Joseph Dunphy <stats@MCS.COM>'s attack on soc.culture.israel
Karl Denninger
Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>
>>I just sent the following message to postm...@MCS.COM. Anyone who is
>>curious about the previous confrontation between Mr. Dunphy (and
>>postm...@MCS.COM, a.k.a. Karl Denninger, who refused to do anything about
>>Mr. Dunphy's previous abuse, which included a 3.5Mb mailbomb to me) can feel
>>free to send me E-mail about it, and I will send you copies of the
>>correspondence (minus the mailbomb :-) in that previous confrontation.
>
> He's mailbombed *others*?
>
> Karl promised me that if he ever screwed up again, he'd nuke
>Dunphy's account. Apparently, he lied through his teeth. Not a
>surprise.
>
> CC:'d to postm...@mcs.com; Karl, please nuke Dunphy's account.
>You said he was out if he continued his abuse; he's continuing his
>abuse. Thanks.
Having an email dialogue is not abuse, even if you are losing the debate.
If you *PROVOKE* someone by mailing them mass quantities of material, and
get a bunch of replies, that's not abuse. Its called social correction.
The fix is *DON'T DO THAT*. If you don't want to hear from someone, why
would you send them mail yourself?
If you tell someone you want no further correspondance, and GET MORE, that's
harassment and is prohibited by policy here.
If you wish to allege a spam or other anti-social Usenet behavior, be
specific, and prove the allegation. Being *offensive* doesn't count.
You know this Tim. Give up the frigging personal crusade to get this
person's account pulled.
I said it before, and will again:
If you have an allegation of a TOS violation on our system, send the
specifications and allegations to ro...@mcs.net.
Before you waste both of our time and the bandwidth with spurious
allegations, READ THE POLICY DOCUMENT. Its online at
http://www.mcs.net/policy/ for your edification.
--
--
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] | 10 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 only FULL Clarinet feed!
Jonathan Kamens
curious about the previous confrontation between Mr. Dunphy (and
postm...@MCS.COM, a.k.a. Karl Denninger, who refused to do anything about
Mr. Dunphy's previous abuse, which included a 3.5Mb mailbomb to me) can feel
free to send me E-mail about it, and I will send you copies of the
correspondence (minus the mailbomb :-) in that previous confrontation.
*****
Return-Path: <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 19:33:47 GMT
From: j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens)
To: postm...@mcs.com
Subject: Re: Why I wouldn't be inclined to forgive... [soc.culture.israel]
Cc: j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com
Regardless of who was "right" and "wrong" in my previous confrontation with
Mr. Dunphy, and regardless of whether he portrayed that conflict accurately in
the message quoted below (two questions which I will not address here because
there is nothing to be gained by doing so), it is completely clear from the
message below that Mr. Dunphy is intentionally posting a completely off-topic
thread to soc.culture.israel for the sole purpose of irritating me and other
readers of the newsgroup.
You previously refused to do anything whatsoever to rein in what I considered
to be completely inappropriate behavior by Mr. Dunphy. I don't want to argue
about that again, but I would like to know whether you intend to do anything
in the face of Mr. Dunphy's actions as shown by the posting below.
Normally, I would CC a message like this to Mr. Dunphy, but I am not doing so,
because (a) I do not wish to be the recipient of another 3.5Mb mailbomb from
him, and (b) he is probably filtering his mail in such a way that he will not
receive messages from me anyway.
This message, and any response to it which I receive from you, will be posted
in news.admin.net-abuse.misc.
------ Forwarded Article <4b89os$n...@Mars.mcs.com>
------ From st...@MCS.COM (Joseph B. Dunphy)
From: st...@MCS.COM (Joseph B. Dunphy)
Newsgroups: alt.christnet,alt.satanism,talk.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.abuse.transcendence,alt.feminism,soc.culture.israel
Subject: Re: Why I wouldn't be inclined to forgive...
Followup-To: alt.christnet,alt.satanism,talk.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.abuse.transcendence,alt.feminism,alt.abuse.recovery,soc.culture.israel
Date: 20 Dec 1995 00:17:00 -0600
Organization: MCSNet Services
Message-ID: <4b89os$n...@Mars.mcs.com>
References: <4b860e$h...@Mars.mcs.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mars.mcs.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2 (KSD)]
Why this thread, here ?
I think that a major failing of Christianity is its unwillingness to
face the reality that some people simply don't mean well, and turning
the other cheek to such people will simply result in further attacks.
In loving those who persecute those close to us, we help perpetuate
that persecution, and in doing so, fail to love those who we claimed
were our loved ones.
The Satanists seem to have addressed this reality. If everyone can
stop screaming, and start listening for a few minutes, I think that
you'll find that they have some interesting points to make. They also
have expressed a definite point of view regarding child molesters, and
it isn't a friendly one. Good for them. But that everyone could manage
such anger, or understand that anger is a valuable, legitimate emotion
and not a pathology that one needs to get over.
"Evil" in the terms of this thread is the evil of a more secular
Judaism or Christianity - unwanted harm done to an undeserving victim.
The sort of action that a person that La Vey would recommend as a
"human sacrifice" (a prayer, if you will, in which one asks for the
person's demise, not a disembowelment carried out by the practitioners)
would engage in. This is not the sense in which this term is used on
alt.satanism, or was on alt.evil, while it was still entertaining
reading. There, "evil" is sort of a combination of an imaginitive
vindictiveness, and a pleasantly twisted sense of humor.
