happy:
usenet-fr.net,
free.fr, [cut]
Those who refuse cancellations have already chosen another server
(for example eternal-September.org or usenet.ovh),
[cut]
It's time to put an end to this masquerade.
The cancellations are not abusive, and above all they only affect
certain servers whose users are quite happy for them to exist.
So let's let llp bark into the void and do not give
him any more importance than he deserves.
It's not normal to have to leave "free.fr" a server we were happy
with, because of you.
llp wrote:
It's not normal to have to leave "free.fr" a server we were happy
with, because of you.
What a joke. Due to the desynchronization of its front-end servers, news.free.fr is a disaster, and has been for months. From one connection
to the next, hundreds of newsgroups appear or disappear from the list
and the same goes for the articles posted. I wonder how many people
might be happy with this broken server.
This is the reason why many users have left news.free.fr. It has nothing
to do with your fantasies.
Ask Pierre aribaut whose Olivier erased an entire year's worth
of messages in one go...
And thousands of users are still using "free.fr".
It's the first and the main french-language nntp server.
And people are running away from usenet too. Nobody wants to contribute to something that only brings you threats and insults.
And this also applies to newsmasters, I ran a server for a week and I
stopped because it carried only awful messages, it wasn't worth it.
Marc Schaefer is a Swiss politician.
He issued nocems for *every* message posted on fr.soc.politique.
On Tue, 09 Jan 24 08:23:42 +0000, Eric M <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 09/01/2024 a 01:01, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) a ecrit :
You can watch any of the many online services that attempt to eject abusers >>> in order to see how ineffective that process is.
I'm watching Twitter/x, no moderators left and the people are running
away.
The Usenet method may not be perfect, but it's been working effectively for >>> decades.
And people are running away from usenet too. Nobody wants to contribute to >> something that only brings you threats and insults. And this also applies
to newsmasters, I ran a server for a week and I stopped because it carried >> only awful messages, it wasn't worth it. So you can do like everything is
normal and just watch the people leave (or die, this happens), or you can
try to change things for the better.
social media is moderated . . . pacifists are powerless against activists
When Marc left he said something about preferring Mastodon because I guess they block some political opinion.
he said something about it. And I saw he had nocems that called (fake
covid news). When I read some of the messages in the nocem it was just someone saying the covid stuff was wrong or disagreeing with it.
Is when some people are saying usenet is dangerous is it mean politically? I'd really like to know if it's just political disagreement
or not.
On 1/9/24 15:50, D wrote:snip
social media is moderated . . . pacifists are powerless against activists
Pacifism is a kind of activism - refusal to fight, even when ordered to.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:46:17 +0100, immibis <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/9/24 15:50, D wrote:snip
Pacifism is a kind of activism - refusal to fight, even when ordered to.
social media is moderated . . . pacifists are powerless against activists >>
activists fight and pacifists do not fight ... therefore moderated
forums are for activists, and unmoderated forums are for pacifists
On 1/10/24 05:29, D wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024 03:46:17 +0100, immibis <[email protected]> wrote:Ask the pacifists in Gaza how that worked out for them.
On 1/9/24 15:50, D wrote:snip
Pacifism is a kind of activism - refusal to fight, even when ordered to.
social media is moderated . . . pacifists are powerless against activists >>>
activists fight and pacifists do not fight ... therefore moderated
forums are for activists, and unmoderated forums are for pacifists
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged. >>>>Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail. >>>>I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish >>>>the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
I post with live, unmunged, addresses so that I can validly complain >>>>about abuse to forgers' NSPs; you can't do that if you use a munged >>>>address.
Perhaps not with a munged address and probably depending on how it's >>>munged.
But IMO, one can validly complain (about abuse to forgers' NSPs) if >>>one uses a non-address like mine.
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a >>>live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
What does "live" mean? If the user posts to Usenet a working email address >>on From that's unchecked, how is that a problem for the user? I assume >>that "live" means that the mailbox is checked regularly.
"live" for me - and I assume also for Sn!pe - indeed means a working
(non-bouncing) mailbox which is checked regularly. And no, posting a >working email address on From that's unchecked (not checked) is not a >problem, but IMO not a sane thing to do. Why advertize an email address
if you don't check its mailbox?
For the reason Sn!pe says: To ask for a Usenet-abusing shithead to be
TOSsed from a decently-administered News server for forgery.
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a >>>live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
I posted with a live, unmunged address for some two decades. When I >>>was no longer posting in an (semi-) official role, I switched to my >>>current non-address (which has been unchanged ever since, another two >>>decades).
Ok. But Sn!pe has a valid concern about forgery and you have no concern >>about forgery. That's why the two of you have different philosophies in >>what address to use on From.
I do have concerns about forgery, but they're no so strong that they
outweigh my desire for not giving an e-mail address when posting to
Usenet. So far, so good. Knock on wood.
OTOH, it surprises me that when known posters *are* forged (often real
forgeries, not 'just' froggeries), respondents who should 'know' these >posters, often fall for these forgeries, even when the bodies of these >forged posts are quite out of character (trolling, insults, etc.) for
these posters.
When I spot out of character material, I always check other headers to
see if it's a forgery or the poster is having a bad day.
Ok. I've pointed out before that I'd been forged numerous times but the particular abusive shithead forging me (yes, I damn well knew who it
was) was posting to newsgroups I didn't read, so it took me a while to
notice what was going on.
but he damn well should have recognized that it
wasn't me. In another case, I had to tell Paolo to disallow my mailbox
on From to end further forgery. It may have happened on other servers I hadn't spotted it on.
I've been forged by the same abusive shithead on Giganews but they
refuse to TOS anyone.
If I used an *.invalid address, then I'd have no abuse complaint.
Le 09/01/2024 � 01:01, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) a �crit :
You can watch any of the many online services that attempt to eject abusers in order to see how ineffective that process is.
I'm watching Twitter/x, no moderators left and the people are running
away.
The Usenet method may not be perfect, but it's been working effectively for decades.
And people are running away from usenet too. Nobody wants to contribute to something that only brings you threats and insults. And this also applies
to newsmasters, I ran a server for a week and I stopped because it carried only awful messages, it wasn't worth it. So you can do like everything is normal and just watch the people leave (or die, this happens), or you can
try to change things for the better.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged. >>>>>>Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail. >>>>>>I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish >>>>>>the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
I post with live, unmunged, addresses so that I can validly complain >>>>>>about abuse to forgers' NSPs; you can't do that if you use a munged >>>>>>address.
Perhaps not with a munged address and probably depending on how it's >>>>>munged.
But IMO, one can validly complain (about abuse to forgers' NSPs) if >>>>>one uses a non-address like mine.
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a >>>>>live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
What does "live" mean? If the user posts to Usenet a working email address >>>>on From that's unchecked, how is that a problem for the user? I assume >>>>that "live" means that the mailbox is checked regularly.
"live" for me - and I assume also for Sn!pe - indeed means a working >>>(non-bouncing) mailbox which is checked regularly. And no, posting a >>>working email address on From that's unchecked (not checked) is not a >>>problem, but IMO not a sane thing to do. Why advertize an email address >>>if you don't check its mailbox?
For the reason Sn!pe says: To ask for a Usenet-abusing shithead to be >>TOSsed from a decently-administered News server for forgery.
As I mentioned before,
[Rewind/repeat:]
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a >>>>>live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
I know that in the old days we made a difference between 'forgery'
(real - unmunged - address) and 'froggery' (adress is not real, i.e.
munged, a non-address like mine, etc.), but IMO - and AFAIK of many
others - that is no longer a realistic standpoint.
In most cases, a froggery can also be proven, because very likely some
other (than From:) headers will not match those of the real poster.
Until now I've not needed to prove such a case, but I think it can be
done and should be accepted.
. . .
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email
address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't
been forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email
address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't
been forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September
regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
I have also registered a FQDN at E-S, which now appears in my
Injection-Info: header. I believe that is unforgeable on a reputable News-server. That gives some degree of protection from 'froggery'
even if it isn't actionable abuse.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email
address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been >>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September
regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
I have also registered a FQDN at E-S, which now appears in my
Injection-Info: header. I believe that is unforgeable on a reputable >News-server. That gives some degree of protection from 'froggery'
even if it isn't actionable abuse.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
JFTR: Both my Usenet From: and Reply-To: Gmail addresses are unmunged. >>>>>>Both are 99% spam-free, work with no problems and AFAIAA no missed Mail.
I chose Gmail for its excellent antispam performance (in Mail). I wish
the same could be said about the Googlespam spew in Usenet News.
I post with live, unmunged, addresses so that I can validly complain >>>>>>about abuse to forgers' NSPs; you can't do that if you use a munged >>>>>>address.
Perhaps not with a munged address and probably depending on how it's >>>>>munged.
But IMO, one can validly complain (about abuse to forgers' NSPs) if >>>>>one uses a non-address like mine.
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a >>>>>live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
What does "live" mean? If the user posts to Usenet a working email address
on From that's unchecked, how is that a problem for the user? I assume >>>>that "live" means that the mailbox is checked regularly.
"live" for me - and I assume also for Sn!pe - indeed means a working >>>(non-bouncing) mailbox which is checked regularly. And no, posting a >>>working email address on From that's unchecked (not checked) is not a >>>problem, but IMO not a sane thing to do. Why advertize an email address >>>if you don't check its mailbox?
For the reason Sn!pe says: To ask for a Usenet-abusing shithead to be >>TOSsed from a decently-administered News server for forgery.
As I mentioned before,
You cannot tell Sn!pe what to do. You cannot tell him that there is no
valid reason for what he is doing. All you can do is make your own
decision about what you do in your own interest.
Why are you repeating this?
I pointed out the obvious: Sn!pe wants to be in a position to object to forgery. You don't. Therefore, Sn!pe uses a valid email address that is
his own email address on From.
The concept of "live" email address was introduced, which is irrelevant
to this discussion.
[Rewind/repeat:]
I think it's long, long past that there any valid reason to require a >>>>>live, unmunged address in From: of a Usenet post.
I know that in the old days we made a difference between 'forgery'
(real - unmunged - address) and 'froggery' (adress is not real, i.e. >munged, a non-address like mine, etc.), but IMO - and AFAIK of many
others - that is no longer a realistic standpoint.
No, you are completely wrong here. Forgery is still the same concept
it's always been: Use of an email address on From that is not the
author's. There is a similar issue, use of an invalid email address in a domain that the author isn't allowed to use, but we don't have a term
for that. On almost all News servers, both violate AUP which, if
enforced, should get the user TOSsed.
Please don't raise "froggery" which doesn't violate AUP anywhere.
In most cases, a froggery can also be proven, because very likely some
other (than From:) headers will not match those of the real poster.
Until now I've not needed to prove such a case, but I think it can be
done and should be accepted.
I think your position is outrageous. That would encourage whiners to
make myriad complaints of abuse to busy News administrators who don't
need their time wasted. If it's not forgery, then no abuse took place.
The whiner, who didn't put his own email address on From in the first
place, has no grounds to complain that he was imitated.
I'm not quoting the rest. Your reasoning is unreasonable. You took a
position that isn't against AUP anywhere, and you refuse to understand
the adverse implications of wasting serious amounts of a News
administrator's time if your view prevailed.
