New IRC Network forming
Karl Denninger
There is a new IRC network forming -- here's the constitution, if any of the
users and operators of servers here would like to join in.
*****************************************************************
* *
* Constitutional Document for CIRC *
* Commercial IRC Network Operators *
* November 5, 1995 *
* *
*****************************************************************
DRAFT NOTICE: The following is a draft copy of the Consitution for the
CIRC Network. This document is subject to amendment by the
procedures outlined herein.
Preamble: Recognizing that Internet users desire a place to hold
conversations in and among themselves without interferance;
that the existing EFNet structure of power is unsuitable to
that task and has demonstrated itself to be arbitrary and
capricious, and finally that site administrators are
soverign over their own infrastructure and components,
we band together as ISPs and other system administrators
to provide a better and easier-to-use IRC Network.
Article I: Purpose
CIRC is a network of commercial-AUP IRC servers interconnected for
the purpose of providing interactive keyboard-based chat for the
general public on the Internet.
Article II: Governance and holding of office
A: CIRC shall be governed by a Constitutional document, as amended
from time to time.
B: The server administrator(s) (declared by the "A" line) shall be
the governing authority for a given site. Operators shall have
no power of vote by virtue of their operator status.
C: Each legal entity operating server(s) shall be entitled to one
vote. (IE: If MCSNet operates three servers, it is entitled to
one vote on the governing committee). The voting member shall be
selected by the legal entity (company, etc) from those listed in
the "A" line. That person shall be identified clearly in the "A"
lines of the server.
D: Each voting person shall be reachable by electronic mail on the
Internet.
E: A site may name a "proxy", who shall be an operator of the site
in question, to vote in the absence of the names server
administrator.
F: There shall be no "officers" of this association, as its purpose
is the preservation of this constitution and an effective medium
for communications on CIRC.
Article III: AUP
A: CIRC shall have an AUP for use of the Commercial IRC Network,
which shall include sanctions for violations.
B: The following are prohibited on CIRC at all times:
1. War, clone, or flood bots.
2. Any bot which operates on more than one channel or
coordinates more than one instantiation of itself (as
defined by "connections" and "nicks") at a given time.
3. Any bot running with operator privileges (with the
exception of the enforcement-bot defined below.)
4. Riding netsplits and other natural and unnatural server
activity with the purpose of disrupting operation of a
channel, removing existing channel operators, or becoming
a channel operator.
5. Actively causing disruptions (netsplits, server quits,
etc) to the user base of the CIRC network.
C: The following server operator actions are prohibited:
1. Use of /kill on a remote server for other than purely
technical reasons. (Ie: a client program which has gone
insane, is sending tens of kilobytes to a channel, and
the user cannot be otherwise contacted quickly is a
technical reason for a /kill).
2. Use of /squit without the consent of the server
ADMINISTRATOR being /squit.
3. Juping a server for other than purely technical reasons
(ie: a server which is being actively NUKEd and is not
patched to prevent this from being effective). Any Jupe
placed for technical reasons must be announced
immediately to "circ-op...@mcs.net" (the CIRC
operators mailing list) along with the reason and
conditions for removal.
4. Intentional disruption of channels or servers, or
exploiting accidental disruptions in any fashion.
D: No server may run code which (1) permits any person abilities of
data inspection which are not granted to a user of ordinary
permission on any other server, (2) is hacked to hide or
obfuscate the identities of users of the network, (3) does not
log and use identd returns, and (4) otherwise is "hacked" in
violation of community standards as defined by the Jurists
currently sitting.
E: All servers shall have this Constitution, as amended from time
to time, referenced to in HTTP or FTP format. Pointing to the
canonical source at http://www.circ.net constitutes sufficient
notice to users of each server.
Article IV: Complience
The following set out minimum complience measures that are agreed to
be undertaken by the administrative community on CIRC. Nothing
in this section shall prohibit stronger enforcement actions than
called for here by any individual server administrator for their
local server.
A: For the purpose of enforcement, a "user" is a person without
ANY "O" lines on any server. An "operator" is a person who
has "O" or "o" lines on any CIRC server, regardless of whether
or not privileges are being used at the point in time under
consideration.
B: Allegation of violations by a user of Articles III-B2, B3, and
B4 shall be deemed "misdemeanor" violations when proven.
1. A user violating these terms shall be warned *once* by an
operator via email (with copies to circ-op...@mcs.net)
and pointed to the Constitution.
2. Second violations shall cause the user to be "Klined" at the
originating server for a period of the server operator's
choosing, but not less than 24 hours.
3. A third violation shall cause the user to be entered in the
"kill bot" cache for a period of 7 days.
4. Subsequent violations shall double the disabled period for
each subsequent violation.
C: Allegations of all other violations, and any violation of the AUP
by an operator, shall be deemed "felony" violations when proven.
1. Any user violating Articles III-B1 or B5 shall be placed
on the "kill bot" cache for 48 hours.
2. Subsequent offenses will double the time quarrantined for
each offense (4 days, then 8 days, etc).
3. Any *operator* violating any of Articles III-C shall have
the penalty applied to their operator privileges by the server
administration, with the exception that after three offenses
the Operator shall be permanently removed.
D: Should any server administrator refuse to comply at a minimum level
with these enforcement measures their server shall be removed.
E: Any server refusing to delink a server for violation of IV-D
shall itself be removed or permanently juped.
Article V: Adjudication
A: Each server administrator shall be elegible for random lottery
to serve on a tribunal to adjudicate disputes and judge evidence
of procedings brought under Articles III and IV. This shall be
known as the "CIRC Jury".
B: The term of jury service shall be one month.
C: The jurists shall be maintained on a list at "circ...@mcs.net".
Disputes shall be submitted to "circ-d...@mcs.net", which
shall reflect to the server operator list and the jury list.
D: The names and network addresses of the current jurists shall be
retrievable from majordomo at the mailing list processing site at
all times.
E: Conviction for violations under Articles III and IV shall be by
vote of all jurists; all responding jurists shall be required to
agree for conviction. Convictions for offenses shall be public
knowledge and be posted during the term of the sentence as
defined above.
F: All judgements by the jurists are final.
G: All server admins must have "jury duty" in a given round before
any admin may sit twice, with the same holding true for each
subsequent round of jury service.
H: The number of jurists shall number 7 once there are at least
seven servers linked. Until that time the number of jurists shall
equal the number of administrators, and no lottery is necessary.
I: The jurists are allowed to request evidence sufficient to draw
conclusions about the charge(s) being made.
Article VI: Linkage policy
It is the general policy of CIRC to link servers where the
following conditions exist:
A: There is a significant existing or projected user base for the
server which is to be linked.
B: The server is able to technically support the userbase and load
intended to exist, and sufficient bandwidth exists between it and
its uplinks to permit stable and efficient operation.
C: The server admins are willing to abide by the Constitution for
CIRC as amended from time to time.
D: The server is connected by at least a T1 connection to the
Internet.
E: Hubbing and other linkage disputes may be submitted to the
sitting jurists - unanamous consent is required for a dispute
to be resolved by these jurists.
F: All servers linked to CIRC shall be maintained in a file
retrievable from the circ-operators mailing list. These entires
shall name the legal entity responsible for the operation of the
server, email contact for requests and inquiries, physical
location and address, and telephone number for the NOC (network
operations center) responsible for the physical machine on which
the server operates.
Article VII: Amendment of Constitution
This Constitutional document may be amended by vote of the
administrators of the servers connected to CIRC as follows:
A: The proposed amendment must be submitted to
"circ-op...@mcs.net" and clearly noted as a Constitutional
Amendment.
B: At least one calendar week of discussion shall take place.
C: An Administrator vote shall then be taken. The requirements for
passage of amendments are as follows:
1. Until CIRC reaches 20 servers operating: 100% assent.
2. From 20 - 50 servers operating: 90% assent.
3. 50+ servers operating: 75% assent.
D: The number of ballots "outstanding" which must be cast in assent
for a Constitutional change shall be determined from the total
number of servers defined as linked to CIRC (as in Article VI-F).
Signatories: Server Administrators in Complience
We, the undersigned, pledge to uphold this Constitution and abide its terms
during the period we are CIRC members and operate servers on this IRC
Network.
Signed Email Address Server:port
Karl S. Denninger ka...@mcs.net irc.mcs.net:3333
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1] | 7 Chicagoland POPs, ISDN, 28.8, much more
Fax: [+1 312 248-9865] | Email to "in...@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net
ISDN - Get it here TODAY! | Home of Chicago's *Three STAR A* Clarinet feed!
Chuck Ross
>Signatories: Server Administrators in Complience
>
>We, the undersigned, pledge to uphold this Constitution and abide its terms
>during the period we are CIRC members and operate servers on this IRC
>Network.
>
>
>Signed Email Address Server:port
>Karl S. Denninger ka...@mcs.net irc.mcs.net:3333
>
>
>--
Ya spelled "compliance" wrong, three times....
==============================================================
Chuck Ross
ckr...@wwa.com Ham Radio: KC9FL
Bunch O' Links page - http://sashimi.wwa.com/~ckross/home.html
Shangri-La Enterprises, South Holland, IL
==============================================================
reTz
>>
>>Signatories: Server Administrators in Complience
>>
>>We, the undersigned, pledge to uphold this Constitution and abide its terms
>>during the period we are CIRC members and operate servers on this IRC
>>Network.