Alt.abuse.transcendance is here because I think that its' group
consensus needs challenging. Alt.feminism, because sexual abuse, and
its casual acceptance, veiled or open is a feminist issue, having been
so declared by feminists in the past.
The philosophy groups are here because there is a broader
philosophical issue involved here.
Followups are returning to alt.abuse.recovery, where this all started,
as well as appearing in these groups.
They'll also appear in soc.culture.israel, in honor of that incredible
dork and netcop, Jonathan Kamens (j...@jik.datasrv.co.il) who took
it upon himself to harass anyone who accidentally stumbled into his
precious group, even if pulled in while doing a followup from
another group, and got a number of his friends to help out. In a true
master stroke, Jon lead a mailbombing campaign against me for
making a post on a spam thread, asking people to take the thread
out of soc.culture.israel. Jon felt that that post didn't belong in
soc.culture.israel. After having several weeks of my time wasted,
dealing with harassment from that group, and getting my mailfilter
set up, I decided, screw them, and have been including their worthless
little group in the followup-to lines in my posts on a regular basis,
and am not alone in this. So, soc.culture.israel is there as part of a
continuing public service. People like that need to be taught a few
manners. Maybe they'll stop harassing random passers by. If not,
tormenting them should be good fun.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
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.
___________________________________________________________________________
------ End of Forwarded Article
Tim Skirvin
>I just sent the following message to postm...@MCS.COM. Anyone who is
>curious about the previous confrontation between Mr. Dunphy (and
>postm...@MCS.COM, a.k.a. Karl Denninger, who refused to do anything about
>Mr. Dunphy's previous abuse, which included a 3.5Mb mailbomb to me) can feel
>free to send me E-mail about it, and I will send you copies of the
>correspondence (minus the mailbomb :-) in that previous confrontation.
He's mailbombed *others*?
Karl promised me that if he ever screwed up again, he'd nuke
Dunphy's account. Apparently, he lied through his teeth. Not a
surprise.
CC:'d to postm...@mcs.com; Karl, please nuke Dunphy's account.
You said he was out if he continued his abuse; he's continuing his
abuse. Thanks.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a>
<a href="http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/killfile.html">The Daemons</a>
Tim Skirvin
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>I just sent the following message to postm...@MCS.COM. Anyone who is
>>>curious about the previous confrontation between Mr. Dunphy (and
>>>postm...@MCS.COM, a.k.a. Karl Denninger, who refused to do anything about
>>>Mr. Dunphy's previous abuse, which included a 3.5Mb mailbomb to me) can feel
>If you *PROVOKE* someone by mailing them mass quantities of material, and
>get a bunch of replies, that's not abuse.
You said this before, when Dunphy mailbombed me. I want to make
this perfectly clear:
You say we provoked our mailbombs.
Karl, reign in your user. I'm sick of seeing his pattern of
harassment against anyone he disagrees with, his flooding of newsgroups
with irrelevant messages, and his continuing ability to get through it
all because *you* let him.
Your own TOS says, quite explicitly, that you should have pulled
Dunphy's account long ago. As far as I can tell, you haven't even given
him a fragging warning. The relevant section:
--
You agree not to attempt to cause, or actually cause, any disruption of
service on MCSNet or any other network or subscriber, including but not
limited to malicious traffic generation, attempted or actual violation
of any security system in place on the Internet and its resources, or
any unauthorized access to any computer or resource on the Internet.
--
>I said it before, and will again:
> If you have an allegation of a TOS violation on our system, send the
> specifications and allegations to ro...@mcs.net.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Do you want me to do so
*again*?
Jonathan Kamens
him:
*****
Return-Path: <ka...@mcs.com>
Subject: Re: Why I wouldn't be inclined to forgive... [soc.culture.israel]
To: j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:22:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
In-Reply-To: <1995122019...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> from "Jonathan Kamens" at Dec 20, 95 07:33:47 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
If you believe there is a TOS violation, please make specific charges and
accusations.
Our policy is at http://www.mcs.net/policy/
If you can articulate an actual TOS violation, we will investigate.
Threats of taking this public will fall on deaf ears.
--
--
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] | 10 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 only FULL Clarinet feed!
> Regardless of who was "right" and "wrong" in my previous confrontation with
> Mr. Dunphy, and regardless of whether he portrayed that conflict accurately in
> the message quoted below (two questions which I will not address here because
> there is nothing to be gained by doing so), it is completely clear from the
> message below that Mr. Dunphy is intentionally posting a completely off-topic
> thread to soc.culture.israel for the sole purpose of irritating me and other
> readers of the newsgroup.
>
> [the remainder of my original complaint removed to save bandwidth - jik]
*****
Return-Path: <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 06:27:17 GMT
From: Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
To: ka...@mcs.com
In-reply-to: <m0tSV1x...@venus.mcs.com> (ka...@mcs.com)
Subject: Re: Why I wouldn't be inclined to forgive... [soc.culture.israel]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 14:22:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
If you believe there is a TOS violation, please make specific charges and
accusations.