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email
address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email >>address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been >>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September
regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
As would any News administrator.
Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted
definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email
address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will
TOS a user who committed forgery.
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
Marc Schaefer is a Swiss politician.
He issued nocems for *every* message posted on fr.soc.politique.
Apart from politics. Is Usenet really that popular in France? Here in
Poland it's very niche, too niche for any politician to care or even know about its current existence.
Le 10/01/2024 � 17:34, Frank Slootweg a �crit :
[cut]
So what's so special about your experience, groups, topics, audience,
etc. that makes you so negative? And what makes you think you can/should
extrapolate your negative experience to Usenet as a whole?
"threats"? "(or die, this happens)"?
I have cancelled abusive posts, in fact I did this for a long time,
but spammers and flooders didn't like it at all.
[cut]
Olivier Miakinen [...] but he carries on, and it's hard, because
we don"t have any support,
but it doesn't matter, we will carry on.
Le 10/01/2024 � 22:53, llp a �crit :
And you had to stop because your server admin didn't like it either.
Lies.
The now-defunct Alphanet also forbade you to delete messages, as did
Free, who deleted an account from which you were improperly canceling.
Lies.
Before he sank into customer-driven cancellations, he had unanimous
support.
Lies.
But he wants to solve his personal problems (or yours) with cancels.
When it's so easy to put people you don't like in a killfile...
Lies.
But thanks to confirm that you will jump on every message
I write to tell lies.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email >>>>address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been >>>>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September
regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
As would any News administrator.
Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted >>definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email
address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will
TOS a user who committed forgery.
I am not 'wrong'. I point out that there's more to *abuse* - and
specifically to impersonating another poster - than just forging the
e-mail address in the From: of a posting. But it seems that you don't
get (don't want to get?) that distinction.
To lighten things up a bit:
If I would start using a real e-mail address (which belongs to me), I
could/would be - rightfully so - accused of 'nym'shifting or/and trying
to avoid killfiles. So doing The Right Thing (TM) would result in -
another form of - abuse.
[...]
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email
address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been >> >>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September
regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
As would any News administrator.
Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted
definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email
address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will
TOS a user who committed forgery.
I have also registered a FQDN at E-S, which now appears in my
Injection-Info: header. I believe that is unforgeable on a reputable
News-server. That gives some degree of protection from 'froggery'
even if it isn't actionable abuse.
Only if the News administrator prevents pre-loading such headers.
Giganews does not. One would have to check Path to spot this.
Yes, quite so. I wonder how forgery of a FQDN in Injection-Info:
would be regarded by a reputable News admin.
. . .
Face it. There is no real need for an email address in a Usenet post
(other than for possibly contacting the author, which is an exception
and is contradicted by your - justified - objection to the "live"
issue). For the rest, it's just a string of characters.
Bottom line: IMO, nothing in the From: line should be forged, faked,
<whatever>, not the name/nym and not the 'address'.
As to froggery not violating AUP anywhere: It's not just about some
'official' concept of forgery, it's about abuse, the abuse of
impersonating another poster, which, as I said (see below), can nearly >always be easily detected from *other* headers.
. . .
Yes, quite so. I wonder how forgery of a FQDN in Injection-Info:Immediate TOSsing from anywhere but Giganews
would be regarded by a reputable News admin.
Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <[email protected]>
Yes, quite so. I wonder how forgery of a FQDN in Injection-Info:
would be regarded by a reputable News admin.
Immediate TOSsing from anywhere but Giganews
For newsservers that support the current standard RFCs, no "TOSsing" is >required, as they will not accept Injection-Info: headers from clients
at all. The problem only exists for outdated server software that is RFC >ignorant.
If I had to answer every one of your misleading messages,
I wouldn't have enough time :-)
You seem to have a lot of time, maybe you should use it more wisely.
I won't go on with your flame war here, but you are really a troll, this thread succedeed because nobody knew you here, next time it will be less easy. EOT.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email >>>>address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been >>>>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September >>>regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
As would any News administrator.
Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted >>definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email
address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will >>TOS a user who committed forgery.
I am not 'wrong'. I point out that there's more to *abuse* - and
specifically to impersonating another poster - than just forging the
e-mail address in the From: of a posting. But it seems that you don't
get (don't want to get?) that distinction.
Forgery means misuse of someone else's email address. That against AUP, generally. It's a type of abuse that's widely accepted among News administrators.
Misuse of a domain, not defined to be forgery, is a similar issue and
might get one TOSsed.
You cannot point out that impersonation that's not forgery is abuse.
That's not a definition that News administrators accept.
I certainly do get the distinction. Forgery is abuse. Other forms of impersonation in which another person's email address is not used is not abuse.
To lighten things up a bit:
If I would start using a real e-mail address (which belongs to me), I
could/would be - rightfully so - accused of 'nym'shifting or/and trying
to avoid killfiles. So doing The Right Thing (TM) would result in -
another form of - abuse.
Wrong
Nymshifting is morphing within a thread or related threads to avoid
being kill filed. Of course you can post with your own email address at
any time. It's yours. No News administrator would TOS you for that.
That's absurd.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email >>>>>>address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been >>>>>>forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated.
Abuse has not occurred.
That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September >>>>>regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
As would any News administrator.
Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted >>>>definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email >>>>address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will >>>>TOS a user who committed forgery.
I am not 'wrong'. I point out that there's more to *abuse* - and >>>specifically to impersonating another poster - than just forging the >>>e-mail address in the From: of a posting. But it seems that you don't
get (don't want to get?) that distinction.
Forgery means misuse of someone else's email address. That against AUP, >>generally. It's a type of abuse that's widely accepted among News >>administrators.
Misuse of a domain, not defined to be forgery, is a similar issue and
might get one TOSsed.
You cannot point out that impersonation that's not forgery is abuse.
You keep on harping on that address forgery is abuse (which, for the
umpeenth time, it of course is), but that does not mean that something
which is not address forgery is not and can not be abuse.
It has not been spelled out it this nitty gritty way, but it's obvious
from what I wrote, that the forgery of the name/nym of the poster,
combined with the poster's non-address is impersonation.
And yes, impersonation is abuse. . . .
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Sn!pe <[email protected]> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
If the author doesn't wish to be forged, then he MUST use an email >>>>>>address on From that belongs to him. If he gets imitated but hasn't been
forged, then he SHOULD NOT whine about having been imitated. >>>>>>Abuse has not occurred.
That is exactly my case. I think Ray Banana of Eternal-September >>>>>regards only exact copying of the email address as actionable forgery.
As would any News administrator.
Frank Slootweg is wrong. Forgery has a long-standing well-accepted >>>>definition about News administrators: Use of someone else's email >>>>address on From. Most News administrators make it against AUP and will >>>>TOS a user who committed forgery.
I am not 'wrong'. I point out that there's more to *abuse* - and >>>specifically to impersonating another poster - than just forging the >>>e-mail address in the From: of a posting. But it seems that you don't >>>get (don't want to get?) that distinction.
Forgery means misuse of someone else's email address. That against AUP, >>generally. It's a type of abuse that's widely accepted among News >>administrators.
Misuse of a domain, not defined to be forgery, is a similar issue and >>might get one TOSsed.
You cannot point out that impersonation that's not forgery is abuse.
You keep on harping on that address forgery is abuse (which, for the
umpeenth time, it of course is), but that does not mean that something >which is not address forgery is not and can not be abuse.
This is a matter of definition. There are terms that are used on Usenet. There is a lot of unwanted and undesireable behavior, but it's not all abusive.
It has not been spelled out it this nitty gritty way, but it's obvious
from what I wrote, that the forgery of the name/nym of the poster,
combined with the poster's non-address is impersonation.
And here you misuse "forgery".
And yes, impersonation is abuse. . . .
Fine. You've declared victory by making up your own definitions. You
win. I concede.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
. . .
This is a matter of definition. There are terms that are used on Usenet. >>There is a lot of unwanted and undesireable behavior, but it's not all >>abusive.
No, not all unwanted and undesireable behavior is abusive, but some is
abusive. You, nor I, get to define for everyone else, what is and is not >abuse.
. . .
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
No, not all unwanted and undesireable behavior is abusive, but
some is abusive. You, nor I, get to define for everyone else,
what is and is not abuse.
Between the two of us, just one of us made up definitions that are
not widely used by News administrators enforcing TOS/AUP with
regard to abuse in order to win an argument.
As you wouldn't stop making up your own definitions, I conceded. We
are not having a discussion but talking around each other in
circles. I have now conceded a second time.
That means you had already won. You've now won a second time.
You've won. There is nothing else for you to say.
I have nothing to add here, I just have One Night in Bangkok stuck in my head:
Abusive cancel and the world's your oyster The bars are temples but the pearls ain't free Abusive cancel god in every golden cloister...
--scott
As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some details.
1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages, especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
2) My cancels are very easily identifiable (by From and X-Cancelled-by)
and difficult to counterfeiting (by the Path), so that news admins can
easily accept or refuse them as they want.
Example 'Path': ...!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spamcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail (with possibly 'bysubject' instead of 'byfrom', 'mmfcancel' or
'spewcancel' instead of 'spamcancel', but the beginning and the end
are always the same).
3) There is no controversy about canceled spams. About the canceled
flood, only llp and a few others complain, but the cancellation follows
a positive vote with the users of the affected newsgroups. Of course
this positive vote for cancel is because of all the abuses of the
targeted user.
4) My cancels respect all traditional conventions, including the one (specific to the fr.* hierarchy) that a report shall be posted to the specific newsgroup fr.usenet.abus.rapports.
5) And before someone asks, yes it would be good if I also issued
NoCeMs, but the cancels are indeed very useful for some very old
news servers (such as e.g. news.free.fr and cabale.usenet-fr.net)
where spam can only be fought by cancel articles.
You really are living in a different century... Did you know that we
travel in spaceships?
As Adam said, it's all about reputation.
EOT
Le 16/01/2024 à 08:11, DV a écrit :
Some sort of cardboard Spaceship said:
You really are living in a different century... Did you know that we
travel in spaceships?
Calm down, Elon.
LLP was just coming from the Iowa caucus where he voted Trump, this
explains this access of rage :)
LLP was just coming from the Iowa caucus where he voted Trump, this
explains this access of rage :)
As Adam said, it's all about reputation.Yes, and nymshifting does not help to build reputation.
[...]
As we can see, not only does llp own a spaceship, but he also has clones
to help him spread his holy word. They are French designed though, so
don't expect them to work flawlessly.
Le 16/01/2024 07:06, llp aka victor aka samsung01 took yet another
pseudonym, i.e. Spaceship, to write :
As Adam said, it's all about reputation.
Yes, and nymshifting does not help to build reputation.
And this is supposed to help your friend format his cancels correctly?
And this is supposed to help your friend format his cancels correctly?
when it's just you, you and yourself
EOT.
[whatever]
On 16/01/2024 07:06, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship had written : However, on 16/01/2024 21:34, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship wrote :
Le 16/01/2024 � 21:03, Spaceship a �crit :
que dalle.
Hum.
Olivier Miakinen a �crit :
On 16/01/2024 07:06, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship had written : However, on 16/01/2024 21:34, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship wrote :
Sorry, but I'm not Spaceship, nor Frank, nor Victor, nor any other.