>>
>>
>>Signed Email Address Server:port
>>Karl S. Denninger ka...@mcs.net irc.mcs.net:3333
>>
>>
>>--
>Ya spelled "compliance" wrong, three times....
Well, "ya" isn't in the dictionary either, Mr. Webster.
Chuck Ross
>ckr...@wwa.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Signatories: Server Administrators in Complience
>>>
>>>We, the undersigned, pledge to uphold this Constitution and abide its terms
>>>during the period we are CIRC members and operate servers on this IRC
>>>Network.
>>>
>>>
>>>Signed Email Address Server:port
>>>Karl S. Denninger ka...@mcs.net irc.mcs.net:3333
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>
>>Ya spelled "compliance" wrong, three times....
>
>Well, "ya" isn't in the dictionary either, Mr. Webster.
I was tryin' ta sound like John Wayne, putz...
Chuck Ross
>ckr...@wwa.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>
>>In article <47j9pt$b...@News1.mcs.net>, retz...@mcs.com (reTz) wrote:
>
>>>ckr...@wwa.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Signatories: Server Administrators in Complience
>>>>>
>>>>>We, the undersigned, pledge to uphold this Constitution and abide its terms
>>>>>during the period we are CIRC members and operate servers on this IRC
>>>>>Network.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Signed Email Address Server:port
>>>>>Karl S. Denninger ka...@mcs.net irc.mcs.net:3333
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>
>>>>Ya spelled "compliance" wrong, three times....
>>>
>>>Well, "ya" isn't in the dictionary either, Mr. Webster.
>
>>I was tryin' ta sound like John Wayne, putz...
>
>It didn't work. (And "putz" is very un-John Wayne.)
>Of course, maybe Karl was trying to sound like John Wayne too. It didn't
>work for him either.
Wal, then...how about "I was tryin' ta sound like John Wayne, ya varmint..."
Actually, I thought perhaps "complience" might be one of those "net" words
than Karl is so fond of tossing about, like "bot" and a few others that
caused my brows to furrow. Who knows, maybe it is.
Karl sounds more like Der Fuehrer.
reTz
>In article <47j9pt$b...@News1.mcs.net>, retz...@mcs.com (reTz) wrote:
>>ckr...@wwa.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Signatories: Server Administrators in Complience
>>>>
>>>>We, the undersigned, pledge to uphold this Constitution and abide its terms
>>>>during the period we are CIRC members and operate servers on this IRC
>>>>Network.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Signed Email Address Server:port
>>>>Karl S. Denninger ka...@mcs.net irc.mcs.net:3333
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>
Lucid Nightmare
your CIRC bullshit except maybe your gay operator buddies so
you can go ahead and set it up and go hang out in #gaychat with
your butt-pirate homies.
ONCE UPON THE CROSS!!!!!!
Karl Denninger
William Knowles <prin...@explicit.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Signatories: Server Administrators in Complience
>>>
>>>We, the undersigned, pledge to uphold this Constitution and abide its terms
>>>during the period we are CIRC members and operate servers on this IRC
>>>Network.
>>>
>>>
>>>Signed Email Address Server:port
>>>Karl S. Denninger ka...@mcs.net irc.mcs.net:3333
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>
>
>William Knowles
>prin...@explicit.com
>prin...@wwa.com
Sure, why not? As long as the net complies with the AUP, its welcome.
Given that we share a MAE interlink, having both WWA and MCS hub for this
might prove quite interesting (and powerful).
I'm assuming WWA has the hardware to dedicate to the task -- but can't speak
for them. Take it up with Dave.....
Dennis Metcalfe
Well isn't this just precious!?
Karl makes valuable contributions to the communications
revolution and Chicago's place within it.
This mindless drivel only confirms your intelligence.
Do you ever look in the mirror?
Dennis Metcalfe
Karl Denninger
Darrell Moore <dmo...@swellmedia.com> wrote:
>I guess its time for a little Rodney King:
>
> PEOPLE, CAN'T WE JUST GET ALONG?
>
>Karl drops this big new idea on our heads and because it looks and
>sounds more like a lawyers eviction notice than a run of the mill
>post, everyone goes squirrely. Whether its John Wayne imitations
>or gay nazi rants, they're irrelevant. Karl did what he was supposed
>to do: he had a proposal and he drafted a constitution. Other
>sysops can worry about the wording of the constitution. We're
>supposed to talk about the existing IRC network and whether we want
>to support this new one.
>
>Personally, I'm not real fond of IRC but maybe its just been the
>haphazard implementation. I've always liked the idea of chat groups
>but never any groups themselves. Whether they're run by BBS's, AOL,
>CompuServe, or IRC yugs, they never seem to be truly open.
>
>Let's talk about this like good little netheads....
I think that's the point.
EFNet, the "largest" IRC network out there today, is badly broken in that
a very few hold power over the rest of the admins and users.
Further, there is NO policy net-wide that prohibits abusive and outrageous
actions, including taking over channels, knocking servers down for malicious
purpose, or other kinds of abuse -- not the least of which is software
piracy via /dcc and other related means.
This is a serious problem for those who want to use IRC for what it is
intended for -- to *talk to people*.
Since EFNet has no interest in fixing these problems, as demonstrated by
their gamesmanship lately on the operlist, I put this proposal together to
start up a parallel IRC network which is operated for the *expressed*
purpose of giving people a place to chat with reasonable security and
stability.
The details of the Constitution I posted are, of course, subject to change
by the participating admins -- there is a very democratic process embedded
in that Constitution for making changes and revisions over time as they
become necessary.
If you run an ISP or other site in Chicagoland, or for that matter, anywhere
that gets this message, please look at http://www.mcs.net/newirc.html, and
forward comments either to me or post 'em here.
movable articles
: In article <47j9pt$b...@News1.mcs.net>, retz...@mcs.com (reTz) wrote:
: >ckr...@wwa.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
: >>Ya spelled "compliance" wrong, three times....
: >Well, "ya" isn't in the dictionary either, Mr. Webster.
: I was tryin' ta sound like John Wayne, putz...
It just doesn't seem to capture the essence of the man's speech.
Perhaps if you substituted Pilgrim for putz...
David
Chuck Ross
wrote:
>In article <ckross-0511...@schi1-010.wwa.com>,
>Chuck Ross <ckr...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>I was tryin' ta sound like John Wayne, putz...
>
>Actually, it was "John Wayne, actor". "Chuck Ross, putz" works though.
>
>Michael
>
>--
> Michael L. Kaufman | Everything should be made as simple as possible,
> kau...@mcs.com | but not simpler.
> http://www.mcs.net/~kaufman | Albert Einstein
Hilariously funny, Michael! (yawn)...
Chuck (at least I do have a sense of humor) Ross
Joseph B. Dunphy
: Well LUCE,,,
: I'm no fan of Karl and his policies and how he treates his customers, BUT
I am. Karl gets a lot of extremely unfair press.
The technical problems that I've encountered have been livable.
I've found, when targeted by mailbombers, and other trolls, that
I've gotten support from MCS that was lacking elsewhere. This
gives its' customers a freedom of expression lacking for those
subscribing with other providers. Like Suba, for example.
Really, people, like no other local provider has been having
Tech problems. Please. Memories seem to be getting a little
selective around here, though.
Joseph B. Dunphy
Satisfied Customer
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Hi. Please don't send any e-mail, because my filter is set to erase
almost all incoming mail, so I probably wouldn't ever see your
letter. This extreme step has been made necessary by persistant
e-mail harassment.
___________________________________________________________________________
Chuck Ross
wrote:
>William Knowles (prin...@explicit.com) wrote:
>
>: Gee, Karl can we at WWA play with THIS IRC network?
>
>I think you have to be in "Complience" -- which, I think is next to Bucktown.
>
> -Mike
>
"Complience" is a Karl word....it means, "You vil obey!!!"
Chuck Ross
With your attitude about Karl, it's no wonder you get harrassed...
Joseph B. Dunphy
: In article <47m8la$f...@Venus.mcs.com>, st...@MCS.COM (Joseph B. Dunphy) wrote:
: > Joseph B. Dunphy
: >
: > Satisfied Customer
: >--
: >___________________________________________________________________________
: >
: > Hi. Please don't send any e-mail, because my filter is set to erase
: > almost all incoming mail, so I probably wouldn't ever see your
: > letter. This extreme step has been made necessary by persistant
: > e-mail harassment.
: With your attitude about Karl, it's no wonder you get harrassed...
Really, Chuck ? Because I openly disagree with your
point of view, it's perfectly reasonable that I should be
harassed ? And to think, people are calling Karl a fascist.
You are one impressive moron. Welcome to my killfile.
Joe Dunphy
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Hi. Please don't send any e-mail, because my filter is set to erase
almost all incoming mail, so I probably wouldn't ever see your
letter. This extreme step has been made necessary by persistant
e-mail harassment.
___________________________________________________________________________
Chuck Ross
>Chuck Ross (ckr...@wwa.com) wrote:
>: In article <47m8la$f...@Venus.mcs.com>, st...@MCS.COM (Joseph B. Dunphy)
wrote:
>
>: > Joseph B. Dunphy
>: >
>: > Satisfied Customer
>: >--
>: >___________________________________________________________________________
>: >
>: > Hi. Please don't send any e-mail, because my filter is set to erase
>: > almost all incoming mail, so I probably wouldn't ever see your
>: > letter. This extreme step has been made necessary by persistant
>: > e-mail harassment.