Quoting from your policy:
>The transmission of unsolicited advertising through electronic mail, and Usenet
>postings to inappropriate groups are explicitly prohibited. General commercial
>use of MCSNet is, however, encouraged.
The postings which Mr. Dunphy is making to soc.culture.israel are, by
his own explicit admission, "postings to inappropriate groups."
On the other hand, perhaps this paragraph really means to read, "The
transmission of unsolicited advertising through electronic mail and
through postings to inappropriate groups is explicitly prohibited.
General commercial use of MCSNet is, however, encouraged." In that
case, it seems that it applies only to advertising in inappropriate
groups, and not to people who intentionally post non-advertising
postings in inappropriate groups.
Quoting further:
>You agree not to attempt to cause, or actually cause, any disruption of service
>on MCSNet or any other network or subscriber, including but not limited to
>malicious traffic generation, ...
Mr. Dunphy's 3.5Mb mailbomb to me was clearly "malicious traffic
generation," and yet you refused to do anything about it or even to
admit that what he did was against your policy (in fact, you refused
to send me a copy of your policy despite the fact that I asked for it
several times).
Mr. Dunphy's current postings in soc.culture.israel are also, in my
opinion, "malicious traffic generation," since they are intended only
to "torment" the readers of soc.culture.israel (Mr. Dunphy's words,
not mine), not to engage in on-topic discussion in soc.culture.israel.
Threats of taking this public will fall on deaf ears.
I was not "threatening" you, I was informing you that I intend to keep
the Net community as a whole informed both of the abuse which
Mr. Dunphy is perpetrating and of your site's efforts to deal with
that abuse. That is, after all, the main purpose of
news.admin.net-abuse.misc. If you consider that a threat, then that
can only be because you believe that your handling of this affair will
not hold up to public scrutiny.
Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | j...@cam.ov.com
wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu
quoting ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) :
|
| Having an email dialogue is not abuse, even if you are losing the debate.
after how many megabytes (of winning arguments) will you call
it abuse?!?
| If you *PROVOKE* someone by mailing them mass quantities of material,
| and get a bunch of replies, that's not abuse.
details, please. who mailed what material in what quantities?
| Its called social correction.
if that's what you call it, how many thousands of readers of
the abused newsgroup will it take sending you "social signals"
before you'd no longer consider it "social" but abuse?!?
| The fix is *DON'T DO THAT*. If you don't want to hear from someone,
| why would you send them mail yourself?
to complain about another abusive news-post ?!?
but you knew that already, didn't you ?!!
| If you tell someone you want no further correspondance, and GET MORE,
| that's harassment and is prohibited by policy here.
if I post to a newsgroup stating: ...and I don't want to
receive any whining email complaints from any of you bozos
reading this, or I'll ask my site-admin to complain to yours
about harassment -- does it hold water?!? I don't think so.
Every time I post, you can complain, publicly and privately,
if you think you have a reason that will stand up public scrutiny.
No doubts about it. And I don't get to escalate by sending
mega mail-bombs in response either. I can either ignore it,
respond in kind, or tweek my software to route things straight
into the bit bucket. I can ask in this forum for a judgement
of peers also, of course... and for the community to send
social signals to indicate to the respective parties which position
the community standards favor...
| If you wish to allege a spam or other anti-social Usenet behavior, be
| specific, and prove the allegation. Being *offensive* doesn't count.
funny. I am not a witness of the abuse, not a reader of the
newsgroup in question. But I had no problem knowing what the
alleged abuse was -- and being *offensive* wasn't it. It was
persistent, off-topic abusive posting, and mega-mail-bombing.
Am I more perceptive than you or what ?!?
| You know this Tim. Give up the frigging personal crusade to get
| this person's account pulled.
Tim, thanks for reporting it here that Karl is not acting
on reports of abuse. Be prepared to make the abusive material
available for FTP or WEB-access, in case someone wants to check
your facts.
| I said it before, and will again:
every time I hear someone start up like that, my hair stands
at end....
| If you have an allegation of a TOS violation on our system, send the
| specifications and allegations to ro...@mcs.net.
please DO NOT mail the 3.5meg mailbomb to Karl (unless he insists);
instead offer to make it available for FTP or ask Karl for a writable
directory on his machine to deposit the file in...
| Before you waste both of our time and the bandwidth with spurious
| allegations, READ THE POLICY DOCUMENT. Its online at
| http://www.mcs.net/policy/ for your edification.
no, Karl, that is as ridiculous as someone telling you:
"read about the policy and standards on MY site as to what
email and news articles are considered inappropriate."
the point of the exercise is that certain COMMUNITY standards
apply to interaction between sites, and that individual site
policies need to respect and support these community standards.
but the reference point is the community, and the discussion
in this group better be representative of that community standard,
or else what's the point....
--
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
-> Tiananmen Square: 5 years later, ignoring it became OFFICIAL US policy <--
-> will a 14-year sentence for a Wei Jingsheng change anything ?!? hah! <--
---> ( I believe in emailing courtesy copies of follow-up articles ) <---
Karl Denninger
>>>>curious about the previous confrontation between Mr. Dunphy (and
>>>>postm...@MCS.COM, a.k.a. Karl Denninger, who refused to do anything about
>>>>Mr. Dunphy's previous abuse, which included a 3.5Mb mailbomb to me) can feel
>
>>get a bunch of replies, that's not abuse.