[suivi poubelle]
Le 16/01/2024 à 21:03, Spaceship a écrit :
que dalle.
Hum.
Le 17/01/2024 � 16:17, Frank Slootweg a �crit :
Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear that you are *not* referring to me.
Well, you have a problem :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZveA-NAIDI
Sorry, but I'm not Spaceship, nor Frank, nor Victor, nor any other.
Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear that you are *not* referring to me.
Same request to Olivier Miakinen.
Once again, the fight that the anonymous hateful llp is leading against cancellations is a non-problem, and it does not deserve to be given the slightest interest.
Le 17/01/2024 16:17, Frank Slootweg a �crit :
Sorry, but I'm not Spaceship, nor Frank, nor Victor, nor any other.
Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear
that you are *not* referring to me.
Same request to Olivier Miakinen.
Do not worry, the "Frank" llp is talking about is the pseudo that he took
in order to collect informations when he wanted to create his own news server.
This pseudo was used for a very short period of time, exactly the same
that llp did with other pseudos such as "Jean Martin" or "victor" or "Spaceship".
Once again, the fight that the anonymous hateful llp is leading against cancellations is a non-problem, and it does not deserve to be given the slightest interest.
Olivier Miakinen a �mis l'id�e suivante :[...]
Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen:
[...]
Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other >>servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop >creating/sending them.
Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two
other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel >articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two
other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.
Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has
been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change
this malpractice to become accepted practice.
And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users
(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen:
[...]
Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other >>servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop >creating/sending them.
Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
But let's say that the two servers in question were migrated over to modern installations and acted on NoCeMs. Would the dispute be any different?
Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two
other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel >articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two
other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.
Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in order to do that.
Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has
been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change
this malpractice to become accepted practice.
And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users
(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
creating/sending them.
Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
is.
So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
articles which some people don't like for some reason.
I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't
send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.
But let's say that the two servers in question
were migrated over to modern
installations and acted on NoCeMs. Would the dispute be any different?
Well, amongst admins (and other parties interested in how news servers should (not) be run), there probably wouldn't be any/much dispute.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire >>>>to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other >>>>servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no, >>>absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop >>>creating/sending them.
Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very >>old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
is.
So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
articles which some people don't like for some reason.
I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't
send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.
But let's say that the two servers in question were migrated over to modern >>installations and acted on NoCeMs. Would the dispute be any different?
Well, amongst admins (and other parties interested in how news servers
should (not) be run), there probably wouldn't be any/much dispute.
Amongst the other parties, the dispute would indeed be much the same,
because it's basically a fight over who can (not) cancel whose articles
and why (not).
Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two >>>other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel >>>articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two
other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.
Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do >>that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in >>order to do that.
Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have
admin approval
and does *not* have admin access on these two servers,
but still feels it's right what he does?
That he can't do it The Right Way (TM), is no excuse for doing it the
wrong way.
That's why I said this:
Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has >>>been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change >>>this malpractice to become accepted practice.
And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users >>>(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no, >>>>absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop >>>>creating/sending them.
That is the point of the anonymous hateful llp. But not of all the other >admins and users who are very happy that my bot cancels e.g. more than
100 spams a day from Google groups.
Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very >>>old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
Note that llp pretends there are only two old servers. In reality, there are >at least six servers, some of them very old and barely administrated, but >some of them also accept NoCeM and though accept the cancels.
. . .
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no, >>>> absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
creating/sending them.
That is the point of the anonymous hateful llp.
But not of all the other
admins and users who are very happy that my bot cancels e.g. more than
100 spams a day from Google groups.
This two server not runningOh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very >>> old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
Note that llp pretends there are only two old servers. In reality, there are at least six servers, some of them very old and barely administrated, but some of them also accept NoCeM and though accept the cancels. A few months ago they were at least eight :
- aioe
- alphanet
- birotanewsThis is a *personnal* server: one user.
- free
- nemo"pasdenom" uses nocems, not need of these cancels
- pasdenom
- paganini
- usenet-fr
Note that the anonymous hateful llp [cut]
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen:
[...]
Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire >>>> to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other >>>> servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
creating/sending them.
Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
is.
So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
articles which some people don't like for some reason.
I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't
send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.
Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do
that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in
order to do that.
Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have
admin approval and does *not* have admin access on these two servers,
but still feels it's right what he does?
That he can't do it The Right Way (TM), is no excuse for doing it the
wrong way.
That's why I said this:
Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has
been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change
this malpractice to become accepted practice.
And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users
(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.
launched it (and he's good at trolling, it was the 27th of december and
I think maybe some people here are annoyed or fed up with all this
french people discussing things that should stay on the fr.* hierarchy,
so we should stop. And for the last time I hope, EOT, good night and
good luck :)
By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken sides in this quarrel.
As long as the issuer of the cancels is sticking with criteria he's
stated without going beyond, as long as he's maintaining his own
reputation, the cancels aren't rogue.
That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users
of the two servers want this. I guess I don't see the problem in that
We are discussing llp versus other regulars of the newsgroups in the fr.* hierarchy.
NoCeMs aren't cancels. The difference, obviously, is that the two servers
if replaced with modern servers would no longer be set up to process any third-party cancels.
The issue was NEVER about who can send a third-party cancel.
Usenet user who isn't prevented from doing so by his News administrator and isn't committing abuse. Yes, I know what RFC 1036 said about third-party cancels being nonstandard, but that was one of its myriad provisions that wasn't widely implemented. Cancels as a spam countermeasure were issued
for years contrary to the clearly-stated intent of RFC 1036.
Whether a cancel is processed is up to the News administrator. Yes?
That's why it doesn't matter if non-abusive third party cancels are
issued.
That's his opinion. It's not your place to second guess him.
Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion. That's not how Usenet works. That's not how any of it works.
Why would a server be set up to accept BOTH cancels AND NoCeMs for the
same articles? I thought we were told that NoCeMs were being issued for
the articles in question.
Hello Adam,
I will try not to continue responding llp/Spaceship, but your question is >legitimate and I will respond to it.
Le 18/01/2024 22:28, Adam H. Kerman:
Why would a server be set up to accept BOTH cancels AND NoCeMs for the
same articles? I thought we were told that NoCeMs were being issued for
the articles in question.
The answer is that these servers do not always receive cancels and NoCeMs
for the SAME articles.
Actually it is true that some articles are both cancelled and nocemized,
but some ore only cancelled and some are only nocemized. That is the reason >why these servers accept both.
Another fact that I forgot to mention previously concerns the server free.fr, >one of the two old and barely administrated servers. 'Barely administrated' >does not mean 'not administrated at all'. Indeed, the admin stopped accepting >some cancel articles because of abuse of a user named CriCri, but they still >accept the cancels articles from the miakibot because they are authenticated >by another news server (previously alphanet.ch, now paganini.bofh.team).
And about the other server, usenet-fr.net, the admins Laurent Frigault and >Jean-Claude Michot prefer that my cancels are not originated from it
because they do not have the time to respond to complaints in case there >should exist. However they do not consider that I abuse and so they do not >close my account. And of course the admin of paganini.bofh.team completely >supports me, as did the admin of alphanet.ch before llp made it close by >harassing Marc Schaefer.
Le 18/01/2024 22:24, Adam H. Kerman wrote :
By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken >>sides in this quarrel.
By saying this, you've obviously chosen your side too :-)
As long as the issuer of the cancels is sticking with criteria he's
stated without going beyond, as long as he's maintaining his own >>reputation, the cancels aren't rogue.
That's the *real* problem.
The *bad* reputation you're talking about is located here: >https://www.aduf.org/viewtopic.php?t=290845
miakinen is a serial canceler, bothering users with his dictatorship and >forced to leave their favorites news server to gain refuge on anothers
to protect themselves against his abuses.
Why should users accept this? If they want to stay on a particular
newsserver they don't have to be forced to leave it to protect their posts.
There's a document for cancellations in the fr hierarchy and miakinen
doesn't respect it. He's targeting individuals, chosen by him alone, and
he's using the votes for falacious reasons because he has absolutely no >control over what he's supposed to be doing.
It's called 'censorship' from short-dicked dictator.
That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users
of the two servers want this. I guess I don't see the problem in that
Nope.
miakinen said that and *you* believed him.
Why? Because *you* have chosen his side without any proof of what
miakinen claims.
Either you have proof that free users have clearly accepted these
cancels, or it would be better not to convey undocumented false
informations, especially because you don't know the full story and
background of miakinen, eric m and other little dictators ruling on 'fr'.
Btw, the previous link shows the opposite of what miakinen shamelessly >claims.
We are discussing llp versus other regulars of the newsgroups in the
fr.* hierarchy.
You've clearly written *again* which side you're on. It's not llp
against the world.
We are talking about the improperly formatted cancels Olivier send every >single day. No mandatory sender header field, nonsense 'spamcancel' >pseudo-site, usage of a removed convention, falacious reasons given and
so on...
llp had nothing to do with incompetence of miakinen.
NoCeMs aren't cancels. The difference, obviously, is that the two servers >>if replaced with modern servers would no longer be set up to process any >>third-party cancels.
Does it helps either miakinen to correct the documented errors? Nope.
Why? Because he has an oversized ego, doesn't accept contradiction.
He has absolutely no legitimacy to override the document in force in the
fr hierarchy regarding cancellations.
The issue was NEVER about who can send a third-party cancel.
Already explained and documented contrary to all miakinen's comments,
which are just rumors to persuade users who don't know the whole story.
This is called manipulation, and although he's also very bad at it, some >people may fall for it.
miakinen cancels are improperly formated. No mandatory sender header
field, nonsense 'spamcancel' pseudo-site, usage of a removed convention, >falacious reasons given, and so on (bis repetita).
Usenet user who isn't prevented from doing so by his News administrator and >>isn't committing abuse. Yes, I know what RFC 1036 said about third-party >>cancels being nonstandard, but that was one of its myriad provisions that >>wasn't widely implemented. Cancels as a spam countermeasure were issued
for years contrary to the clearly-stated intent of RFC 1036.
There are two main reference documents for third-party cancels, that I
used to prove miakien doesn't follows conventions.
https://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/faq-care.html#cancel-message and >http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/
Just look at miakinen cancels and compare with what is required.
It's as simple as that or show me a document saying the contrary.
Guess what? You can't because there is none.
Sender is mandatory.
'spamcancel' is nonsense because of cyberspam dedicated to this type.
cmsg convention was removed from the protocol in 2009.
Whether a cancel is processed is up to the News administrator. Yes?
That's why it doesn't matter if non-abusive third party cancels are
issued.
Third-party cancels can't have the Cancel-Key header field (because
sender don't know the secret) required to be processed by 99,99% of the >servers still in operation today. The person who doesn't understand this
is obviously stuck in another century.
And for the few other servers, use local cancel commands and don't
bother others with all this shit who make trafic and use space for
nothing on 99,99% of the rest of the world.
You get the idea?
That's his opinion. It's not your place to second guess him.
Is it yours to speak for news.free.fr users, a server you've probably
never heard of before?
I can, because I was using it and then had to leave it because of
miakinene's crap.
Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion. That's not how >>Usenet works. That's not how any of it works.
Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion.
I don't declare it either, I pointed out errors on mikinen cancels, >documented them and still have no contradiction for that and, to date,
they are not corrected either.