>
>
>: With your attitude about Karl, it's no wonder you get harrassed...
>
>
> Really, Chuck ? Because I openly disagree with your
> point of view, it's perfectly reasonable that I should be
> harassed ? And to think, people are calling Karl a fascist.
>
> You are one impressive moron. Welcome to my killfile.
I didn't call you a moron, but with your tendency to flame people from
a distance, it's no wonder your kill file is huge. Look in the mirror.
It's a pleasure being in your kill file. Thank you.
>
> Joe Dunphy
Karl Denninger
>
>I think you have an interesting proposal, but I find myself concerned about
>the implementation. For example, to prevent software piracy via dcc (a good
>idea since software piracy is illegal), how would that happen? No dcc
>available or monitoring of dcc transactions? The former might be acceptable,
>the latter frightening.
Well, first, looking at /DCC connections is pretty near impossible (they ARE
client <> client, with no server involved).
However, if you're sitting in a channel, say, "#warez", and advertising
ports to /dcc to to grab files...
Part of the problem today with EFNet is that *blatent* lawlessness is at
least tacitly tolerated.
Joseph B. Dunphy
garbage ? It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and
I don't see what the harm done to you was. I saw nothing terribly
personal about what Karl is alleged to have looked at.
Please, lighten up.
______________________________________________________________________________
Bob Zimmerman (bob...@metaworld.com) wrote:
: Karl Denninger wrote:
: >>That he went cruising through my home
: >>directory with no provocation to do so, looking through my personal files. (oh
: >>wait - let me hear that now I am considered a hacker and threat to MCS :)
: >Oh really?
: >I was forwarded a piece of email from you to another person which had that
: >.sig on it. I believed the sig was forged. AS A NORMAL USER I then catted
: >the file ~bobzim/sig (which is where I keep MY signature), and there it was.
: Put simply, the day you posted this publicly, I checked my directory and the
: chmod was 711 ... Also the file itself had NO permissions for groups or
: users... just owner... Hmmm... I checked specifically to see if you were
: abusing your rights, which you did.
: >Those who have global read permission on their files and permit normal
: >users access cannot bitch if a normal user looks at the contents. You
: >*DID* deliberately make the file publically readable -- our system
: >default for your home directory is mode 700, or NO access to other
: >than you.
: Although since normal users couldn't view that particular file if it had NO
: permissions to other then myself... that makes your arguement moot/mute (deaf
: humor - sorry).
: I can offer you the benfit of the doubt, that you didn't realize you have
: "read everyone access" regardless of their permissions... but that file had NO
: access on it for anyone ... I SPECIFICALLY checked after your public
: posting...
: >Oh, I saved both the directory listings AND the file contents that day,
: >figuring that you would accuse me of "spying" -- here they are:
: >-rw-r--r-- 1 bobzim inet 279 Jul 9 16:37 /user3/contrib/bobzim/sig
: Actually you outdid yourself on this one. I always thought that your rantings
: weren't made of malice... rather then just your style.. But since I indeed did
: check the file, and did see rw----- that would make your comments truly a flat
: out falsification. Considering you charged me for someone elses account
: without authorization, we are seeing a trend ... One day you have a form, the
: next not... I was told my account was credited when it wasn't...
: Sorry Karl, as an owner of a system and a sysadm.. regardless of my chmod
: auhorizations (which they didn't match the above)... you are held to a hirer
: ethic... You would like the rules to go only one way... But the fact is that
: you did breach something. They don't ... You did something as a sysadm you
: might do, but should never publicize...
: Because even if you are correct, (which you are not in this case), then what
: you are saying is that while you are looking at your customers directories, if
: you do find someone with the wrong permissions, that gives you the "open door"
: to do what you want... Very ethical... (and you challenged my integrity?)
: >Care to dispute this? We probably have 10 copies on backup tapes in the
: >bank vault over the last few months (back to the mod date on that file of
: >July 9!) even though you erased the evidence after I called you publically
: >on this.
: Unfortunately, if you would outright lie about this here now, and of course
: there is nothing that could show this one way or the other (how intelligent of
: you), there is nothing to keep you from falsifying other data as well. It
: really is too bad you couldn't have handled this whole thing a bit more
: professionaly.
: But I know, maybe after you found it with rw-r-r... you changed it for me...
: and that is why I found it as rw-----
: But as for your 'Nuff said, as it has nothing to do with IRC.... I didn't say
: it did... I was replying to someone saying that MCS shouldn't be nailed for
: it's "mess-ups"...
: My point is that other companies, ISP, Vendors, Sears etc... don't have a
: President that goes around asking their customers to appologize (regardless of
: right or wrong)... and unfortunately, you have been wrong (in my billing case
: and others) and have NEVER appologized to a customer openly as you have asked
: them to do... What on earth do you think when you ask your customers to
: publicly appologize to you? (business wise - what benefit could this be to
: MCS? or Karl?)
: Could anyone decide for MCS to handle their company/coporate business knowing
: that this attitude could come back to "their" co-workers or boss ... if the
: boss says something to set you off?
: That isn't smart business. (God, I hope you don't think it is)...
: If someone needs to decide on an ISP for their company... they have to
: determine the best value for their company. If working with MCS introduces
: the exposure that you bring (openly), that can't benefit them or you...
: -----
: Bob Zimmerman ~ bob...@metaworld.com ~ http://sashimi.wwa.com/~bobzim/
: Ask me about Grep For Windows, or get it from my WWW page
:
: MetaWorld ~ PO Box 261 ~ Grayslake, IL 60030
: in...@metaworld.com ~ http://www.metaworld.com ~ (708) 223-6753
: Internet Consulting, Training and Support
: World Wide Web Design and Consulting
--
___________________________________________________________________________
Hi. Please don't send any e-mail, because my filter is set to erase
almost all incoming mail, so I probably wouldn't ever see your
letter. This extreme step has been made necessary by persistant
e-mail harassment.
___________________________________________________________________________
Bob Zimmerman
>
> The technical problems that I've encountered have been livable.
> I've found, when targeted by mailbombers, and other trolls, that
> I've gotten support from MCS that was lacking elsewhere. This
> gives its' customers a freedom of expression lacking for those
> subscribing with other providers. Like Suba, for example.
>
> Really, people, like no other local provider has been having
> Tech problems. Please. Memories seem to be getting a little
> selective around here, though.
>
Indeed, other providers do have their problems, but they don't handle them
with the same tact that Karl does (or doesn't) have ;)... I think it's great
that Karl is starting an initiative for the new IRC... It even sounds great
that the write provides for a true democracy.
BUT, the only memory loss I would have is that he didn't put through my
credits when he said he would. That he went cruising through my home
directory with no provocation to do so, looking through my personal files. (oh
wait - let me hear that now I am considered a hacker and threat to MCS :)
Even with the problem areas other providers have, they handle it differently
then MCS.
I hope that the IRC intent doesn't get lost in the other politics that Karl
tends to bring with him. This idea (IMHO) is a good one. I applaud him for
starting it.
Bob Zimmerman
>>That he went cruising through my home
>>directory with no provocation to do so, looking through my personal files. (oh
>>wait - let me hear that now I am considered a hacker and threat to MCS :)
>Oh really?
Jim
>In article <309E53...@swellmedia.com>,
>Darrell Moore <dmo...@swellmedia.com> wrote:
>>I guess its time for a little Rodney King:
[Quoted other message deleted]
>
>I think that's the point.
>
>EFNet, the "largest" IRC network out there today, is badly broken in that
>a very few hold power over the rest of the admins and users.
>
>Further, there is NO policy net-wide that prohibits abusive and outrageous
>actions, including taking over channels, knocking servers down for malicious
>purpose, or other kinds of abuse -- not the least of which is software
>piracy via /dcc and other related means.
>
>This is a serious problem for those who want to use IRC for what it is
>intended for -- to *talk to people*.
>
>Since EFNet has no interest in fixing these problems, as demonstrated by
>their gamesmanship lately on the operlist, I put this proposal together to
>start up a parallel IRC network which is operated for the *expressed*
>purpose of giving people a place to chat with reasonable security and
>stability.
>
>The details of the Constitution I posted are, of course, subject to change
>by the participating admins -- there is a very democratic process embedded
>in that Constitution for making changes and revisions over time as they
>become necessary.
>
>If you run an ISP or other site in Chicagoland, or for that matter, anywhere
>that gets this message, please look at http://www.mcs.net/newirc.html, and
>forward comments either to me or post 'em here.
>
I think you have an interesting proposal, but I find myself concerned about
the implementation. For example, to prevent software piracy via dcc (a good
idea since software piracy is illegal), how would that happen? No dcc
available or monitoring of dcc transactions? The former might be acceptable,
the latter frightening.
I would also suggest removing "misdemeanor" and "felony" and replacing the
references with "minor" and "major".
reTz
>With your attitude about Karl, it's no wonder you get harrassed...
<duke mode on>Ya spelled "harassed" wrong, once...<duke mode off>
(See how easy it is?)
--reTz
Ryan D Pierce
why do they warrant creation of a new network? It seems as if the
creation of a separate commercial IRC would guarantee much less people
and channels than the existing IRC network, and joining CIRC instead
of EFNet would actually hurt most ISPs.
Ryan
Daniel B. Holzman
>
> The technical problems that I've encountered have been livable.