>
>this perfectly clear:
>
> You say we provoked our mailbombs.
>
> Karl, reign in your user. I'm sick of seeing his pattern of
>harassment against anyone he disagrees with, his flooding of newsgroups
>with irrelevant messages, and his continuing ability to get through it
>all because *you* let him.
I say that if you send someone email harassing them, and you get a strong
response, you had it coming.
If you tell someone you wish no communication with them, and they continue,
then you have a legitimate harassment complaint. If you get harassing email
in response to a Usenet post, you have a right to be upset.
However, you can't reserve the right to send email to someone and withhold
their right to reply. If you don't want someone to call you, don't call
them. You have no right to bitch if I dial "*69" on my telephone after
*you* call *me*, even if I call you some horrid names when you answer.
> Your own TOS says, quite explicitly, that you should have pulled
>Dunphy's account long ago. As far as I can tell, you haven't even given
>him a fragging warning. The relevant section:
>--
>You agree not to attempt to cause, or actually cause, any disruption of
>service on MCSNet or any other network or subscriber, including but not
>limited to malicious traffic generation, attempted or actual violation
>of any security system in place on the Internet and its resources, or
>any unauthorized access to any computer or resource on the Internet.
>--
>>I said it before, and will again:
>> If you have an allegation of a TOS violation on our system, send the
>> specifications and allegations to ro...@mcs.net.
>
> Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Do you want me to do so
>*again*?
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
Your complaint was already handled Tim.
If you have a *new* issue to raise, a contemporary one, then do it through
the proper channels. Make your allegations and list specifics, backed by
evidence. Send the email to "ne...@mcs.net" or "use...@mcs.net".
It will be investigated based on the evidence you provide. If you can
substantiate an actual violation of our policy, sanctions can be imposed.
We do in fact impose them when warranted.
If you REALLY have a valid complaint, this should be easy.
If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
with our firm or with me personally.
Many others before you have tried to shut people up they don't like or
disagree with, and none have succeeded. That record extends over almost
8 years now since I've been providing Usenet access to the public, which
likely exceeds your total time on the net.
Got it?
Russ Allbery
> I say that if you send someone email harassing them, and you get a strong
> response, you had it coming.
No one has a mailbomb coming. Period. Ever.
> If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
> answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
> with our firm or with me personally.
You have nowhere near the credibility in this forum as Tim Skirvin does.
You're defending one of your user's mailbombs, and you are advocating that
the same thing be done in the future. This is absurd.
Stop your users from sending mailbombs. This is not negotiable.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
Tim Skirvin
>> You say we provoked our mailbombs.
>I say that if you send someone email harassing them, and you get a strong
>response, you had it coming.
Then I will ask you one more question: what will you do if
Dunphy mailbombs anyone else?
>If you tell someone you wish no communication with them, and they continue,
>then you have a legitimate harassment complaint. If you get harassing email
>in response to a Usenet post, you have a right to be upset.
I got several thousand harassing emails in response to a few
Usenet posts.
>Your complaint was already handled Tim.
Thrown in the bit-bucket, most likely.
Jonathan Kamens
|> If you *PROVOKE* someone by mailing them mass quantities of material, and
|> The fix is *DON'T DO THAT*. If you don't want to hear from someone, why
|> would you send them mail yourself?
Some points and some questions (some of which have already been asked by other
people, but since you haven't answered them, I have no choice but to ask them
again):
* No one on the Usenet considers mail-bombing to be a valid form of discourse.
You've been asked several times, in one form or another, but you've yet to
answer these simple questions: Do you, or do you not, consider mail-bombing to
be a violation of your use policy? Do you, or do you not, consider
mail-bombing to be a valid form of "speech"? Do you, like everyone else on
the Usenet, consider it to be "malicious traffic generation" (quoting from
your policy), and therefore prohibited by your policy?
* When someone posts to the Usenet, anyone on the Usenet is entitled to
respond to their postings via E-mail. That's been a guiding principal of the
Usenet for as long as it's been in existence. That's why it's considered to
incredibly offensive to post an article without a valid return address in it
-- because that makes it impossible for people to respond to you via E-mail.
Therefore, if (just speaking hypothetically, of course) someone posts ten
off-topic postings in a newsgroup, the readers of that newsgroup are entitled
to complain separately about each of those postings. That's not "mailing them
mass quantities of material", that's responding to them as the same level as
their postings.
That is, incidentally, what I did to Joseph Dunphy. I forwarded back to him
each of his off-topic postings in soc.culture.israel, with a comment at the
top indicating that they did not belong there. All of my messages to him
totalled less than 55Kb, and in response, I received from him in a single
night a mailbomb totalling 2.88Mb. That is not a response in kind.
* Mr. Dunphy has never asked me to stop sending him E-mail, and he has in fact
"mailed me mass quantities of material". Does that mean that I can mail-bomb
him, as a form of "social correction", and you won't have any legitimate
complaint about my actions?