Cancels are unproperly formated, sent against individuals for falacious >reasons. Theses are rogue cancels and by declination miakinen a rogue >canceler and paganini a rogue server.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire >>>>to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other >>>>servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no, >>>absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop >>>creating/sending them.
Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very >>old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken sides in this quarrel.
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
is.
I just restated the reason, which has been stated and stated and stated throughout the thread. It's quoted above.
So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
articles which some people don't like for some reason.
For a specific reason: being highly disruptive
As long as the issuer of the cancels is sticking with criteria he's
stated without going beyond, as long as he's maintaining his own
reputation, the cancels aren't rogue.
I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't
send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.
That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users
of the two servers want this.
I guess I don't see the problem in that
there's a choice to use servers that don't acccept cancels, versus these
two specific servers that honor cancels. The user has a clear choice.
Would llp
have the same objection if the two servers in question were replaced with modern servers and the NoCeMs already being issued were honored?
Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two >>>other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel >>>articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two >>>other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.
Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do >>that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in >>order to do that.
Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have
admin approval
No such approval is required. He needs only not to be prevented from
doing so by his own News administrator.
and does *not* have admin access on these two servers,
but still feels it's right what he does?
That's his opinion. It's not your place to second guess him.
That he can't do it The Right Way (TM), is no excuse for doing it the
wrong way.
Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion. That's not how Usenet works. That's not how any of it works.
That's why I said this:
Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has >>>been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change >>>this malpractice to become accepted practice.
And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users >>>(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not
present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an
objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News
server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being
issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not
present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an
objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Sigh! (Obviously speaking for myself, not Spaceship,) Of course I
don't have an objection to NoCeMs (versus these cancels), because then
it's the *admin* of the *affected* server who specifically gives
approval to process these NoCeMs, not some *user* on some *other* server 'deciding' it *for* him/her.
To paraphrase: It's "My server, my rules." and - in the context of
this thread - also "My client, my rules.", but it's *NOT* "Your server,
my rules." and the latter is what Olivier et al wants us to approve.
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Adam,
I will try not to continue responding llp/Spaceship
Why would a server be set up to accept BOTH cancels AND NoCeMs for the
same articles? I thought we were told that NoCeMs were being issued for
the articles in question.
The answer is that these servers do not always receive cancels and NoCeMs
for the SAME articles.
Actually it is true that some articles are both cancelled and nocemized,
but some ore only cancelled and some are only nocemized. That is the reason >> why these servers accept both.
I don't understand why you aren't issuing NoCeMs for the same set of articles, but merely a partial set of articles.
Another fact that I forgot to mention previously concerns the server
free.fr, one of the two old and barely administrated servers. 'Barely
administrated' does not mean 'not administrated at all'. Indeed, the admin >> stopped accepting some cancel articles because of abuse of a user named
CriCri, but they still accept the cancels articles from the miakibot because >> they are authenticated by another news server (previously alphanet.ch, now >> paganini.bofh.team).
I'm glad to hear that for otherwise it's just inviting a Denial of
Service attack.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
[Lots deleted.]
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News >>server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being >>issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not >>present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an
objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Sigh! (Obviously speaking for myself, not Spaceship,) Of course I
don't have an objection to NoCeMs (versus these cancels), because then
it's the *admin* of the *affected* server who specifically gives
approval to process these NoCeMs, not some *user* on some *other* server >'deciding' it *for* him/her.
To paraphrase: It's "My server, my rules." and - in the context of
this thread - also "My client, my rules.", but it's *NOT* "Your server,
my rules." and the latter is what Olivier et al wants us to approve.
[Lots more deleted.]
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire >>>>>>to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other >>>>>>servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no, >>>>>absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop >>>>>creating/sending them.
Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very >>>>old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken >>sides in this quarrel.
Nope. I've not taken llp'side. I just object to Olivier's 'reasons'
for issueing cancels. So *if* I've 'taken sides' (there that strange
concept of winning/losing again), then it's 'against' Olivier Miakinen
(et al), not 'for' llp.
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it >>>is.
I just restated the reason, which has been stated and stated and stated >>throughout the thread. It's quoted above.
As I've yet to see evidence of approval from the admins of the barely
administered/no-NoCeMs servers (which are apparently more than two, up
to eight), we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Olivier Miakinen
has a valid excuse for his cancels.
. . .
I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't >>>send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.
That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users
of the two servers want this.
"it's been stated" by *them*, but more importantly, IMO it's not up to
the users of those (more than two) servers that someone cancels *other* >people's articles on those servers. That's upto the admins to allow/
approve and we've not heard from *them*.
I guess I don't see the problem in that
there's a choice to use servers that don't acccept cancels, versus these >>two specific servers that honor cancels. The user has a clear choice.
Yes, the user has a choice, but exactly that choice has been ignored
by the cancel proponents.
Their 'argument' is that these servers are
badly managed or/and old (for NoCeMs), 'so' cancels are OK, but when I >suggested suggesting better servers or/and better filtering to those
'poor' abuse-victims, all I got was deafening silence.
That's the gist of what I'm getting for these non-discussions: They
don't want to listen, they don't want to change anything, they just want
to keep doing what they're doing, but for some strange reason, they do
want to get some kind of seal of approval from the (rest of) the
audience.
[A bunch of confusion/misunderstanding deleted.]
Would llp have the same objection if the two servers in question
were replaced with modern servers and the NoCeMs already being issued
were honored?
Probably not.
Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two >>>>>other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel >>>>>articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two >>>>>other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.
Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do >>>>that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in >>>>order to do that.
Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have >>>admin approval
No such approval is required. He needs only not to be prevented from
doing so by his own News administrator.
Disagree.
As these cancels are knowingly targeted at these servers, he
needs approval of the admins of these servers.
Again: That he *can* do what he does, doesn't make it *right*.
and does *not* have admin access on these two servers,
but still feels it's right what he does?
That's his opinion. It's not your place to second guess him.
It might well be his opinion, but the effect of his *actions* is not
just opinion, it's other people's articles getting canceled.
That he can't do it The Right Way (TM), is no excuse for doing it the >>>wrong way.
Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion. That's not how >>Usenet works. That's not how any of it works.
No I don't, but neither does he and neither do you.
N.B. In another response you note you're not an admin (not sure if
you've ever been an admin). I've been an admin for two decades. Perhaps
that explains my different view(s) on this situation.
. . .
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
Too bad you can not ask anymore to the admins of aioe and alphanet, who
were clearly supporting them (and aioe was the first to cancel the flood
of Socratis, first in it.* hierarchy then in fr.* hierarchy). But you
can ask to the admins of birotanews (Pierre Pallier), Nemo (Julien
Arlandis), paganini (Ivo Gandolfo) and pasdenom (St�phane Gr�goire).
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
is.
Apart from the fact that some servers accept cancels and not NoCeMs, that some servers accept NoCeMs and not cancels, and that some servers accept both, what ethical difference do you make between authenticated cancels
and authenticated NoCeMs ?
So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
articles which some people don't like for some reason.
The reality is that none of these cancels are based on the contents of
the articles. Some are for spams (sale of THC gummies, of illegal false documents, or with a .zip containing a virus), some are for floods
(from identities that post dozens or hundreds of random articles in
random newsgroups of the hierarchy). All the cancelled articles are not
only abuses *on* the network but abuses *of* the network.
Spams are mainly cancelled based on the Subject: header, floods mainly
based on the From: header. Some spams such as those with a .zip virus
are cancelled by the From: header.
I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.
Neither do I for the articles I don't like. I filter/killfile fake news
about the covid 19 for example, and my bot would never cancel those
articles. But the bot cancels spam and flood.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
[Lots deleted.]
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been >>criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News >>server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being >>issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not >>present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an
objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Sigh! (Obviously speaking for myself, not Spaceship,) Of course I
don't have an objection to NoCeMs (versus these cancels), because then
it's the *admin* of the *affected* server who specifically gives
approval to process these NoCeMs, not some *user* on some *other* server >'deciding' it *for* him/her.
Huh? How have you taken the News administrator out of the equation? He's
the one who has decided to honor cancels.
To paraphrase: It's "My server, my rules." and - in the context of
this thread - also "My client, my rules.", but it's *NOT* "Your server,
my rules." and the latter is what Olivier et al wants us to approve.
Yes. That's why other News administrators don't honor cancels.
[Lots more deleted.]
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
[Just addressing some points where it still might make *some* sense:]
[...]
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
Too bad you can not ask anymore to the admins of aioe and alphanet, who >>were clearly supporting them (and aioe was the first to cancel the flood
of Socratis, first in it.* hierarchy then in fr.* hierarchy). But you
can ask to the admins of birotanews (Pierre Pallier), Nemo (Julien >>Arlandis), paganini (Ivo Gandolfo) and pasdenom (St�phane Gr�goire).
You're turning the world upside down, it's not me/us who should ask
these admins, it's you who should have (past tense) asked them and now
this aspect is doubted, you should show some evidence that you've asked
them.
[...]
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it >>>is.
Apart from the fact that some servers accept cancels and not NoCeMs, that >>some servers accept NoCeMs and not cancels, and that some servers accept >>both, what ethical difference do you make between authenticated cancels
and authenticated NoCeMs ?
AFAICT, yours are not "authenticated" cancels, they're cancels.
And about your question: For NoCeMs, the *admin* of the *affected* server >gets to decide whether or not to process them. In your cancel case, you >'decide' for them, which you shouldn't, for the reasons I gave.
So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here >>>(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling >>>articles which some people don't like for some reason.
The reality is that none of these cancels are based on the contents of
the articles. Some are for spams (sale of THC gummies, of illegal false >>documents, or with a .zip containing a virus), some are for floods
(from identities that post dozens or hundreds of random articles in
random newsgroups of the hierarchy). All the cancelled articles are not >>only abuses *on* the network but abuses *of* the network.
Spams are mainly cancelled based on the Subject: header, floods mainly >>based on the From: header. Some spams such as those with a .zip virus
are cancelled by the From: header.
Except for floods, probably none of these, with the possible exception
of "spam", are sufficient grounds for cancellation and are just what I
wrote, articles which some people - in this case you - don't like for
some reason.
As to "spam": If these are just commercial (or non-commercial)
articles, but are not posted in bulk *and* substantively identical, they
are *not* cancellable spam in a Usenet context.
Just saw that fr.* apparently has a relatively low threshold
(Breidbart Index 4 in 30 days:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index#Thresholds>
N.B. You probably don't want to read what it says directly below
'Thresholds' on that page! :-()
Your other examples of "spam", namely "(sale of THC gummies, of
illegal false documents, or with a .zip containing a virus)" are *not*
valid grounds for cancellation. They're just what you don't like or
consider 'wrong', i.e. your opinion.
I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't >>>send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.
Neither do I for the articles I don't like. I filter/killfile fake news >>about the covid 19 for example, and my bot would never cancel those >>articles. But the bot cancels spam and flood.
No, you cancel articles by *your* *incorrect* (in Usenet context)
definition of "spam".
My advice: Just save your energy and aggravation, stop these cancels
and help the affected users of these servers to help themselves (by
going to a better server or/and use (better) client-side (or/and mental) >filtering).
Good luck.
[...]
[stuff]
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
[Lots deleted.]