> I've found, when targeted by mailbombers, and other trolls, that
> I've gotten support from MCS that was lacking elsewhere. This
> gives its' customers a freedom of expression lacking for those
> subscribing with other providers. Like Suba, for example.
Maybe that can be MCS' new motto: "MCS -- We're not as bad as Suba"
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
Chuck Ross
I was just testing ya, Pilgrim....
Bob Zimmerman
statements saying what he and MCS did... (his email is attached)
His contention is that he restored some backup tapes and in fact the chmod was
rw-r-r and not rw----... I can only say, that when I looked at them, in fact,
they were not that way. However, he seems most adamant about this.
I am intelligent enough to note that I could have made a mistake. I can only
say what I remember, and in fact, I did NOT state anything contrary to my
memory and I did not report anything that I "made up" for the sake of
attacking Karl or MCS. In fact, as sysadm, he probably has the know-how and
ability to skew any data, however, fighting with MCS is not condusive to my
agendas.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
I accept the possibility that I was incorrect in my previous statements, and
in fact offer an apology to Karl for suggesting that Karl abused his sysadm
authority. Possibly, I was looking at a different file. I believed what I
saw was accurate, but being human, I could have made a mistake.
I believe Karl felt my accusation of him abusing his rights as sysadm was said
to attack him, when in fact, I was reporting what I thought at the time was a
truth. In fact, I apologize to Karl if this was inaccurate.
The only reason I would say anything negative about MCS or Karl, is because I
believed it to be factual and that MCS would indeed be a bad business
decision. I do not know nor have anything personal against Karl. Even these
circumstances evolve around business issues.
My statement of Karl's treatment of current and past customers is factual. He
admitted it in his own newsletter and this episode continues to portray it.
Similar to Karl's tapes, I have emails to backup this up. (one is attached).
Karl, consider this an appology and a withdrawl of my statement that you
abused your sysadm authority. It still is interesting that you would poke
around your customers files, with whatever authorizations. But what you do
with your time, is your business.
My statements were not said without basis for truth, but you believe they were
said with pure malice. In fact, I still have a memory of what I believe to be
a truth. You contend your tapes show otherwise. If you would be willing to
send me the tapes, I will amend this apology appropriately. My intent is not
to call you one thing when I know you are another.
If all I wanted to do was knock you, I wouldn't have to make up falsehoods,
rather there are enough truths. My intent was not to report anything I knew
to be untrue.
For those wondering what provoked this post, here is Karl's elegant letter(I
wonder how many people he has cut/pasted the bottom of this to:)
>Subject: Your posting of yesterday
>To: bob...@wwa.com
>Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 09:46:26 -0600 (CST)
>From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
>Content-Length: 2124
>
>Bob,
>
>We have the tapes here.
>
>I just restored the file in question from the tape just prior to our
>dispute.
>
>The directory contents are:
>
>bash# ls -al
>total 6
>drwx--x--x 2 21188 600 512 Oct 20 17:39 .
>drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 512 Oct 16 08:39 ..
>-rw-r--r-- 1 21188 600 279 Jul 9 16:37 sig
>
>Note well the permissions on that file.
>
>Either retract your libelous accusations immediately, in public, or I will
>direct our attorney to begin legal process. I have hard proof that you've
>libelled this firm and me personally and will post that proof today if you
>do not retract your accusations and statements before I get around to doing
>so.
>
>These tapes are admissible as evidence as they are ordinary and customary
>records made in the course of business, and are impossible to tamper with
>due to their being sequentially-written helical scan media. I'm sure the
>previous few tapes will show identical results -- I restored the copy from
>10/20, which was BEFORE the issue at hand even came up.
>
>If we have to file suit to resolve this matter MCSNet will request both
>compensatory and punitive damages, as your statements and email to our
>customers have reflected actual malice in your activities. We will also
>consider involving WWA, as you have admitted that you perform work for them
>and thus there may be a cause of action involving them as well. We further
>reserve the right to publish this information including your defamatory
>commentary and the proof that it is false to as wide an audience as
>possible.
>
>The tapes in question have been quarrentined to prevent their re-use and
>possible destruction.
>
>An immediate response and your public apology is expected.
>
>You can consider this official and legal notice.
Gerry Swetsky
Lucid Nightmare <lu...@sectless.liii.com> wrote:
>You are an incompetent idiot and nobody gives a rat's ass about
>your CIRC bullshit except maybe your gay operator buddies so
>you can go ahead and set it up and go hang out in #gaychat with
>your butt-pirate homies.
> ONCE UPON THE CROSS!!!!!!
Signed,
A satisfied MCS user
--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky WB9EBO |
| Vpnet (708)833-8126 lis...@vpnet.chi.il.us |
| vpnet - Your FREE link to the Internet! mail in...@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
Karl Denninger
Bob Zimmerman <bob...@metaworld.com> wrote:
>Karl emailed me threatening litigation if I don't retract and apologize my
>statements saying what he and MCS did... (his email is attached)
I will note that you've just violated federal copyright law. Anyone who
had a belief that you operated within the boundaries of ethics and the
legalities of the net and real life has their examples right in front of
them.
>His contention is that he restored some backup tapes and in fact the chmod was
>rw-r-r and not rw----... I can only say, that when I looked at them, in fact,
>they were not that way. However, he seems most adamant about this.
Yep.
I have multiple copies. Note that the change date on that file is in JULY.
Therefore, there are at (at my best guess) six copies -- one for the month
of July, August, September, and the first three weeks of October.
All are on helical scan tape, which is impossible to tamper with or otherwise
modify once made. And all have media-based labels on them which substantiate
the date and time of the dumps (the dump info).
>In fact, as sysadm, he probably has the know-how and
>ability to skew any data.
More accusations Bob. Again, the *PHYSICS* of the matter make "skewing the
data" impossible. Helical scan tapes cannot be edited; ask people who know
how the transports work if you don't believe me.
>MOST IMPORTANTLY:
>
>I accept the possibility that I was incorrect in my previous statements, and
>in fact offer an apology to Karl for suggesting that Karl abused his sysadm
>authority.
>I believe Karl felt my accusation of him abusing his rights as sysadm was said
>to attack him, when in fact, I was reporting what I thought at the time was a
>truth. In fact, I apologize to Karl if this was inaccurate.
I will note that you had the proof right there *IF I HAD TAMPERED WITH THE
FILE*. Why? Because the inode change time would have been modified, and
that's impossible for a non-admin to adjust in any way.
Yet you *destroyed* the evidence (by erasing the file). Why was that?
>My statement of Karl's treatment of current and past customers is factual.
You are correct. We do not do business with people who libel this firm and
make promises they have no intention of keeping. I believe this is a feature
rather than a bug in our organization, but you are free to disagree.
>Similar to Karl's tapes, I have emails to backup this up. (one is attached).
One which you posted in violation of the law and my copyright on my words.
>Karl, consider this an appology and a withdrawl of my statement that you
>abused your sysadm authority. It still is interesting that you would poke
>around your customers files, with whatever authorizations. But what you do
>with your time, is your business.
"Poke around"? Excuse me, Bob, but there are tens of people a day here on
average that use "find" to look for things that are publically readable.
While I can't say I agree with the waste of network bandwidth and processing
power used to do this, its hardly unusual.
In this case I was told of your sig file through multiple calls to our tech
desk by customers who had recieved mail with it shortly after the weekend in
which the original dispute took place. The reports I have, and they were and
are second-hand, were that you were soliciting them to leave MCS for a
competitor and that it looked like you worked for that firm.
I suspected the email was being forged. Therefore, I investigated the claim.
I typed "cat ~bobzim/sig" and there it was. Then, to insure that you
couldn't try to claim that I used root to get the data, abusing my authority
as it were, I made the log I posted the other day.
>You contend your tapes show otherwise. If you would be willing to
>send me the tapes, I will amend this apology appropriately. My intent is not
>to call you one thing when I know you are another.
This is not an apology, nor an admission of wrong-doing. It is insufficient.
I am not about to send you a copy of the tapes, as they contain the user
directories of 4500 of our users on each volume. Those are considered, for
obvious reasons, privileged and confidential volumes.
Gerry Swetsky
>Jim Polaski (jpol...@wwa.com) wrote:
>
>: I'm no fan of Karl and his policies and how he treates his customers, BUT
>
>
>
> I've found, when targeted by mailbombers, and other trolls, that
> I've gotten support from MCS that was lacking elsewhere. This
Thank you, Karl.
Gerry Swetsky
>Chuck Ross (ckr...@wwa.com) wrote:
>
>: With your attitude about Karl, it's no wonder you get harrassed...
>
>
> point of view, it's perfectly reasonable that I should be
> harassed ? And to think, people are calling Karl a fascist.
>
> You are one impressive moron. Welcome to my killfile.
Put me there too, Joe. I promise I'll say absolutely nothing
complimentary about you in this newsgroup; ever!
By the way, did you get a free lunch as a result of your sucking
up?
Bob Zimmerman
> Hey, Bob.... Is there a reason why we should care about this
> garbage ? It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and
> I don't see what the harm done to you was. I saw nothing terribly
> personal about what Karl is alleged to have looked at.
>
> Please, lighten up.
Hey Joseph ;0
Your point was about Karl having similar problems to everyone else and asking
everyone to lighten up ... But not everyone views the experiences with MCS in
this vein. So "this garbage" is in direct response to your post.
In fact, some view the problems at MCS a tad more unacceptable then your view.