* I don't mind hearing from Mr. Dunphy, if he wishes to disagree with my
complaints. He's completely within his rights to respond to me once for each
time I write to him. He is not, however, within his rights to send me over 50
times the amount of E-mail I sent him, especially when his E-mail has NO NEW
CONTENT WHATSOEVER, and contains nothing more than postings from
soc.culture.israel which I've already seen. Are you really going to claim
that such a mail-bomb is not "malicious traffic generation"?
|> If you wish to allege a spam or other anti-social Usenet behavior, be
|> specific, and prove the allegation. Being *offensive* doesn't count.
When Mr. Dunphy mail-bombed me, I provided you with the precise time the
mailbombing occurred, the number of messages in it, and the total size of
those messages. I asked you to look in your logs to confirm the mail-bombing.
I also offered to forward to you "message IDs, message headers, or any other
information you need in order to confirm" that Mr. Dunphy mail-bombed me.
You responded, "I have *no idea* what your conversation with him was, and I
will not invade either of your privacy rights to find out." Ignoring, for a
moment, the fact that you can't invade my privacy rights by looking at E-mail
that I've offered to send to you, your response makes it quite clear that you
explicitly REFUSED to investigate an allegation against your user of violating
your policy. Why?
When Mr. Dunphy posted a message in soc.culture.israel stating that he was
starting a thread there, and was going to continue posting messages in that
thread there, when he knew for a fact that the thread was not on-topic in that
newsgroup, but was doing it because "tormenting [the readers of
soc.culture.israel] should be good fun", I forwarded you the entire message in
which he made this statement, and asked what you intend to do about it. In
response, you sent me E-mail (which I will post in this newsgroup as soon as
I'm done posting this message) in which you wrote, "Send your charges and
specifications. You make accusations above, but present no evidence.
Line-item-by-line-item please.... that is, if you really have a serious issue
that is supported by the evidence." What "evidence", exactly, do you need,
other than the complete Usenet posting in which Mr. Dunphy violated your
policy? Stop bullshitting.... You're not interested in "investigating",
you're interested in AVOIDING investigating, even if doing so makes you look
like a fool in public.
Once again, for your information, in case you've lost my previous message to
you.... In article <4b89os$n...@Mars.mcs.com>, posted by Mr. Dunphy to
soc.culture.israel and numerous other groups, Mr. Dunphy explains why a thread
which he is about to start is being posted to the groups to which he chose to
psot it. In that message, he writes:
They'll also appear in soc.culture.israel, in honor of that incredible
dork and netcop, Jonathan Kamens (j...@jik.datasrv.co.il) who took
it upon himself to harass anyone who accidentally stumbled into his
precious group, even if pulled in while doing a followup from
another group, and got a number of his friends to help out. In a true
master stroke, Jon lead a mailbombing campaign against me for
making a post on a spam thread, asking people to take the thread
out of soc.culture.israel. Jon felt that that post didn't belong in
soc.culture.israel. After having several weeks of my time wasted,
dealing with harassment from that group, and getting my mailfilter
set up, I decided, screw them, and have been including their worthless
little group in the followup-to lines in my posts on a regular basis,
and am not alone in this. So, soc.culture.israel is there as part of a
continuing public service. People like that need to be taught a few
manners. Maybe they'll stop harassing random passers by. If not,
tormenting them should be good fun.
Now, Karl, please answer yes or no: Is cross-posting by one of your users to
a newsgroup which he acknowledges explicitly is not appropriate for the topic
about which he is posting, for the sole purpose of "teaching manners" to the
readers of that newsgroup and "tormenting them", a violation of your policy?
If you need more evidence that your user mail-bombed me in order to
investigate my complaint, please tell me what evidence you need and I will
provide it. If you need more evidence that your user is cross-posting
off-topic postings in soc.culture.israel maliciously, please tell me what
evidence you need and I will provide it.
Jonathan Kamens
|> If you have a *new* issue to raise, a contemporary one, then do it through
|> the proper channels. Make your allegations and list specifics, backed by
|> evidence. Send the email to "ne...@mcs.net" or "use...@mcs.net".
You respond to E-mail sent to postm...@mcs.com, but you won't process
complaints sent there.
Then you say that complaints should be sent to ro...@mcs.com.
Now you say that complaints should be sent to postm...@mcs.net or
use...@mcs.net.
Somehow I suspect that all of these addresses point at you. Which means that
somehow I suspect that you're doing nothing more than giving us the runaround
in order to avoid doing anything about the misbehavior of your users.
|> It will be investigated based on the evidence you provide. If you can
|> substantiate an actual violation of our policy, sanctions can be imposed.
|> We do in fact impose them when warranted.
Really? Name one case when you did. No names, just the circumstances and the
sanctions you imposed.
|> If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
|> answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
|> with our firm or with me personally.
I don't care what Mr. Dunphy says. I have no interest in the topics of his
postings, and indeed, I don't even know what his views are. I just don't want
him posting them in soc.culture.israel.
|> Many others before you have tried to shut people up they don't like or
|> disagree with, and none have succeeded. That record extends over almost
|> 8 years now since I've been providing Usenet access to the public, which
|> likely exceeds your total time on the net.
I've been providing services to the Usenet for longer than you've been
providing public access, and I've never made a cent for any of it. Neener
neener. (In other words, who cares how long you've been providing public
access to the Usenet? If you're allowing your users to abuse the Usenet and
the people on it, then you're not running your site properly. End of story.)