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been >>>>criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News >>>>server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being >>>>issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not >>>>present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an >>>>objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Sigh! (Obviously speaking for myself, not Spaceship,) Of course I
don't have an objection to NoCeMs (versus these cancels), because then >>>it's the *admin* of the *affected* server who specifically gives
approval to process these NoCeMs, not some *user* on some *other* server >>>'deciding' it *for* him/her.
Huh? How have you taken the News administrator out of the equation? He's >>the one who has decided to honor cancels.
No, the point is that the admins have *not* made a 'decision'. Their
servers are old servers which by non-configuration accept cancels by
default. So it's not a 'decision', but an out-dated configuration.
Of course Olivier Miakinen et al claim that the affected admins know
about this misconfiguration
and approve of their cancels, but that's just their word without anything >backing it up.
Their relunctance (read: refusal) to change anything, accept any advice, >(IMO) makes their position suspicious.
. . .
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
[Lots deleted.]
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News
server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being
issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not
present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an
objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Sigh! (Obviously speaking for myself, not Spaceship,) Of course I
don't have an objection to NoCeMs (versus these cancels), because then
it's the *admin* of the *affected* server who specifically gives
approval to process these NoCeMs, not some *user* on some *other* server 'deciding' it *for* him/her.
To paraphrase: It's "My server, my rules." and - in the context of
this thread - also "My client, my rules.", but it's *NOT* "Your server,
my rules." and the latter is what Olivier et al wants us to approve.
[Lots more deleted.]
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:[...]
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
As I've yet to see evidence of approval from the admins of the barely
administered/no-NoCeMs servers (which are apparently more than two, up
to eight), we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Olivier Miakinen
has a valid excuse for his cancels.
All the evidence you need is that the cancels are acted upon at specific servers.
That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users
of the two servers want this.
"it's been stated" by *them*, but more importantly, IMO it's not up to
the users of those (more than two) servers that someone cancels *other* >people's articles on those servers. That's upto the admins to allow/ >approve and we've not heard from *them*.
I guess I don't see the problem in that
there's a choice to use servers that don't acccept cancels, versus these >>two specific servers that honor cancels. The user has a clear choice.
Yes, the user has a choice, but exactly that choice has been ignored
by the cancel proponents.
You keep getting this part wrong. The choice is to use a server that
accepts cancels or one that doesn't.
Their 'argument' is that these servers are
badly managed or/and old (for NoCeMs), 'so' cancels are OK, but when I >suggested suggesting better servers or/and better filtering to those
'poor' abuse-victims, all I got was deafening silence.
You aren't addressing the users whose lack of kill filing you don't
approve of, hence silence.
That's the gist of what I'm getting for these non-discussions: They
don't want to listen, they don't want to change anything, they just want
to keep doing what they're doing, but for some strange reason, they do
want to get some kind of seal of approval from the (rest of) the
audience.
Wow. You're just throwing out the accusations here.
No one asked for your approval. Who would?
Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two >>>>>other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel >>>>>articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two >>>>>other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.
Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do >>>>that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in >>>>order to do that.
Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have >>>admin approval
No such approval is required. He needs only not to be prevented from >>doing so by his own News administrator.
Disagree.
Your disagreement is irrelevant. No one asked for your agreement.
As these cancels are knowingly targeted at these servers, he
needs approval of the admins of these servers.
That's not how Usenet works.
Again: That he *can* do what he does, doesn't make it *right*.
Your opinion of what is right or wrong is irrelevant. Again, no one
asked for your approval. You have no say.
Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion. That's not how >>Usenet works. That's not how any of it works.
No I don't, but neither does he and neither do you.
That's why I don't make declarations like you. It's Usenet. Individuals
make decisions for themselves on what to do.
N.B. In another response you note you're not an admin (not sure if
you've ever been an admin). I've been an admin for two decades. Perhaps >that explains my different view(s) on this situation.
Congratulations. You still don't outrank me.
It's shocking that with the two decades of experience you claim to have,
you refuse to understand that the control you have is limited to how you administer your own News server. You utterly lack control over any other
part of Usenet and its users.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
[Just addressing some points where it still might make *some* sense:]
[...]
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
Too bad you can not ask anymore to the admins of aioe and alphanet, who
were clearly supporting them (and aioe was the first to cancel the flood >>> of Socratis, first in it.* hierarchy then in fr.* hierarchy). But you
can ask to the admins of birotanews (Pierre Pallier), Nemo (Julien
Arlandis), paganini (Ivo Gandolfo) and pasdenom (St�phane Gr�goire).
You're turning the world upside down, it's not me/us who should ask
these admins, it's you who should have (past tense) asked them and now
this aspect is doubted, you should show some evidence that you've asked
them.
[...]
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it >>>> is.
Apart from the fact that some servers accept cancels and not NoCeMs, that >>> some servers accept NoCeMs and not cancels, and that some servers accept >>> both, what ethical difference do you make between authenticated cancels
and authenticated NoCeMs ?
AFAICT, yours are not "authenticated" cancels, they're cancels.
He's not talking about cancellock. That applies only to authenticating
first- and second-party cancels, Pattern matching in his headers can establish that the cancels being accepted were issued by him.
And about your question: For NoCeMs, the *admin* of the *affected* server
gets to decide whether or not to process them. In your cancel case, you
'decide' for them, which you shouldn't, for the reasons I gave.
Wrong. You keep repeating this. It's still wrong.
No one but a News administrator can decide to honor cancels. The issuer
of the cancel message is not forcing any News administrator to process
it. That's not how Usenet works.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
[Lots deleted.]
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News >>>>> server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being >>>>> issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not >>>>> present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an
objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Sigh! (Obviously speaking for myself, not Spaceship,) Of course I
don't have an objection to NoCeMs (versus these cancels), because then >>>> it's the *admin* of the *affected* server who specifically gives
approval to process these NoCeMs, not some *user* on some *other* server >>>> 'deciding' it *for* him/her.
Huh? How have you taken the News administrator out of the equation? He's >>> the one who has decided to honor cancels.
No, the point is that the admins have *not* made a 'decision'. Their
servers are old servers which by non-configuration accept cancels by
default. So it's not a 'decision', but an out-dated configuration.
Having chosen NOT to change a default setting IS a decision.
Of course Olivier Miakinen et al claim that the affected admins know
about this misconfiguration
When you cannot make an argument to save your life, you start
contradicting yourself. In the earlier paragraph, you told us it was an unchanged default setting and not a misconfiguration.
On 1/19/24 17:31, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
[Lots deleted.]
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News
server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being
issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not
present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an
objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Sigh! (Obviously speaking for myself, not Spaceship,) Of course I
don't have an objection to NoCeMs (versus these cancels), because then
it's the *admin* of the *affected* server who specifically gives
approval to process these NoCeMs, not some *user* on some *other* server
'deciding' it *for* him/her.
To paraphrase: It's "My server, my rules." and - in the context of
this thread - also "My client, my rules.", but it's *NOT* "Your server,
my rules." and the latter is what Olivier et al wants us to approve.
[Lots more deleted.]
A server can agree to the rule that all rogue cancels are processed. That would be "my server, my rules".
However, this rationale only applies when someone is actually
paying attention to the server and making the decision
that it should process cancels.
If a server is unintentionally set to process
cancels and someone sends it cancels, that is abuse.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
[...][...]
As I've yet to see evidence of approval from the admins of the barely >>>administered/no-NoCeMs servers (which are apparently more than two, up
to eight), we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Olivier Miakinen >>>has a valid excuse for his cancels.
All the evidence you need is that the cancels are acted upon at specific >>servers.
Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow >these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
(not just says) otherwise.
[...]
That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users >>>>of the two servers want this.
"it's been stated" by *them*, but more importantly, IMO it's not up to >>>the users of those (more than two) servers that someone cancels *other* >>>people's articles on those servers. That's upto the admins to allow/ >>>approve and we've not heard from *them*.
I guess I don't see the problem in that
there's a choice to use servers that don't acccept cancels, versus these >>>>two specific servers that honor cancels. The user has a clear choice.
Yes, the user has a choice, but exactly that choice has been ignored
by the cancel proponents.
You keep getting this part wrong. The choice is to use a server that >>accepts cancels or one that doesn't.
Same as with the admins. You assume these users made a conscious
choice, but AFAICT, they just don't know any better and just use what
they happen to have.
Their 'argument' is that these servers are
badly managed or/and old (for NoCeMs), 'so' cancels are OK, but when I >>>suggested suggesting better servers or/and better filtering to those >>>'poor' abuse-victims, all I got was deafening silence.
You aren't addressing the users whose lack of kill filing you don't
approve of, hence silence.
What's up with all these uncalled for, unsubstantiated and incorrect
value judgements about me!?
There's absolutely no situation of me not approving of something these
users do (not) do, quite the contrary. I've advised (IIRC Eric M.) to
*help* these users, by better filtering or/and a better server.
That's the gist of what I'm getting for these non-discussions: They >>>don't want to listen, they don't want to change anything, they just want >>>to keep doing what they're doing, but for some strange reason, they do >>>want to get some kind of seal of approval from the (rest of) the >>>audience.
Wow. You're just throwing out the accusations here.
No one asked for your approval. Who would?
Well, I (repeatedly) gave advice, they ignored it and often even
snipped it, but did keep hammering on their very same points and failed
to substantiate their claims of support of the admins.
I have only so much patience for people who don't want to listen to
advice, but keep on hammering on their position. If you don't want to
take someone's advice, just say so (and why) or shut up about it.
[...]
Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two >>>>>>>other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel >>>>>>>articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two >>>>>>>other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.
Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do >>>>>>that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in >>>>>>order to do that.
Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have >>>>>admin approval
No such approval is required. He needs only not to be prevented from >>>>doing so by his own News administrator.
Disagree.
Your disagreement is irrelevant. No one asked for your agreement.
I disagree with *you*. Are you now telling me I can't disagree with
something you say?
As these cancels are knowingly targeted at these servers, he
needs approval of the admins of these servers.
That's not how Usenet works.
Says you. BTW, in an other response you've agreed with my 'it's *NOT*
"Your server, my rules."', which is exactly what this is about.
Again: That he *can* do what he does, doesn't make it *right*.
Your opinion of what is right or wrong is irrelevant. Again, no one
asked for your approval. You have no say.
Get of your high horse will you!? If I've no say, then none of us has
a say, including you and Olivier Miakinen et al.
[...]
Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion. That's not how >>>>Usenet works. That's not how any of it works.
No I don't, but neither does he and neither do you.
That's why I don't make declarations like you. It's Usenet. Individuals >>make decisions for themselves on what to do.
Ah, I see! When you say something quite definite, it's OK, but if I
say something I "make declarations"!?
Yes, individuals make decisions for themselves on what to do. And we,
hence also me, get to say when we think their decisions are bad/unwise
and why.
N.B. In another response you note you're not an admin (not sure if >>>you've ever been an admin). I've been an admin for two decades. Perhaps >>>that explains my different view(s) on this situation.
Congratulations. You still don't outrank me.
Of course I don't. Why would I? It's just to explain why my
perspective might be different.
[More 'Duh!'s deleted.]
It's shocking that with the two decades of experience you claim to have, >>you refuse to understand that the control you have is limited to how you >>administer your own News server. You utterly lack control over any other >>part of Usenet and its users.