I understand your point. BUT, if your charges were mis-handled over and over
and over, then MCS starts separating themselves from all the other ISPs
problems into a league of their own.
Put ontop of that Karl's approach to working out problems, and that puts MCS
in a league of it's own. My point, was: your point was inaccurate from my
perception. They do not have similar problems to the other ISPs.
Anyone can have a problem, and how it gets handeld and resolved is the real
difference. I have no problem putting this thread to bed... but your
summation isn't on the spot for me.
p.s. Here's a thought... if you really wanted to put the thread to bed, how
about simply not replying (publicly anyway)? Best way to set an example ...
:)
Karl Denninger
Bob Zimmerman <bob...@metaworld.com> wrote:
>
>I believe you would have to explain how posting an email you send me is
>infringing on your rights?
A verbatim repost from email is a violation of copyright. See the Federal
Copyright Act. There is only about 200 years of legal history on this, going
back to the publication of private letters in newspapers.
>If you don't want me to repeat what you say to me, then don't say it...
Again, see the copyright act.
>quite honestly, as a simpleman, if you send me email, it is
>similar to speaking to me. This aint no work of art :)
And likewise, you cannot legally tape that conversation and replay it
without my consent.
>>More accusations Bob. Again, the *PHYSICS* of the matter make "skewing the
>>data" impossible. Helical scan tapes cannot be edited; ask people who know
>>how the transports work if you don't believe me.
>
>NOPE... no accusations... observations... Email, news and "everything
>including a backup" can be doctored. This isn't brain surgery.
Actually, physically modifying a helical-scan tape would be considerably
more difficult than brain surgery. That's EM (electron-microscope) style
work. Basically, consider it impossible -- because it is for mortals.
That property is likely to make backups on helical scan media very credible
as admissible evidence in any courtroom. Are you asking me to test this
theory?
>Karl, you modify BSDI and do things in the operating system that most
>developers shy away from. It is very conceivable that this so called proof
>means nothing, if indeed someone tampered with it...
You keep coming back to this -- yet its not the point.
>But to say that this is the living proof is ridiculous... I could easily
>change dates on any file or attribute to reflect a falsehood, and I believe so
>could you... I am not saying that either one of us did...
No, you can't. That's the point. If the file was not changed, the time on
the inode reflected that, and you claimed the file permissions were
authentic, it would be readily accepted as fact (even by me).
>>Yet you *destroyed* the evidence (by erasing the file). Why was that?
>
>I erased the file along with all the other files in my home directory when I
>prepared to leave MCS... That is why...
Uh, no. Your directory was not clean when the system removed the account
a couple of days ago. That file became "unreadable" by world (I do not
know if it was present) the day after I first pointed out what I believed
was duplicitous behavior -- and long before I revealed what I knew to you
here or via email.
>>In this case I was told of your sig file through multiple calls to our tech
>>desk by customers who had recieved mail with it shortly after the weekend in
>>which the original dispute took place. The reports I have, and they were and
>>are second-hand, were that you were soliciting them to leave MCS for a
>>competitor and that it looked like you worked for that firm.
>
>Really :) And I suppose you can back this up with these people coming forward
>and bringing proof of "this libel"??? In fact, anyone that has signed up
>(that I have put online with MCS or WWA or anyone else has heard the same
>story from me)... unless they are a referal from MCS, WWA etc...
Nope. I said they were second-hand -- and they were. The people who called
the tech desk didn't offer copies of the mail in question. But just *where*
did those calls come from? Whatever you mailed them, it was enough to prompt
several calls over a few day period.... enough for the techs to ask *me* if
I knew what was going on. I don't even know if we opened tickets on these --
that kind of call isn't a ticketable item (what could we resolve?)
>>>You contend your tapes show otherwise. If you would be willing to
>>>send me the tapes, I will amend this apology appropriately. My intent is not
>>>to call you one thing when I know you are another.
>>
>>This is not an apology, nor an admission of wrong-doing. It is insufficient.
>>I am not about to send you a copy of the tapes, as they contain the user
>>directories of 4500 of our users on each volume. Those are considered, for
>>obvious reasons, privileged and confidential volumes.
...
>You see, you left some things out when you said I didn't follow up on my word.
>Let's see, by your post to the AIS thread, you left something out to insuate
>something different.... h mmmm... is that libel???
No, Bob, I didn't leave something out. You *opened* with gratuitous insults
and demands that the problem be fixed on a weekend - and then later on said
that if it *was* you would remain and in fact wanted to order ISDN service.
>If you do intend to file this as a legal matter, then I would expect that tape
>become evidence and become available to experts to check for tampering with
>the data etc... Unfortunately, so does all your customer records...
Sorry, no. The evidence in question would be your directory and its
contents. The *tape itself* would be inspected, I'm sure, but the point is
that this wouldn't involve disclosure or public records of anything *else*
on there.
Bob, are you're trying to insinuate that we're just DYING to riffle
customer's files here, that we just go do this for fun and games, and that
we just print the contents of people's directories?
Riiiight. For one thing, I have a hell of a lot better things to do with my
time. For another, MCSNet has formal policy against that sort of action
and believes strongly in user privacy and the boundaries on proper
investigations. I had no reason to invade your directory using admin
privileges, nor did anyone else. At no time did anyone do so. Period.
>HOWEVER, for the tape, I have said oops - sorry. For your accusations and
>statements, you have never apologized. Notfor your mis-billing, incorrect
>cancellation of accounts, basically forcing someone that is hearing-impaired
>to stay on the phoen on hold to fix "your" problems... etc... You have never
>shown any concern for any customer period.
There's yet ANOTHER libelous statement. Sigh.
>There are 3 options here. We could simply stop this, or we could take this
>exclusively to email, or we could take legal action. Note I have not listed
>as continuing this rather circling debate here. (hint hint).
>
>But I will offer you this, if you would care to call and work this out, I will
>be glad to do so.
I have no intention of calling you. Given the vendetta that's been
demonstrated here, I suggest that your best course of action is to forget
that we ever crossed paths.
I won't post further on this thread, nor will I respond further to you Bob.
What I will promise is that any further communication to anyone by you which
misrepresent this firm or its actions in any way will be vigorously persued
through legal channels.
'Nuff said.
Bob Zimmerman
>In article <47ob5g$3...@kirin.wwa.com>,
>Bob Zimmerman <bob...@metaworld.com> wrote:
>>Karl emailed me threatening litigation if I don't retract and apologize my
>>statements saying what he and MCS did... (his email is attached)
>
>I will note that you've just violated federal copyright law. Anyone who
>had a belief that you operated within the boundaries of ethics and the
>legalities of the net and real life has their examples right in front of
>them.
Karl, you emailed me as well as put this in the newsgroup, so rather then
email you separately, here is my reply.
I believe you would have to explain how posting an email you send me is
infringing on your rights? If I "quote" what you state to me in a hallway,
does that infringe on your rights? Your email did not have any request to
remain between me and you. Your email was in bad taste (my opinion) and for
those wanting to know the cause of my post, I shared it. I did not modify
it... If you don't want me to repeat what you say to me, then don't say it...
If indeed the copyright law extends to anyones email, then I believe I am
confused as to the law and will gladly offer you any apologies for posting
your words... but quite honestly, as a simpleman, if you send me email, it is
similar to speaking to me. This aint no work of art :)
(actually - all b.s. aside, I would be interested in more info on this -
because aside from this conversation, it would be interesting to see this
implication when someone takes an email and reposts it or uses it in a
"magazine" column without express permission... it would be an interesting
thread I think - but separate )...
>>In fact, as sysadm, he probably has the know-how and
>>ability to skew any data.
>
>More accusations Bob. Again, the *PHYSICS* of the matter make "skewing the
>data" impossible. Helical scan tapes cannot be edited; ask people who know
>how the transports work if you don't believe me.
NOPE... no accusations... observations... Email, news and "everything
including a backup" can be doctored. This isn't brain surgery. I never
accused you of doing this... and if it appeared that I said "Karl did this"...
then again consider this a withdrawl (egads... what a word)...
>>MOST IMPORTANTLY:
>>
>>I accept the possibility that I was incorrect in my previous statements, and
>>in fact offer an apology to Karl for suggesting that Karl abused his sysadm
>>authority.
>
>>I believe Karl felt my accusation of him abusing his rights as sysadm was said
>>to attack him, when in fact, I was reporting what I thought at the time was a
>>truth. In fact, I apologize to Karl if this was inaccurate.
>
>I will note that you had the proof right there *IF I HAD TAMPERED WITH THE
>FILE*. Why? Because the inode change time would have been modified, and
>that's impossible for a non-admin to adjust in any way.
Karl, you modify BSDI and do things in the operating system that most
developers shy away from. It is very conceivable that this so called proof
means nothing, if indeed someone tampered with it... Am I saying you did???
NO! so stop putting words in my mouth (or at my keyboard :)...
But to say that this is the living proof is ridiculous... I could easily
change dates on any file or attribute to reflect a falsehood, and I believe so
could you... I am not saying that either one of us did...
>Yet you *destroyed* the evidence (by erasing the file). Why was that?
I erased the file along with all the other files in my home directory when I
prepared to leave MCS... That is why... For someone with your intelligence,
this is pretty simple (was this against the law too - where the files owned by
you??? was i not allowed to remove my files?)
>>Similar to Karl's tapes, I have emails to backup this up. (one is attached).
>One which you posted in violation of the law and my copyright on my words.