Jonathan Kamens
*****
Return-Path: <ka...@mcs.com>
Subject: Re: Why I wouldn't be inclined to forgive... [soc.culture.israel]
To: j...@ANNEX-1-SLIP-JIK.CAM.OV.COM (Jonathan Kamens)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 1995 10:30:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
In-Reply-To: <1995122106...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> from "Jonathan Kamens" at Dec 21, 95 06:27:17 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
>
Jonathan,
Send your charges and specifications.
You make accusations above, but present no evidence. Line-item-by-line-item
please.... that is, if you really have a serious issue that is supported by
the evidence.
--
--
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] | 10 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 only FULL Clarinet feed!
*****
Tim Skirvin
>| You know this Tim. Give up the frigging personal crusade to get
>| this person's account pulled.
> Tim, thanks for reporting it here that Karl is not acting
> on reports of abuse. Be prepared to make the abusive material
> available for FTP or WEB-access, in case someone wants to check
> your facts.
It's up. Check http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/dunphy.html. I
oughta update it to include more of this stuff, too.
Karl now, of course, refuses to acknowledge that I even send
complaints, as I apparently have no standing to make them.
Tim Skirvin
>Here's the most recent E-mail I've received from Mr. Denninger:
>You make accusations above, but present no evidence. Line-item-by-line-item
>please.... that is, if you really have a serious issue that is supported by
>the evidence.
Karl, you know perfectly well that, when I told you I was going
to do this, you threatened to sue me in civil and criminal court.
You refuse to do anything without proof, and you do not *accept*
proof. Do you see nothing wrong with this?
Karl Denninger
Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
>In article <4bc652$a...@Venus.mcs.com>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>|> It will be investigated based on the evidence you provide. If you can
>|> substantiate an actual violation of our policy, sanctions can be imposed.
>|> We do in fact impose them when warranted.
>
>Really? Name one case when you did. No names, just the circumstances and the
>sanctions you imposed.
We have cancelled approximately 100 accounts in the last year for TOS
violations. I will not list names and specifics, as that would violate our
subscriber's privacy.
>|> If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
>|> answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
>|> with our firm or with me personally.
>
>I don't care what Mr. Dunphy says. I have no interest in the topics of his
>postings, and indeed, I don't even know what his views are. I just don't want
>him posting them in soc.culture.israel.
Aha. There's the point, isn't it? You want him off a group. Regardless of
what he says, or whether or not it is on-topic.
Sorry, no go Jonathan.
Tim Skirvin
>You're completely full of it Tim. I threatened to press charges if you
>mailbombed me or this site, or in any other way attempted to disrupt service
>to our customers, yes.
Which would have been done if I had given you the evidence that
you apparently needed. Of course, you also threatened to alias out the
UIUC domain if I were to bounce you back the evidence...
You have refused to see the evidence. You have refused to even
investigate the matter. All that you have done is defend your user,
with no thought to what policies he has violated (and continues to
violate).
We will not accept mailbombing, Mr. Denninger. Your policies
say you won't either. But, for whatever reason, you continue to let
your user mailbomb others, to flood irrelevant groups with off-topic
messages, and basically ignore your own policies.
I demand that you stop this.
Karl Denninger
Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>>Here's the most recent E-mail I've received from Mr. Denninger:
>[snip -- the following quotes are from Karl]
>>You make accusations above, but present no evidence. Line-item-by-line-item
>>please.... that is, if you really have a serious issue that is supported by
>>the evidence.
>
> Karl, you know perfectly well that, when I told you I was going
>to do this, you threatened to sue me in civil and criminal court.
>
> You refuse to do anything without proof, and you do not *accept*
>proof. Do you see nothing wrong with this?
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
You're completely full of it Tim. I threatened to press charges if you
mailbombed me or this site, or in any other way attempted to disrupt service
to our customers, yes.
Sending a detailed set of charges and specifications to me for investigation
hardly qualifies.
Karl Denninger
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> writes:
>
>> I say that if you send someone email harassing them, and you get a strong
>> response, you had it coming.
>
>
>> answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
>> with our firm or with me personally.
>
>You're defending one of your user's mailbombs, and you are advocating that
>the same thing be done in the future. This is absurd.
>
>Stop your users from sending mailbombs. This is not negotiable.
Really?
Glad to -- when the people who mailbombed him FIRST have their accounts
tanked -- permanently.
I have the list, and the proof right here.
The user in question doesn't even RECEIVE most email any more -- he's had to
install filters to discard it unread.
Why? Because THREE TIMES our mail spool was overrun by net.terrorists who
decided to mailbomb our site.
Some of them are the VERY PEOPLE doing the bitching here.
Tim Skirvin
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Stop your users from sending mailbombs. This is not negotiable.
>Glad to -- when the people who mailbombed him FIRST have their accounts
>tanked -- permanently.
Oh? I'd love to see this. Who first mailbombed Dunphy?
And if you say "me", then you'd better damned well have proof,
and be willing to post it.
In any case, deal with those sites specifically. Being
mailbombed is still no excuse for mailbombing -- unless you're bouncing
the mail back, of course.
Jonathan Kamens
|> Glad to -- when the people who mailbombed him FIRST have their accounts
|> tanked -- permanently.