Get a clue, will you! In your last sentence, replace 'You' by 'Olivier
Miakinen (et al)' and you might finally see that that's exactly what
they think they *do* have (the right to) said control.
Bottom line: You don't have to agree with your correspondent's
positions, but at least try to understand what they are and don't >misrepresent them.
AFAIC, it's EOD again.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
[Just addressing some points where it still might make *some* sense:]
[...]
So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here >>>(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling >>>articles which some people don't like for some reason.
The reality is that none of these cancels are based on the contents of >>the articles. Some are for spams (sale of THC gummies, of illegal false >>documents, or with a .zip containing a virus), some are for floods
(from identities that post dozens or hundreds of random articles in >>random newsgroups of the hierarchy). All the cancelled articles are not >>only abuses *on* the network but abuses *of* the network.
Spams are mainly cancelled based on the Subject: header, floods mainly >>based on the From: header. Some spams such as those with a .zip virus
are cancelled by the From: header.
Except for floods, probably none of these, with the possible exception
of "spam", are sufficient grounds for cancellation and are just what I >wrote, articles which some people - in this case you - don't like for
some reason.
You are unbelievable. Advertising is off topic in every newsgroup (unless it's specifically on topic like a *.forsale group from individuals but not retailers), and in specific hierarchies or specific newsgroups advertising can be considered to be abusive.
You claim to have been a News administrator for two decades. How are you unaware of this?
As to "spam": If these are just commercial (or non-commercial)
articles, but are not posted in bulk *and* substantively identical, they >are *not* cancellable spam in a Usenet context.
It's cancellable as advertising in newsgroups or entire hierarchies in
which advertising is disallowed. In alt.*, proponents may have declared advertising abusive in the newgroup message itself. In an administered hierarchy, the hiearchy administrator may have declared advertising to
be abused in some or all groups in the hierarchy.
Just saw that fr.* apparently has a relatively low threshold
(Breidbart Index 4 in 30 days:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index#Thresholds>
Dude. That applies to the cancellable spam threshold and not advertising.
N.B. You probably don't want to read what it says directly below
'Thresholds' on that page! :-()
Your other examples of "spam", namely "(sale of THC gummies, of
illegal false documents, or with a .zip containing a virus)" are *not* >valid grounds for cancellation. They're just what you don't like or >consider 'wrong', i.e. your opinion.
Actually, he considers it abuse if advertising is treated as abuse
throughout newsgroups in the fr.* hierarchy.
The only one who constantly insists on dragging irrelevant moral
judgment into this absurd discussion has been you.
Those servers don't block attachments, let alone attachments that are
zip files? They aren't running Cleanfeed? Shudder.
Dear gawd, crap like that absolutely positively must be cancelled in the absense of Cleanfeed. What the hell is wrong with you? Attachments of
any kind MUST NOT be allowed in plain text Usenet, and zipped files are presumed to contain viruses or harmful macros until proven otherwise.
You make the worst arguments I've ever seen.
My advice: Just save your energy and aggravation, stop these cancels
and help the affected users of these servers to help themselves (by
going to a better server or/and use (better) client-side (or/and mental) >filtering).
My advice to you is to stop attempting to control what others are doing
as abuse countermeasures.
Good luck.
[...]
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire >>>>>>> to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other >>>>>>> servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no, >>>>>> absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
creating/sending them.
Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very >>>>> old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken >>> sides in this quarrel.
Nope. I've not taken llp'side. I just object to Olivier's 'reasons'
for issueing cancels. So *if* I've 'taken sides' (there that strange
concept of winning/losing again), then it's 'against' Olivier Miakinen
(et al), not 'for' llp.
The cancels aren't rogue. They're just cancels. You aren't making an
argument by embellishing. In fact, you weaken your argument.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
[Lots deleted.]
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been >>>>criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News >>>>server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being >>>>issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not >>>>present such articles to their users.
I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an >>>>objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.
Sigh! (Obviously speaking for myself, not Spaceship,) Of course I >>>don't have an objection to NoCeMs (versus these cancels), because then >>>it's the *admin* of the *affected* server who specifically gives >>>approval to process these NoCeMs, not some *user* on some *other* server >>>'deciding' it *for* him/her.
Huh? How have you taken the News administrator out of the equation? He's >>the one who has decided to honor cancels.
No, the point is that the admins have *not* made a 'decision'. Their
servers are old servers which by non-configuration accept cancels by >default. So it's not a 'decision', but an out-dated configuration.
Having chosen NOT to change a default setting IS a decision.
In any event, from discussion elsewhere in the thread that you ignored because it contradicts your argument, we were told that one of the News servers processes these cancels without processing other cancels, which
took a bit of configuration to change the setting.
and approve of their cancels, but that's just their word without anything >backing it up.
The cancels were processed by specific News servers. That tells us
everything we need to know.
Their relunctance (read: refusal) to change anything, accept any advice, >(IMO) makes their position suspicious.
Why should anyone take your advice? Who the hell are you? You aren't
even trying to persuade anyone with the rotten arguments you've made.
By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken >>> sides in this quarrel.
By saying this, you've obviously chosen your side too :-)
No, I'm sticking with words and their meaning. It's unnecessary to
modify them with adjectives.
No. What we infer is that user has made a choice to use a specific
server that accepts cancels, and not to use a server that doesn't.
It's called 'censorship' from short-dicked dictator.Are you saying that the articles being canceled were on topic and not disruptive?
Whatever you accuse me of here is irrelevant. I'm not a News
administrator. Even if I were, none of you would have a say in how I administer my News server.
[Many irrelavant things]
No, you don't get to declare a limitation on my options.
[Many irrelevant things]
Why do you or anyone else care what my opinion is? It's irrelevant for
[Many irrelavant things]
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not
present such articles to their users.
[Many irrelevant things]
Say he added those headers. Would you then withdraw your objection to
the fact that he will cancel such articles for the indefinite future?
[Soooo many irrelavant things]
You don't speak for any user. A user of the server that accepts third
Your opinion isn't controlling here.
Adam H. Kerman a formul� ce vendredi :
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
[Just addressing some points where it still might make *some* sense:]
[...]
Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these >>>>>'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?
Too bad you can not ask anymore to the admins of aioe and alphanet, who >>>>were clearly supporting them (and aioe was the first to cancel the flood >>>>of Socratis, first in it.* hierarchy then in fr.* hierarchy). But you >>>>can ask to the admins of birotanews (Pierre Pallier), Nemo (Julien >>>>Arlandis), paganini (Ivo Gandolfo) and pasdenom (St�phane Gr�goire).
You're turning the world upside down, it's not me/us who should ask >>>these admins, it's you who should have (past tense) asked them and now >>>this aspect is doubted, you should show some evidence that you've asked >>>them.
[...]
If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it >>>>>is.
Apart from the fact that some servers accept cancels and not NoCeMs, that >>>>some servers accept NoCeMs and not cancels, and that some servers accept >>>>both, what ethical difference do you make between authenticated cancels >>>>and authenticated NoCeMs ?
AFAICT, yours are not "authenticated" cancels, they're cancels.
He's not talking about cancellock. That applies only to authenticating >>first- and second-party cancels, Pattern matching in his headers can >>establish that the cancels being accepted were issued by him.
Sorry, it is not "authenticated" cancels.
And about your question: For NoCeMs, the *admin* of the *affected* server >>>gets to decide whether or not to process them. In your cancel case, you >>>'decide' for them, which you shouldn't, for the reasons I gave.
Wrong. You keep repeating this. It's still wrong.
No one but a News administrator can decide to honor cancels. The issuer
of the cancel message is not forcing any News administrator to process
it. That's not how Usenet works.
You're making a mistake.
When I created the news.usenet.ovh server, I had to modify the basic >configuration to refuse these imposed cancels.
By the way, before version 2.7, inn2 accepted cancels like Olivier
Miakinen's by default.
Free's server accepts all cancels of this type: before this problem
did not exist and now this server is little administered.
In fact, for Olivier Miakinen, this server is the key to cancellations:
it's probably the main reason why he refuses to make Nocems, because
Free's admins will never accept his nocems.
As I've yet to see evidence of approval from the admins of the barely administered/no-NoCeMs servers (which are apparently more than two, up
to eight), we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Olivier Miakinen
has a valid excuse for his cancels.
AFAICT, not only highly disruptive articles, but also normal articles which they don't like (and there's the infamous accident of canceling thousands of legit articles from one poster). But, because when asked
for details, they talk in vagueries, it's impossible to tell if some
articles were indeed 'highly disruptive' and *what* was 'highly
disruptive' about them.
[Totaly agree with all the rest of your message]
you say is true then it's obvious that Olivier is abusing Usenet, is >unapologetic about it, and does not care what you have to say. Yelling
at a brick wall achieves nothing - the only possible action to take in >response is to get his admin to boot him from his server, or get other
admins to UDP his server. Everything else is a complete waste of time.
Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow >these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
(not just says) otherwise.
[Yes, violating my EOD. I hadn't seen this yet.]
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
[Just addressing some points where it still might make *some* sense:]
[...]
[Just addresing 'new' aspects:]
So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here >>>>>(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling >>>>>articles which some people don't like for some reason.
The reality is that none of these cancels are based on the contents of >>>>the articles. Some are for spams (sale of THC gummies, of illegal false >>>>documents, or with a .zip containing a virus), some are for floods >>>>(from identities that post dozens or hundreds of random articles in >>>>random newsgroups of the hierarchy). All the cancelled articles are not >>>>only abuses *on* the network but abuses *of* the network.
Spams are mainly cancelled based on the Subject: header, floods mainly >>>>based on the From: header. Some spams such as those with a .zip virus >>>>are cancelled by the From: header.
Except for floods, probably none of these, with the possible exception >>>of "spam", are sufficient grounds for cancellation and are just what I >>>wrote, articles which some people - in this case you - don't like for >>>some reason.
You are unbelievable. Advertising is off topic in every newsgroup (unless >>it's specifically on topic like a *.forsale group from individuals but not >>retailers), and in specific hierarchies or specific newsgroups advertising >>can be considered to be abusive.
Wow, you talking about 'abusive', 'abuse', etc., when I was not
allowed to use that term in the thread about (non-)forgery. How things
can change!
Duh! Yes, it can be and often is considered abusive,
but is it (justifiable) *cancellable* by a Joe User?
It it doesn't say so in the charter of the affected group, it's not. Have >Olivier Miakinen et al shown that the charter of the affected groups *do*
say so?
You claim to have been a News administrator for two decades. How are you >>unaware of this?
Please keep your sick snide remarks to yourself.
That you have severe problems with reading for comprehension, doesn't
mean I am unaware of anything.
As to "spam": If these are just commercial (or non-commercial) >>>articles, but are not posted in bulk *and* substantively identical, they >>>are *not* cancellable spam in a Usenet context.
It's cancellable as advertising in newsgroups or entire hierarchies in >>which advertising is disallowed. In alt.*, proponents may have declared >>advertising abusive in the newgroup message itself. In an administered >>hierarchy, the hierarchy administrator may have declared advertising to
be abusive in some or all groups in the hierarchy.
Just saw that fr.* apparently has a relatively low threshold >>>(Breidbart Index 4 in 30 days:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index#Thresholds>
Dude. That applies to the cancellable spam threshold and not advertising.