Honestly, I am intrigued and even if Karl won't help out, if anyone knows how
copyright law applies to a simple email I would be very interested... This
could even become of interest internal to companies and how folks use email
both internal and external... but I digress...
>>Karl, consider this an appology and a withdrawl of my statement that you
>>abused your sysadm authority. It still is interesting that you would poke
>>around your customers files, with whatever authorizations. But what you do
>>with your time, is your business.
>
>"Poke around"? Excuse me, Bob, but there are tens of people a day here on
>average that use "find" to look for things that are publically readable.
>While I can't say I agree with the waste of network bandwidth and processing
>power used to do this, its hardly unusual.
>
>In this case I was told of your sig file through multiple calls to our tech
>desk by customers who had recieved mail with it shortly after the weekend in
>which the original dispute took place. The reports I have, and they were and
>are second-hand, were that you were soliciting them to leave MCS for a
>competitor and that it looked like you worked for that firm.
Really :) And I suppose you can back this up with these people coming forward
and bringing proof of "this libel"??? In fact, anyone that has signed up
(that I have put online with MCS or WWA or anyone else has heard the same
story from me)... unless they are a referal from MCS, WWA etc...
We put folks on any provider. Each provider has strong and weak points... The
bottom line is which provider is an A band???
On a side note, everyone that knows me well, also knows I keep all mail, I
don't delete anything. In fact, even my trash can is archived so I can grep it
for information I might need.
I did this with news for quite some time as well... If I did send such email
and my wording was poorly chosen, it would be easy for me to find such an
email. If indeed you want to resolve this matter, then simply forward me the
mail (or the dates and who it was too)... I'll find any mail that left my
machine.
>I suspected the email was being forged. Therefore, I investigated the claim.
>I typed "cat ~bobzim/sig" and there it was. Then, to insure that you
>couldn't try to claim that I used root to get the data, abusing my authority
>as it were, I made the log I posted the other day.
How prolific! (don't know if this is the correct spelling)...
>>You contend your tapes show otherwise. If you would be willing to
>>send me the tapes, I will amend this apology appropriately. My intent is not
>>to call you one thing when I know you are another.
>
>This is not an apology, nor an admission of wrong-doing. It is insufficient.
>I am not about to send you a copy of the tapes, as they contain the user
>directories of 4500 of our users on each volume. Those are considered, for
>obvious reasons, privileged and confidential volumes.
Well consider a couple of notes then... So everyone is clear, because it
really isn't worth the effort ...
I don't know for a fact that Karl abused his sysadm priveleges... I withdraw
any previous statement to the contrary... I did NOT do anything wrong by my
statements.. which unfortunately, Karl would like me to admit. Quite the
contrary, I stated them, because I thought they were true.
Karl has brought it to my attention that I may have made a mistake, and so I
appologized before and am doing it again. What is interesting, is how Karl
appears to thrive on these appologies... I honestly have no problem extending
them, it appears Karl values them more then other things. In my mind, saying
your sorry is a strength, not a sign of weakness.
But since you do bring up another matter, I will close with a summary of
events... When I said I would continue to be an MCS customer if we could work
out MCS billing my credit card without authorization, it was when things were
calm. But then, after being sent email after email of your attacks, and your
demands, I decided it wasn't worth it anymore. I simply decided if you
wouldn't work it out, I'll let my credit card company work on it for you.
After you told me over and over that you wouldn't handle my problem ahead of
the other billing problems you are experiencing (and you confirmed that MCS
had many billing problems going as far back as 2 months)...
When someone did call to work it out, you expected me to renew my account...
After receiving your demands and your intimidating email all weekend, you
asked me stay and didn't even appologize for mis-billing my credit card. That
was why I didn't follow through on my statement that I woudl remain with MCS.
Basically, you made a business transaction personal and pushed my business
away. You didn't even say you wanted it... In fact, the ONLY message I
received from you was suggesting it was probably better to separate our
ways... You think a phone call after that would fix all this? :)
You see, you left some things out when you said I didn't follow up on my word.
Let's see, by your post to the AIS thread, you left something out to insuate
something different.... h mmmm... is that libel???
If you do intend to file this as a legal matter, then I would expect that tape
become evidence and become available to experts to check for tampering with
the data etc... Unfortunately, so does all your customer records... hmmm... I
can't stop you from filing something legal by any public posts. According to
what I was told today, you are always threatning everyone with legal action
in newsgroups.
Even appologizing for what could be considered libel, but clearly wasn't, was
done to put this behind us. But if you think I am going to taint the truth so
you look better, that won't happen. What I have written, to the best of my
knowledge is the truth, and as usual, you have not (other then the tape)
identified the falsehood.
HOWEVER, for the tape, I have said oops - sorry. For your accusations and
statements, you have never apologized. Notfor your mis-billing, incorrect
cancellation of accounts, basically forcing someone that is hearing-impaired
to stay on the phoen on hold to fix "your" problems... etc... You have never
shown any concern for any customer period.
There are 3 options here. We could simply stop this, or we could take this
Eu-Ming Lee
>(actually - all b.s. aside, I would be interested in more info on this -
>because aside from this conversation, it would be interesting to see this
>implication when someone takes an email and reposts it or uses it in a
>"magazine" column without express permission... it would be an interesting
>thread I think - but separate )...
Copyrights are meant to protect intellectual property, so that the authors
can reap the rewards of their creativity. So if Karl wrote you a love poem,
and you published it and made a few bucks off of it, then you might be
guilty of copyright infringement.
However, considering that you had no possible monetary gain from reposting
Karl's email, I seriously doubt any court would take a copyright infringement
lawsuit seriously. Libel might be closer, but would still be laughed out of
court considering that the libelous words would be Karl's own. However, I
do believe that posting a private email in public is an official breach of
"netiquette" rules. And I'm sure for this, Karl is more than eager to sik
his net.cops and virtual lawyers on you.
Karl, however, more than heartily defends his "right" to breach netiquette
by spamming his ads all over the "now commercial" net.
Yo Karl. Aren't you disgusted by your own hypocrisy? Does anyone else
get the feeling that Karl is his own anti-particle? That if there were
two Karl Denningers, and they came into contact on the net, there would
be an superenergetic supernova plasma explosion? Come to think of it,
Karl sort of resembles the hypothetical description of a magnetic monopole---
incredibly rare, one-sided, and incredibly dense.
Well, anyway, I don't want to slam Karl too much here. He does it to
himself so much better, and there is this circuit in his brain that has
been disconnected for at least ten years now--- you know, the circuit
which lets you know when people are laughing with you or at you. It's
the same circuit which let's you know you're making an incredible ass of
yourself in public and prevents you from doing it again. Well, Karl
really needs to get that circuit in his brain fixed before all the crap
that needs to get done on MCS. I mean, I'm getting really tired of the
Karl vs. Yet-Another-Unsatisfied-Ex-MCS-Customer flamewar of the month.
I think it started with Wednesday (the person, not the day) last year,
and has been going on constantly since.
Anyway, like I was saying, I don't want to bash Karl too much because
he's just so pathetic. I mean, what's the point of ridiculing a rutabaga?
You don't get much satisfaction feeling superior to a rutabaga, and the
rutabaga is too stupid to realize it's getting ridiculed anyway. (BTW,
I'm not trying to belittle Karl by comparing him to a rutabaga--- everyone
already knows he's more of a yam.)
Well, Karl, this post is still getting back at ya for pissing me off
with your nitpicky details and flamemongering attitude that you had
towards me when I pointed out one of your ads was inappropriate on
interaccess.talk. And all of these other intelligent people--- most of
whom are ex-MCS customers--- also poke at you because you've managed
to piss them off with your incorrigible manner. Sooner or later, not
only will you have alienated your entire customer base, but the entire human
race as well. Well, if that happens, I can't say that I didn't enjoy
it, or that you didn't deserve it.
Tata, yamboy,
Ming
--
Eu-Ming Lee eum...@netcom.com mi...@interaccess.com
"Sometimes there's no poison like a dream." - Belly
Karl Denninger
>Joseph B. Dunphy (st...@MCS.COM) wrote:
>: Hey, Bob.... Is there a reason why we should care about this
>: garbage ? It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and
>: I don't see what the harm done to you was. I saw nothing terribly
>: personal about what Karl is alleged to have looked at.
>
>into your living room one morning to read your newspaper?
If you had to deliberately unlock the door (which defaults to locked) and
leave it open, along with a sign on the paper saying "readable by anyone"?
MCSNet defaults directories to mode 700, which is *no* access to anyone but
the owner. It takes *explicit* action by the owner of the account to change
this default.
Karl Denninger
>In article <47qg0d$m...@Venus.mcs.com>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
>>MCSNet defaults directories to mode 700, which is *no* access to anyone but
>>the owner. It takes *explicit* action by the owner of the account to change
>>this default.
>
>
> umask 77
>
>Is this correct?
No.
Our setup procedure creates account home directories with the mode 700.
Given that, any file or directory under that point is invisible.
If a user *changes* the mode, they are presumed to know what the
implications of that change are. Given that you have to be at the Unix
command line and know how to use "chmod" to do this, we believe that's
a reasonable expectation.