So, you're saying that it's OK for a user at your site to mail-bomb someone at
another site, and you won't do anything to stop it or discipline your user, if
the user from that site mail-bombs your user first, and the administrators of
that site refuse to do anything about the mail-bombing? A simple yes or no
answer, please.
I note that you've failed to answer any of the questions I've asked in
previous postings. I'll repeat one of them again, since it's relevant to the
point you make above: Your user, Dunphy, mail-bombed me. I did not mail-bomb
him first. You refuse to do anything about the fact that he mail-bombed me.
He has never asked me not to send him E-mail. Apparently, according to your
opinions and policies about mail-bombing, it should therefore be completely OK
for me to mail-bomb him in return, and you have no right to complain. Is that
correct? A simple yes or no answer, please.
Another question: Are you saying that if user A...@some.site mail-bombs user
B...@mcs.com and postm...@some.site doesn't do anything about A's behavior,
you'll let B...@mcs.com mail-bomb user C...@some.other.site without doing anything
about it? If not, then please prove to me that both Tim Skirvin and I have
mail-bombed Mr. Dunphy. Otherwise, there is no way you can justify the fact
that you have not cancelled his account.
|> I have the list, and the proof right here.
If I have mail-bombed someone at your site, I give you permission to post any
and all proof that you have to this newsgroup. You will not be violating my
privacy if you do so. Tim Skirvin has already made the same statement. So,
let's see the proof!
|> The user in question doesn't even RECEIVE most email any more -- he's had to
|> install filters to discard it unread.
Good rule of them: Anyone who gets so much "harassing E-mail" that they have
to discard most of it unread, is almost certainly provoking that E-mail
through inappropriate acts. Mr. Dunphy gets many complaints because he does
things which prompt people to (justifiably) complain. This is not evidence
that people are abusing him; it's evidence that he's abusing the Usenet.
|> Why? Because THREE TIMES our mail spool was overrun by net.terrorists who
|> decided to mailbomb our site.
|>
|> Some of them are the VERY PEOPLE doing the bitching here.
The people who have participated in the thread about Dunphy in this newsgroup
are: Jonathan Kamens, Tim Skirvin, wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu, Russ Allbery,
Karl Denninger. Presumably, you did not mail-bomb your own user. Tim and I
have already given you permission to post whatever "private" information about
us you need to post in order to prove that we mail-bombed your user. At this
point, if you don't either (a) post that proof or (b) state publicly that the
person you're accusing is either wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu or Russ Allbery,
everyone will know that you're lying. And, of course, werner and Russ are
free to post a message giving you permission to post about them as well.
So, how about it? Let's see the proof.
Jonathan Kamens
|> If Mr. Dunphy wishes to post articles about Israeli culture to
|> soc.culture.israel, then that's fine with me.
I forgot to mention that in fact, when Mr. Dunphy posted a message about
Jewish divorce law in soc.culture.israel, *after* our argument about his
off-topic postings there and his 2.88Mb mail-bomb to me, I engaged in a
discussion with him about that posting with nary a word about his choice of
newsgroups. Anyone who doubts this can search in DejaNews for Message ID
<45u72c$d...@jik.datasrv.co.il> in soc.culture.israel dated October 16, or for
the thread with the Subject line "Wife-initiated divorce procedure in Israel"
in that group. Or I can mail you the posting, if you send me E-mail and ask
for it.
Jonathan Kamens
|> In article <4bdvuo$8...@jik.datasrv.co.il>,
|> Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
|> >In article <4bc652$a...@Venus.mcs.com>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
|> >
|> >|> It will be investigated based on the evidence you provide. If you can
|> >|> substantiate an actual violation of our policy, sanctions can be imposed.
|> >|> We do in fact impose them when warranted.
|> >
|> >Really? Name one case when you did. No names, just the circumstances and the
|> >sanctions you imposed.
|>
|> We have cancelled approximately 100 accounts in the last year for TOS
|> violations. I will not list names and specifics, as that would violate our
|> subscriber's privacy.
I did not ask for "names and specifics". I specially said that you shouldn't
provide names, because that would violate people's privacy. Were any of the
100 accounts you cancelled in the last year cancelled for mail-bombing? If
so, then what makes those cases different from Mr. Dunphy's? Were any of the
100 accounts you cancelled in the last year cancelled for repeated, malicious
cross-posting of irrelevant threads to off-topic newsgroups? If so, then what
makes those cases different from Mr. Dunphy's?
|> >|> If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
|> >|> answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
|> >|> with our firm or with me personally.
|> >
|> >I don't care what Mr. Dunphy says. I have no interest in the topics of his
|> >postings, and indeed, I don't even know what his views are. I just don't want
|> >him posting them in soc.culture.israel.
|>
|> Aha. There's the point, isn't it? You want him off a group. Regardless of
|> what he says, or whether or not it is on-topic.
It's very nice of you to twist my words, Karl, but no one reading your
articles in news.admin.net-abuse.misc is going to fall for it.
I don't want Mr. Dunphy's postings in soc.culture.israel because NOTHING HE
HAS EVER POSTED IN SOC.CULTURE.ISRAEL HAS BEEN ON-TOPIC FOR THAT NEWSGROUP.
He has even admitted, explicitly, that the thread he is currently
cross-posting in soc.culture.israel is off-topic there and that he's posting
it there only to torment the readers of the group.