Duh, dude! Exactly *which* part of "(or non-commercial)" didn't you
understand!? Of course for BI-type spam, the kind of content (commercial
or non-commercial) is irrelevant, hence my "(or non-commercial)".
N.B. You probably don't want to read what it says directly below >>>'Thresholds' on that page! :-()
Your other examples of "spam", namely "(sale of THC gummies, of
illegal false documents, or with a .zip containing a virus)" are *not* >>>valid grounds for cancellation. They're just what you don't like or >>>consider 'wrong', i.e. your opinion.
Actually, he considers it abuse if advertising is treated as abuse >>throughout newsgroups in the fr.* hierarchy.
Yes, he considers it abuse. But exactly where is the "if" clause
proven? All the time, you take their word for it and when I don't
(without some kind of proof), I'm for some reason the bad guy.
The only one who constantly insists on dragging irrelevant moral
judgment into this absurd discussion has been you.
Yes, the discussion is absurd.
But you're not the judge of what is and is not relevant. It's irrelevant
to *you*. Fine. That's your *opinion*. I have mine.
Those servers don't block attachments, let alone attachments that are
zip files? They aren't running Cleanfeed? Shudder.
Dear gawd, crap like that absolutely positively must be cancelled in the >>absense of Cleanfeed. What the hell is wrong with you? Attachments of
any kind MUST NOT be allowed in plain text Usenet, and zipped files are >>presumed to contain viruses or harmful macros until proven otherwise.
Does it need to be cancelled by some Joe User on some *other* server?
Please point me to some reputable source saying so.
You make the worst arguments I've ever seen.
Likewise.
[...]
My advice: Just save your energy and aggravation, stop these cancels >>>and help the affected users of these servers to help themselves (by
going to a better server or/and use (better) client-side (or/and mental) >>>filtering).
My advice to you is to stop attempting to control what others are doing
as abuse countermeasures.
You still don't get it, do you!? I'm not trying to 'control' them.
*They* came here to justify their methods.
I and others advised them of other ways and asked them to provide
evidence of the support (of the admins) they claim to have. They didn't
take advice and they didn't provide evidence, but kept on harping on
their justification.
They are perfectly free to ignore my postings, but if they do respond,
I will say what I think is a better way and will not accept what I think
are invalid arguments.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow >these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
(not just says) otherwise.
Admins have the -right- to mismanage their systems in ways that affect
their users, as long as they don't affect other systems. If a specific
admin chooses to accept cancels, or run systemd, or shut their machine
down at prime times to run backups, that's not something anyone else on
the net has any right to contorl.
Le 19/01/2024 à 09:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote :
By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken >>>>sides in this quarrel.
By saying this, you've obviously chosen your side too :-)
No, I'm sticking with words and their meaning. It's unnecessary to
modify them with adjectives.
It's funny to see you riding your white horse when you're doing the same >thing you accuse Frank of doing.
Who the hell do you think you are to say that someone is taking sides
just by using a single word?
You use *whole paragraphs* that show you've taken sides in this quarrel,
so stop your act.
No. What we infer is that user has made a choice to use a specific
server that accepts cancels, and not to use a server that doesn't.
No. I am talking about the unproperly formatted cancels, that doesn't
respect the conventions established decades ago. *You* want to deviate
the discussion onto something else.
It's called 'censorship' from short-dicked dictator.
Are you saying that the articles being canceled were on topic and not >>disruptive?
Miakinen uses cancels to censor people, not articles that could be
canceled for any good reason.
He cancels on the From header and, in effect, cancels *all* the person's >articles, *including* those that are *perfectly* in charter and that >*respect* ALL good practices.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other >information. This is what miakinen do every single day.
Whatever you accuse me of here is irrelevant. I'm not a News
administrator. Even if I were, none of you would have a say in how I >>administer my News server.
What seems irrelevant to me are the answers given by a person who seems
to have only this one word in his dictionary, who uses it when he has >irrelevant things to say and who only knows how to deflect onto subjects
that aren't the ones we're talking about.
So I will use 'irreleant' too.
It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News >>server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being >>issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not >>present such articles to their users.
I'm not interested in anything you've just said that's irrelevant.
It's so very curious to see you always steer the initial topic towards
others you seem to prefer.
Why should I talk about *Nocem* or criticize them since all I do is
pointing out flagrant errors in Miakinen's *cancels* ?
Dude, what was the point of all that irrelevant paragraph?
[Many irrelevant things]
Say he added those headers. Would you then withdraw your objection to
the fact that he will cancel such articles for the indefinite future?
If miakinen add the Sender header field, remove the nonsense spamcancel >pseudo-site, I will say his cancels are fully following long established >conventions.
Removing or not the cmsg convention is not critical as I already said it
in my first article. It was just a question.
If miakinen stop his censorship, I will stop saying he is a rogue canceler.
It's as simple as that.
[Soooo many irrelavant things]
You don't speak for any user. A user of the server that accepts third
Who the hell do you think you are?
I speak for *myself* as a news.free.fr *user* (unlike you).
Whether you like it or not, I speak for myself and you can't oppose any >limitation to that because *you* *are* *irrelevant* *to* *me*.
Your opinion isn't controlling here.
"No, you don't get to declare a limitation on my options".
These are your own words, so start applying them to yourself before
giving moral lessons to others.
And given the number of enormities already pointed out by Frank and llp
in your comments, I think it would be more reasonable if we left it at
that. Indeed, I don't think you can be of any help to miakinen to
correct his cancels.
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers >>>which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow >>>these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves* >>>(not just says) otherwise.
Admins have the -right- to mismanage their systems in ways that affect >>their users, as long as they don't affect other systems. If a specific >>admin chooses to accept cancels, or run systemd, or shut their machine
down at prime times to run backups, that's not something anyone else on
the net has any right to contorl.
Thanks for your response.
Fully agreed and I'm not disputing that in any way.
I could try to restate (to you) what *is* my point/position/
opinion/<whatever>, but in this 'discussion', I've encountered so much >misunderstandings', misinterpretations, misrepresentations, hypocrisy,
(vile) insults, abuse, etc. that I'm trying to step out, at least as far
as Adam H. Kerman is concerned.
Thanks again for your response.
Spaceship <[email protected]d> wrote:
Le 19/01/2024 à 09:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote :
You don't speak for any user. A user of the server that accepts third
Who the hell do you think you are?
I speak for *myself* as a news.free.fr *user* (unlike you).
Whether you like it or not, I speak for myself and you can't oppose any
limitation to that because *you* *are* *irrelevant* *to* *me*.
Is it not a user's own choice to be a user on a server that accepts cancels instead of a server that does not? Why would anyone be a user on a
server that doesn't meet his needs, given the existence of servers that
do? Such behavior is against interest. Clearly, these users do not
believe that the articles that were canceled were either censored or shouldn't have been canceled. It appears that they didn't want to read
them, given the fact that they use said News server.
I'm avoid giving a moral lesson. I've stated a fact. I don't need to
make a judgment on whether a cancel message has been issued morally. All
I need to observe is that you, a user, have no say in whether another
user issues cancels if the cancels aren't abuse.
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman a formul� ce vendredi :
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Olivier Miakinen <[email protected]> wrote:
Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
[Just addressing some points where it still might make *some* sense:]
AFAICT, yours are not "authenticated" cancels, they're cancels.
He's not talking about cancellock. That applies only to authenticating
first- and second-party cancels, Pattern matching in his headers can
establish that the cancels being accepted were issued by him.
Sorry, it is not "authenticated" cancels.
And about your question: For NoCeMs, the *admin* of the *affected* server >>>> gets to decide whether or not to process them. In your cancel case, you >>>> 'decide' for them, which you shouldn't, for the reasons I gave.Wrong. You keep repeating this. It's still wrong.
No one but a News administrator can decide to honor cancels. The issuer
of the cancel message is not forcing any News administrator to process
it. That's not how Usenet works.
You're making a mistake.
When I created the news.usenet.ovh server, I had to modify the basic
configuration to refuse these imposed cancels.
By the way, before version 2.7, inn2 accepted cancels like Olivier
Miakinen's by default.
Free's server accepts all cancels of this type: before this problem
did not exist and now this server is little administered.
Again: It's a choice. That Usenet has one News server that accepts third-party cancels, an uncommon way to administer a News server, and that 99% or more News servers do not accept all third-party cancels, is not a problem of any kind.
You keep defining the situation as a "problem" that is not a problem.
This server has users. We presume that the server meets its users needs.
If it doesn't, its users will choose to become users on server that do
not accept all third-party cancels.
In fact, for Olivier Miakinen, this server is the key to cancellations:
it's probably the main reason why he refuses to make Nocems, because
Free's admins will never accept his nocems.
I don't agree that his cancels and NoCeMs should be issued for two
different sets of articles. I don't have to agree, though. He's the one issuing them.
You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles
despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
You have been trolling.
That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue
to ignore you in future.
For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[cut]
[cut]
You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally
apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles
despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
You have been trolling.
That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue
to ignore you in future.
For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.
Just 2/3 info for your perusal (sorry but I have the rule to don't feed the troll's, I reply just to you):
- I support and approve Olivier using my server to delete abuse's
involving fr.* because in addition to being a person who has proven
to be reliable,
he also has an excellent history on Usenet.
- The people who complain about this (all the users listed in another
post in this thread, Zorro etc) have a past as abusers on several
servers
- I asked (and obtained) to view the source code written by Olivier.
Even though I am not an expert in the language he chose to write the
bot, I can assure you that he is perfectly capable of doing the job
he was written for,
with an error rate of less than 1%. And the filter's are only on
the abuse (I check daily the log's).
For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
3600 messages from Pierre Aribaut (a year's worth of messages)
perfectly themed and deleted on a whim in one go !!
I have the mids if you want.
Sorry, but that's not the truth.
So you've seen the <un9ljj$16r4$[email protected]> article by
Olivier Miakinen, who has admitted to mistakenly deleting many
On 1/20/24 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
That's ironic, coming from a very persistent high-effort troll.
For the record, the only reason I un-killfiled you is that other people
were replying to your messages and it made threads confusing.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:[...]
Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but
non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically
included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
to include viruses.
On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[cut]
You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
You have been trolling.
That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
[cut]
They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue
to ignore you in future.
For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.
Just 2/3 info for your perusal (sorry but I have the rule to don't feed
the troll's, I reply just to you):
On 21/01/2024 10:56, llp wrote:
3600 messages from Pierre Aribaut (a year's worth of messages)
perfectly themed and deleted on a whim in one go !!
I have the mids if you want.
A little search with Google (and the M-Ids on fuad) was enough to see
that the reason for the cancellation was (not exactly in this order)
spam, failure to comply with the chart, BI, and so on and so forth. If
there is a definition of an abuser, this person is the exact example of it.
Sorry, but that's not the truth.
Oh no? and why do those administrators or the users of the groups
infested by those people think differently? I was there and I saw it,
and I still think the same way. And in any case, you just need to look
at Google's historical memory or the nocem/cancel group to see it.
And just for your information: https://xkcd.com/1357/
So you've seen the <un9ljj$16r4$[email protected]> article by
Olivier Miakinen, who has admitted to mistakenly deleting many
I have no idea if you are a believing Christian, but I want to quote you
a phrase from the Bible, which seems very explanatory to me (even though
I am an atheist): "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
This is just one of the reasons why I support and help Olivier,
transparency and honesty, things that evidently you neither possess nor
are able to apply and/or understand, see the link above.