Karl Denninger
>In article <47qg0d$m...@Venus.mcs.com>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>In article <47q0ie$a...@suba01.suba.com>, Petro <pe...@suba.com> wrote:
>>>Joseph B. Dunphy (st...@MCS.COM) wrote:
>>>: Hey, Bob.... Is there a reason why we should care about this
>>>: garbage ? It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, and
>>>: I don't see what the harm done to you was. I saw nothing terribly
>>>: personal about what Karl is alleged to have looked at.
>>>
>>> Really, so you wouldn't mind if your next door neighbor wandered
>>>into your living room one morning to read your newspaper?
>>
>>If you had to deliberately unlock the door (which defaults to locked) and
>>leave it open, along with a sign on the paper saying "readable by anyone"?
>>
>>the owner. It takes *explicit* action by the owner of the account to change
>>this default.
>
>leaving the door unlocked and the paper out on the table.
>
> If the file had the extension .html then it would be like a
>having a sign saying readable by anyone.
>
> I would hate to think that the Sysadmin at suba was scanning my
>directory, and looking at the contents. If they are, and I find out, as
>much as I like them, I'd have to go somewhere else.
Given that we (and many other ISPs) permit general Unix system-level access,
there are potentially 7500+ door rattlers on our network at any given point
in time. I suspect SUBA is similar if much smaller in size.
Any file which is publically readable is just that on a
publically-accessible system. Unless we're willing to prohibit the use of
both "find" and "ls" outside of your own directory structure (which would
mean significant code changes in the kernel) there is no good way to prevent
this.
One of the reasons that we create all new accounts mode 700 is to stop
accidental intrusion into people's directories if the user is not aware of
how the permission system works on Unix machines. Once you deliberately
change that, however, you've taken ownership and responsibility for the
consequences of same.
What I *would* be offended by is an admin using *root* to browse through
files without cause.
Petro
High "Darkangel", remeber me?
Maybe these lines you wrote will spark a memory:
Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about a request that
you publish your home address (where you live, not your e-mail
address) so me and a few of my friends could come over and discuss
matters with you, possibly with the help of a few baseball bats ?
I'm sure that it wouldn't matter to you that I'm 6'3", 200 lbs., and
the small one in the group. I'm sure that you'd just be dying to
say "yes".
What, not receptive ? Gee, maybe you even have the notion that
'accepting the results of your actions' doesn't include accepting
abusive behavior. Gosh, how irresponsible of you to try to "hide
from the results of your actions", like that. Grow up, creep. This
isn't the Wild West. There are limits to acceptable behavior, and a
bare minimum level of expected civility.
(for those who wish to read the entire discussion that generated this
posting, I archived the thread <a
href="http://www.suba.com/~petro/htmltext/Darkangel.html>here</a>
: Jim Polaski (jpol...@wwa.com) wrote:
: : Well LUCE,,,
: : I'm no fan of Karl and his policies and how he treates his customers, BUT
: I am. Karl gets a lot of extremely unfair press.
And a lot of fair press, but that isn't the issue I am here to
discuss.
:
: The technical problems that I've encountered have been livable.
: I've found, when targeted by mailbombers, and other trolls, that
: I've gotten support from MCS that was lacking elsewhere. This
: gives its' customers a freedom of expression lacking for those
: subscribing with other providers. Like Suba, for example.
Of course, when you are doing things deliberately to CAUSE
problems. like threatening people, which IS what got your account pulled
at suba, along with violating YOUR WORD that you would refrain from
incendary behavior, which caused suba to be mailbombed a couple times,
threatening THE REST OF SUBA's customers access, and generally making an
ass of yourself.
Suba, being Todd and Alex, ARE commited to freedom of expression,
however they really don't like opening up themselves to the threat of a
lawsuit that will cause them to loose what for most of us would be a
sizable investment, in addition to the legal hassles involved, and the
loss of access your actions could have caused the rest of us.
Would you like to explain to the rest of chicago what exactly
caused the problems to begin with?
: Really, people, like no other local provider has been having
: Tech problems. Please. Memories seem to be getting a little
: selective around here, though.
Yeah, aren't they.
Coward.
: ___________________________________________________________________________
: Hi. Please don't send any e-mail, because my filter is set to erase
: almost all incoming mail, so I probably wouldn't ever see your
: letter. This extreme step has been made necessary by persistant
: e-mail harassment.
Which is caused by harassing people in newsgroups and then hiding
from the results.
BTW, the address in the Web Page is no longer accurate, to reach
me about setting up a time for that little discussion you can reach me at
784-0099. I promise I won't bring more than 3 or 4 of my friends, and to
keep things even, we won't use bats, guns, bottles, rocks, or knives, and
the TALLEST will be about 6'2.
--
----------------------------------------------------- pe...@suba.com
Dominating and repressing pixels for fun and profit.
Saving the world one corpse at a time.
Daniel B. Holzman
>
>MCSNet defaults directories to mode 700, which is *no* access to anyone but
>the owner. It takes *explicit* action by the owner of the account to change
>this default.
>
Which, of course could be done by error.
So, Karl, are you saying that a SysAdmin has no greater ethical standard
to be held to than an average user? Just curious.
Daniel B. Holzman
Eu-Ming Lee <eum...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>However, considering that you had no possible monetary gain from reposting
>Karl's email, I seriously doubt any court would take a copyright infringement
>lawsuit seriously. Libel might be closer, but would still be laughed out of
>court considering that the libelous words would be Karl's own. However, I
>do believe that posting a private email in public is an official breach of
>"netiquette" rules. And I'm sure for this, Karl is more than eager to sik
>his net.cops and virtual lawyers on you.
In general, it is a nettiquite breach. In the specific cases of
publicising a threat or harassment against you, it is not. By way of
counter example, it is common for "wannafuck" letters to be posted to the
alt.sex.* hierarchy by those who receive them as a disincentive to those
who send them.
>Yo Karl. Aren't you disgusted by your own hypocrisy? Does anyone else
>get the feeling that Karl is his own anti-particle? That if there were
>two Karl Denningers, and they came into contact on the net, there would
>be an superenergetic supernova plasma explosion? Come to think of it,
>Karl sort of resembles the hypothetical description of a magnetic monopole---
>incredibly rare, one-sided, and incredibly dense.
I don't even want to think about the possibility of two Karls. But I'll
talk to my friends at Fermi and have them see if they can get some
measurements of him. :)
>that needs to get done on MCS. I mean, I'm getting really tired of the
>Karl vs. Yet-Another-Unsatisfied-Ex-MCS-Customer flamewar of the month.
>I think it started with Wednesday (the person, not the day) last year,
>and has been going on constantly since.
Actually, it predated Wednesday -- she just moved it from mcs.* to chi.*
Petro
>In article <47r669$2...@suba01.suba.com>, Petro <pe...@suba.com> wrote:
>> Actually changing the modes would be more analagous(sp?) to
>>leaving the door unlocked and the paper out on the table.
>> If the file had the extension .html then it would be like a
>>having a sign saying readable by anyone.
>> I would hate to think that the Sysadmin at suba was scanning my
>>directory, and looking at the contents. If they are, and I find out, as
>>much as I like them, I'd have to go somewhere else.
>
>Given that we (and many other ISPs) permit general Unix system-level access,
>there are potentially 7500+ door rattlers on our network at any given point
>in time. I suspect SUBA is similar if much smaller in size.
>
>Any file which is publically readable is just that on a
>publically-accessible system. Unless we're willing to prohibit the use of
>both "find" and "ls" outside of your own directory structure (which would
>mean significant code changes in the kernel) there is no good way to prevent
>this.
>What I *would* be offended by is an admin using *root* to browse through
>files without cause.
Which is what I meant by "scanning" I am familiar enough with
Unix to realize that anyone can ls my directory, and can even read the
files in my html directory, but for the sysadmin of an ISP to read ANY
files in a users directory without a damn good reason is IMO a violation
of privacy, and to a degree the agreement which I use the system. Which
was not the reason I left MCS, and Interaccess before that.
This
Facist
Newsreader
Insists
On
More
Lines
In
The
Reply
Than
Quoted
This
Fixes
That.
So there.
Harold A. Driscoll
> ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
My reading of "NETLAW" [1] (Chapter 3 and particularly page 87) would
support Karl's interpretation. That such copyrights are possibly ignored
as often as are Dilbert cartoons is hardly a defense.
> NOPE... no accusations... observations... Email, news and "everything
> including a backup" can be doctored. This isn't brain surgery. I never
> accused you of doing this... and if it appeared that I said "Karl did this"...
> then again consider this a withdrawl (egads... what a word)...
Can't we just agree that while it might be possible, the cost and work
factor to do so would be extraordinary and impractical in a case like
this?
> Honestly, I am intrigued and even if Karl won't help out, if anyone knows how
> copyright law applies to a simple email I would be very interested... This
> could even become of interest internal to companies and how folks use email
> both internal and external... but I digress...
See [1], and keep in mind that employment considerations can change who
actually owns the copyright.
> There are 3 options here. We could simply stop this, or we could take this
> exclusively to email, or we could take legal action. Note I have not listed
> as continuing this rather circling debate here. (hint hint).
Aptly put.
[1] "NETLAW: Your Rights in the Online World" by Lance Rose, Osborne
McGraw Hill, paperback, 1995, ISBN 0-07-882077-4.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harold A. Driscoll email: <har...@driscoll.chi.il.us>
#include <std/disclaimer> http://www.interaccess.com/users/driscoll/
movable articles
: Karl wrote:
: >Actually, physically modifying a helical-scan tape would be considerably
: >more difficult than brain surgery. That's EM (electron-microscope) style
: >work. Basically, consider it impossible -- because it is for mortals.
: Actually one question I did have was related directly to this.... Isn't
: it a simple matter to restore a tape to disk and modify something and
: re-create the tape... I think you thought I was saying to "edit the
: tape directly"... Is the above impossible? Isn't this what data
: recovery sites do?
Is it not also possible to modify attributes before the files are put
to tape, create the tape, then modify attributes back to their original
format?
David
Karl Denninger
Prior to knowing that you might want to do that? Four months worth of
prior, with dumps every month, and weeklies for the month preceding the
incident that gave rise to the question in the first place? (I am presuming
that all the tapes will show the same thing; I've only physically checked
the single most-current previous one to the dispute...)
That's quite a good bit of precognition.... anyone who is *that* good at
predicting the future doesn't need to work -- they can make all the money
they'll ever need prognosticating.
David Kammeyer
: Karl Denninger wrote:
: >>That he went cruising through my home
: >>directory with no provocation to do so, looking through my personal files. (oh
: >>wait - let me hear that now I am considered a hacker and threat to MCS :)
Ok, let me preface this -- I don't usually side with karl, but c'mon...
You say "files". That means two or more. So far I have only heard of
one -- you sig file. Ok. Let me get this straight. This file is
appended to every email and news article you write, but god forbid if you
look at the original file, who knows what damaging and private
information you might get... I suppose you're going to say next that
karl also illegally looked at your .plan and your web pages too. I can
definitely see the abuse of power. I mean, let's suppose that the file
was not world readable -- a *NORMAL* user would have had to use dejanews
or something to find one of your posts, clearly a major obstacle, while
karl, on the other hand uses his position of power to easily access your
most private information. Why don't you take karl up on his offer to
show you the backup tapes? What is your umask set to? Is it possible
you accidentally messed that up? Oh yeah. Generally it's not a good
idea to keep sensitive information on a provider's shell machine. A
system administrator such as your self ought to know that these type of
machines are enticing targets for crackers. I'd say they pose a
significantly greater danger to your data than karl.
Oh yeah, I quoted your sig. Hopefully it doesn't contain any secret info
that you're going to sue me over.
: -----
: Bob Zimmerman ~ bob...@metaworld.com ~ http://sashimi.wwa.com/~bobzim/
: Ask me about Grep For Windows, or get it from my WWW page
:
: MetaWorld ~ PO Box 261 ~ Grayslake, IL 60030
: in...@metaworld.com ~ http://www.metaworld.com ~ (708) 223-6753
: Internet Consulting, Training and Support
: World Wide Web Design and Consulting
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kammeyer kamm...@interaccess.com
"The general public is a | Yes, I use PGP. Finger me for my key.
pretty stupid person" - Me | Linux -- The choice of a GNU generation!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kammeyer
: In article <47p1er$m...@kirin.wwa.com>,
: Bob Zimmerman <bob...@metaworld.com> wrote:
: A verbatim repost from email is a violation of copyright. See the Federal
: back to the publication of private letters in newspapers.
: >If you don't want me to repeat what you say to me, then don't say it...
: Again, see the copyright act.
I don't have the name of the case, but I believe the courts have ruled
that copyright on regular snail-mail letters belongs to the recipient.
: >>More accusations Bob. Again, the *PHYSICS* of the matter make "skewing the
: >>data" impossible. Helical scan tapes cannot be edited; ask people who know
: >>how the transports work if you don't believe me.
: >
: >NOPE... no accusations... observations... Email, news and "everything
: >including a backup" can be doctored. This isn't brain surgery.
: Actually, physically modifying a helical-scan tape would be considerably
: more difficult than brain surgery. That's EM (electron-microscope) style
: work. Basically, consider it impossible -- because it is for mortals.
Oh yes, impossible for mortals, but... Consider the overwhelming
evidence: Through covertly obtained copies of Karl's phone records, we
have found multiple calls to "The Psychic Friends Network". Upon the
interrogation of karl's personal psychic friend, we have learned that she
advised karl of the danger of looking at the sig file. Karl, knowing
that eventually he would be overcome with curiousity and needing to cover
his tracks, edited his backup scripts to change the permissions on your
sig, change the date back, then after the backup was completed, restore
it to its original state. Unfortunately, just as he was finishing his
modifications in time for the nightly backup, he was abducted by
ailiens. Thwarted, he called down some favors from the NSA and had the
tapes carefully modified. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that
Karl is actually a highlander, so his pathetic "mortal" argument holds
no water. Hope this clears things up for you.
Chuck Ross
Pittel) wrote:
>
>The modification is easy. Simply take the tape restore it onto a stand
>alone machine change the file and then backup onto another tape. Come
>on Karl I don't know half as much about *nix and sys-admin and I
>thought of that in a few minutes. While I doubt it's practical on
>large tapes and I don't think you would do something like that. I've
>done similar things with tapes and it's not hard to do.
>
><deletia>
>--
How about modification dates...
Chris A. Rodgers
>In article <DHr12...@deepthought.com>, f...@deepthought.com (Frank
>Pittel) wrote:
>>
>>The modification is easy. Simply take the tape restore it onto a stand
>>alone machine change the file and then backup onto another tape. Come
>>on Karl I don't know half as much about *nix and sys-admin and I
>>thought of that in a few minutes. While I doubt it's practical on
>>large tapes and I don't think you would do something like that. I've
>>done similar things with tapes and it's not hard to do.
>>
>><deletia>
>>--
>How about modification dates...
Easy, change the system date/time back, then modify the file.
Change the system date/time to be whatever you want the archive
to be made on and then do the backup (over the original tape or to
a new tape).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_ _
/ |_ ._ o _ /\ |_) _ _| _ _ ._ _ Software Engineer
\_| || |_> /--\o | \(_)(_|(_|(/_| _> c...@wwa.com
_|
Karl Denninger
>In chi.internet, ckr...@wwa.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>
>>In article <DHr12...@deepthought.com>, f...@deepthought.com (Frank
>>Pittel) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>The modification is easy. Simply take the tape restore it onto a stand
>>>alone machine change the file and then backup onto another tape. Come
>>>on Karl I don't know half as much about *nix and sys-admin and I
>>>thought of that in a few minutes. While I doubt it's practical on
>>>large tapes and I don't think you would do something like that. I've
>>>done similar things with tapes and it's not hard to do.
>>>
>>><deletia>
>>>--
>
>>How about modification dates...
>
>Easy, change the system date/time back, then modify the file.
>Change the system date/time to be whatever you want the archive
>to be made on and then do the backup (over the original tape or to
>a new tape).
You forgot something.
There are some 4,000 user directories on that tape; it contains dumps of
several spindles and about 10Gb of data. I guess we'd change all 4,000 of
them, unsync the clock on the machine from the NTP distribution system,
change the system date, do the backup, and then change all of them back,
right? For if we didn't, the unmodified file change times on the *other*
directories on that tape would be glaring evidence of tampering.
All of this is done without anyone noticing that the network seems to think
that its two months ago in the 16+ hours it requires for those tapes to run,
right?
Anyone who *really* believes that this is possible in a production environment
is missing more than a few screws.
Anyone who *seriously* believes that this is doable to a series of tapes,
via a restore/modify/dump, which are archival copies in a bank vault (with
each restore/modify/backup requiring 16 hours!) has few marbles upstairs
to begin with.
Chris A. Rodgers
>In article <487jh2$6...@kirin.wwa.com>, Chris A. Rodgers <c...@wwa.com> wrote:
>>In chi.internet, ckr...@wwa.com (Chuck Ross) wrote:
>>>In article <DHr12...@deepthought.com>, f...@deepthought.com (Frank
>>>Pittel) wrote:
>>>>The modification is easy. Simply take the tape restore it onto a stand
>>>>alone machine change the file and then backup onto another tape. Come
>>>>on Karl I don't know half as much about *nix and sys-admin and I
>>>>thought of that in a few minutes. While I doubt it's practical on
>>>>large tapes and I don't think you would do something like that. I've
>>>>done similar things with tapes and it's not hard to do.
>>>><deletia>
>>Easy, change the system date/time back, then modify the file.
>>Change the system date/time to be whatever you want the archive
>>to be made on and then do the backup (over the original tape or to
>>a new tape).
>You forgot something.
>There are some 4,000 user directories on that tape; it contains dumps of
>several spindles and about 10Gb of data. I guess we'd change all 4,000 of
>them, unsync the clock on the machine from the NTP distribution system,
>change the system date, do the backup, and then change all of them back,
>right? For if we didn't, the unmodified file change times on the *other*
>directories on that tape would be glaring evidence of tampering.
The whole point, Karl, is that it is possible. I never said it was
probable.
>All of this is done without anyone noticing that the network seems to think
>that its two months ago in the 16+ hours it requires for those tapes to run,
>right?
>Anyone who *really* believes that this is possible in a production environment
>is missing more than a few screws.
Is your prescription old or do glasses not hold up on that big,
crooked nose of yours? It was stated that a stand alone machine would
be used.
>Anyone who *seriously* believes that this is doable to a series of tapes,
>via a restore/modify/dump, which are archival copies in a bank vault (with
>each restore/modify/backup requiring 16 hours!) has few marbles upstairs
>to begin with.
You just admitted that it is possible ("doable") in your blurb about
what I forgot, idiot! Damn, I'm glad I don't have an account with you
anymore!