EOD, HAND.
[Cut]
The word in question, "rogue", was a value judgement.
[Cut]
I'm trying to gage the level of hypocrisy.
[Cut]
Your position makes no sense.
[Cut]
If the bot were reprogrammed for syntax compliance, I'd be very curious
to see if you would then entirely stop objecting to the issuance of
cancels in future, even the ones you've labeled to be censorship.
I don't believe you would, but we'll never know.
[Cut]
I would never offer any such help because I haven't bought into your
argument that the syntax from an FAQ that hasn't been revised in three decades is useful today.
On 21/01/2024 10:56, llp wrote:
3600 messages from Pierre Aribaut (a year's worth of messages)
perfectly themed and deleted on a whim in one go !!
I have the mids if you want.
A little search with Google (and the M-Ids on fuad) was enough to see that the reason for the cancellation was (not exactly in this order) spam, failure to comply with the chart, BI, and so on and so forth. If there is a definition of an abuser, this person is the exact example of it.
Sorry, but that's not the truth.
Oh no? and why do those administrators or the users of the groups
infested by those people think differently?
So you've seen the <un9ljj$16r4$[email protected]> article by
Olivier Miakinen, who has admitted to mistakenly deleting many
I have no idea if you are a believing Christian, but I want to quote you a phrase from the Bible, which seems very explanatory to me (even though I am an atheist): "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
This is just one of the reasons why I support and help Olivier, transparency and honesty, things that evidently you neither possess nor are able to apply and/or understand, see the link above.
What's the percentage that you would apply on his behalf? 1% on topic?
10% on topic? 33% on topic?
If the poster's reputation is some high threshold for abuse among the articles that he posts, I don't see why the canceller has any obligation
to make exceptions for the occassional on-topic article.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but >>non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically >>included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
to include viruses.
Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last
sentence, isn't it!?
It's just another example of your countless misrepresentations.
Whether that's because of not reading for comprehension or malicious
intent is no longer a question. Your vicious, vile insults cleared that
up.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow
these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
(not just says) otherwise.
Admins have the -right- to mismanage their systems in ways that affect
their users, as long as they don't affect other systems. If a specific
admin chooses to accept cancels, or run systemd, or shut their machine
down at prime times to run backups, that's not something anyone else on
the net has any right to contorl.
--scott
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:[...]
Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but
non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically
included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
to include viruses.
Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last sentence, isn't it!?
It's just another example of your countless misrepresentations.
Whether that's because of not reading for comprehension or malicious intent is no longer a question. Your vicious, vile insults cleared that
up.
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but >>non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically >>included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely >>to include viruses.
Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last
sentence, isn't it!?
That's actually your position, so don't lie about it.
On 1/21/24 14:29, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
[...]
Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but >>>non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically >>>included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely >>>to include viruses.
Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last >>sentence, isn't it!?
It's just another example of your countless misrepresentations.
Whether that's because of not reading for comprehension or malicious >>intent is no longer a question. Your vicious, vile insults cleared that
up.
Just killfile him.
Ivo Gandolfo <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[cut]
You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally >>>apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles >>>despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
You have been trolling.
That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
[cut]
They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue >>>to ignore you in future.
For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.
It would be nice if you'd commented on what I *actually* wrote,
instead of Adam H. Kerman's misrepresentations/straw men. But
considering your next paragraph, there's probably little chance of that.
Just 2/3 info for your perusal (sorry but I have the rule to don't feed
the troll's, I reply just to you):
[...]
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow >>> these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
(not just says) otherwise.
Admins have the -right- to mismanage their systems in ways that affect
their users, as long as they don't affect other systems. If a specific
admin chooses to accept cancels, or run systemd, or shut their machine
down at prime times to run backups, that's not something anyone else on
the net has any right to contorl.
Then I take it you'll have no issue if I peer a server that cancels
every message it receives?
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Ivo Gandolfo <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[cut]
You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally >>>> apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles
despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
You have been trolling.
That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
[cut]
They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue >>>> to ignore you in future.
For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.
It would be nice if you'd commented on what I *actually* wrote,
instead of Adam H. Kerman's misrepresentations/straw men. But
considering your next paragraph, there's probably little chance of that.
Your advice is dangerous and MUST NOT be followed. You took the issuer
of cancels to task for targeting articles with attached zipped archives
that are highly likely to contain viruses.
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but >>>>non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically >>>>included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely >>>>to include viruses.
Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last >>>sentence, isn't it!?
That's actually your position, so don't lie about it.
Nope, that's not my position, but *your* misrepresentation/straw man.
If it *were* my position, you would/should have quoted chapter and
verse, but you didn't, because you can't. So the one lying here is,
again, you.
[Repeat of over-the-top insult showing you have no argument.]
Adam H. Kerman:
Frank Slootweg <[email protected]d> wrote:
Ivo Gandolfo <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[cut]
You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally >>>>>apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful. >>>>>That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles >>>>>despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
You have been trolling.
That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
[cut]
They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue >>>>>to ignore you in future.
For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.
It would be nice if you'd commented on what I *actually* wrote,
instead of Adam H. Kerman's misrepresentations/straw men. But
considering your next paragraph, there's probably little chance of that.
Your advice is dangerous and MUST NOT be followed. You took the issuer
of cancels to task for targeting articles with attached zipped archives >>that are highly likely to contain viruses.
Be serious. He never said that.
If Olivier Miakinen only deleted this, there'd be no problem.
But it has deleted thousands of legitimate articles perfectly
themed to the groups posted.
Be helpful: instead, ask the facetious canceller to stop his abusive
cancels of people he don't like. The cancellation of real spam has
never been an issue on the French hierarchy.
Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <[email protected]>
It's actually your position. Don't lie about it.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
[addressing the canceller]
Your other examples of "spam", namely "(sale of THC gummies,
of illegal false documents, or with a .zip containing a virus)"
are *not* valid grounds for cancellation. They're just what you
don't like or consider 'wrong', i.e. your opinion.
This quote doesn't seem correct. It was actually Olivier Miakinen who >mentioned "spam with a .zip" and the wording was wrong, anyway. Those posts did
not contain any attachments at all, they contained URLs pointing to .zip >files that supposedly contained virusses.
O.M.'s cancel notices are
misleading in this case:
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| From: miakibot <[email protected]>
| Subject: cmsg cancel <[email protected]>
| Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:28:21 +0100
| Followup-To: poster
| Newsgroups: fr.rec.radio
|
| Spam attack with virus download (byfrom)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
\________________________________________________________________________________
See original content at http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=170589770300
So your raging indignation is completely uncalled for;
Your advice is DANGEROUS, not just unsolicited. NO ONE should listen to >>you. You've proven yourself to be a fuckhead, and now, a lying fuckhead.
This was the very thing you stated on how very illegitimate your
position was, that you are telling the canceller that articles with >>attachments that are zip archives that are highly likely to contain
viruses are not legitimate targets for cancellation.
Your advice is dangerous. No one should listen to you.
You, sir, have proven yourself to be a fuckhead and a liar.
I intend to continue calling you out on your dangerous advice unless and >>until you cease offering it.
Ex falso quodlibet.
It's actually your position. Don't lie about it.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
[addressing the canceller]
Your other examples of "spam", namely "(sale of THC gummies,
of illegal false documents, or with a .zip containing a virus)"
are *not* valid grounds for cancellation. They're just what you
don't like or consider 'wrong', i.e. your opinion.
Your advice is DANGEROUS, not just unsolicited. NO ONE should listen to
you. You've proven yourself to be a fuckhead, and now, a lying fuckhead.
This was the very thing you stated on how very illegitimate your
position was, that you are telling the canceller that articles with attachments that are zip archives that are highly likely to contain
viruses are not legitimate targets for cancellation.
Your advice is dangerous. No one should listen to you.
You, sir, have proven yourself to be a fuckhead and a liar.
I intend to continue calling you out on your dangerous advice unless and until you cease offering it.
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
If Olivier Miakinen only deleted this, there'd be no problem.
Even you consider such articles to be abuse.
I'm telling you that Frank Slootweg is trolling here and not your ally.
But it has deleted thousands of legitimate articles perfectly
themed to the groups posted.
Be helpful: instead, ask the facetious canceller to stop his abusive
cancels of people he don't like. The cancellation of real spam has
never been an issue on the French hierarchy.
Frank Slootweg's criticism of Olivier Miakinen in this instance was
that it didn't meet the threshold to be cancellable spam in Tim
Skirvin's FAQ. He would not address whether the articles were abuse.
You looked it up; Frank Slootweg didn't.
You, sir, have proven yourself to be a fuckhead and a liar.
Adam H. Kerman :
llp <[email protected]> wrote:
If Olivier Miakinen only deleted this, there'd be no problem.
Even you consider such articles to be abuse.
Like all responsible newsmasters, I can usually recognize spam.
I think the tens of thousands of nocems issued attest to this ;-)
I'm telling you that Frank Slootweg is trolling here and not your ally.
Don't be like the many trolls I know who stick on personnal squarrel
and forget the root of the problem: it's not Frank, nor You, nor me.
It's the will of one man (Olivier) to impose his vision of flood
or spam on free.fr users through cyber cancels.
But it has deleted thousands of legitimate articles perfectly
themed to the groups posted.
Be helpful: instead, ask the facetious canceller to stop his abusive >>>cancels of people he don't like. The cancellation of real spam has
never been an issue on the French hierarchy.
+1 to Ivo. Thanks for the services you provide.
On 1/27/24 12:32, Chez wrote:
+1 to Ivo. Thanks for the services you provide.
Does this include the thousands of cancellations of a legitimate user?
On 27 Jan 2024, immibis <[email protected]> posted some news:up320i$3da25$[email protected]:
On 1/27/24 12:32, Chez wrote:
+1 to Ivo. Thanks for the services you provide.
Does this include the thousands of cancellations of a legitimate user?
We can thank Ray for that. Ivo is using his filtering.
Let's see if this post gets through. Someone is blocking dizum posts
in certain groups now.
London Eye vient de nous annoncer :
27 Jan 2024, immibis <[email protected]> posted:
On 1/27/24 12:32, Chez wrote:
+1 to Ivo. Thanks for the services you provide.
Does this include the thousands of cancellations of a legitimate user?
We can thank Ray for that. Ivo is using his filtering.
Ivo use also Miakibot cyber-cancel from Olivier Miakinen.
It's this robot that knowingly cancels legitimate messages and who,
in the past, deleted 3600 messages at once (a year's worth of
messages).
Ray fights spam effectively but without resorting to censorship
like the robot used by Ivo's server.
Let's see if this post gets through. Someone is blocking dizum posts
in certain groups now.
Your message is on the various servers I have consulted.
Ivo use also Miakibot cyber-cancel from Olivier Miakinen.
It's this robot that knowingly cancels legitimate messages and who,
in the past, deleted 3600 messages at once (a year's worth of
messages).
Ray fights spam effectively but without resorting to censorship
like the robot used by Ivo's server.
+1 to Ivo. Thanks for the services you provide.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:55:49 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,203 |