If Mr. Dunphy wishes to post articles about Israeli culture to
soc.culture.israel, then that's fine with me.
Anyone who knows me and the work I've done for the Usenet knows that I am, and
always have been, a staunch free-speech advocate on the Net.
Anyone who sees you trying to justify allowing your user to mail-bomb two
different people without doing anything to stop him knows that you're talking
through your hat. Give it up. Or answer the questions that I have asked you,
and provide the proof you've claimed you have that the people complaining
about Mr. Dunphy mail-bombed him before he mail-bombed them.
Jonathan Kamens
*****
Return-Path: <ka...@mcs.com>
Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy <st...@MCS.COM>'s attack on soc.culture.israel
To: j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 09:14:43 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
In-Reply-To: <1995122210...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> from "Jonathan Kamens" at Dec 22, 95 10:02:45 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
> Once again, for your information, in case you've lost my previous message to
> you.... In article <4b89os$n...@Mars.mcs.com>, posted by Mr. Dunphy to
> soc.culture.israel and numerous other groups, Mr. Dunphy explains why a thread
> which he is about to start is being posted to the groups to which he chose to
> psot it. In that message, he writes:
>
> They'll also appear in soc.culture.israel, in honor of that incredible
> dork and netcop, Jonathan Kamens (j...@jik.datasrv.co.il) who took
> it upon himself to harass anyone who accidentally stumbled into his
> precious group, even if pulled in while doing a followup from
> another group, and got a number of his friends to help out. In a true
> master stroke, Jon lead a mailbombing campaign against me for
> making a post on a spam thread, asking people to take the thread
> out of soc.culture.israel. Jon felt that that post didn't belong in
> soc.culture.israel. After having several weeks of my time wasted,
> dealing with harassment from that group, and getting my mailfilter
> set up, I decided, screw them, and have been including their worthless
> little group in the followup-to lines in my posts on a regular basis,
> and am not alone in this. So, soc.culture.israel is there as part of a
> continuing public service. People like that need to be taught a few
> manners. Maybe they'll stop harassing random passers by. If not,
> tormenting them should be good fun.
>
> Now, Karl, please answer yes or no: Is cross-posting by one of your users to
> a newsgroup which he acknowledges explicitly is not appropriate for the topic
> about which he is posting, for the sole purpose of "teaching manners" to the
> readers of that newsgroup and "tormenting them", a violation of your policy?
>
> If you need more evidence that your user mail-bombed me in order to
> investigate my complaint, please tell me what evidence you need and I will
> provide it. If you need more evidence that your user is cross-posting
> off-topic postings in soc.culture.israel maliciously, please tell me what
> evidence you need and I will provide it.
Are you or are you not guilty as charged above?
--
--
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] | 10 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 only FULL Clarinet feed!
*****
Return-Path: <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 18:55:10 GMT
From: Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
To: ka...@mcs.com
In-reply-to: <m0tT9BE...@venus.mcs.com> (ka...@mcs.com)
Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy <st...@MCS.COM>'s attack on soc.culture.israel
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 09:14:43 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
> They'll also appear in soc.culture.israel, in honor of that incredible
> dork and netcop, Jonathan Kamens (j...@jik.datasrv.co.il) who took
> it upon himself to harass anyone who accidentally stumbled into his
> precious group, even if pulled in while doing a followup from
> another group, and got a number of his friends to help out. In a true
> master stroke, Jon lead a mailbombing campaign against me for
> making a post on a spam thread, asking people to take the thread
> out of soc.culture.israel. Jon felt that that post didn't belong in
> soc.culture.israel. After having several weeks of my time wasted,
> dealing with harassment from that group, and getting my mailfilter
> set up, I decided, screw them, and have been including their worthless
> little group in the followup-to lines in my posts on a regular basis,
> and am not alone in this. So, soc.culture.israel is there as part of a
> continuing public service. People like that need to be taught a few
> manners. Maybe they'll stop harassing random passers by. If not,
> tormenting them should be good fun.
Are you or are you not guilty as charged above?
First of all, why is this relevant? Even if I'd done every single
thing that Mr. Dunphy accused me of doing, why would that give him the
right to intentionally post off-topic articles in soc.culture.israel,
thus wasting the bandwidth (and money) and "tormenting" EVERY SINGLE
USER OF THAT NEWSGROUP? Are you saying that you think it's OK for
Mr. Dunphy to abuse a newsgroup because he has a personal gripe
against a small number of readers of that group? A simple yes or no
answer, please.
Now, about the "charges" Mr. Dunphy makes.... I was not going to say
anything about them, but now that you've brought it up, I'll point out
that they're untrue, that Mr. Dunphy has no proof of them, and that
therefore he has libeled me. Is *that* against your user policy?
Let's look at the charges carefully:
> They'll also appear in soc.culture.israel, in honor of that incredible
> dork and netcop,
He's certainly entitled to have that opinion about me.
> Jonathan Kamens (j...@jik.datasrv.co.il)
I prefer j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com or j...@cam.ov.com. I mean,
just in case you or Mr. Dunphy wants to mailbomb me, you should use
the address that works most reliably.
> who took
> it upon himself to harass anyone who accidentally stumbled into his
> precious group, even if pulled in while doing a followup from
> another group,
Mr. Dunphy posted a number of off-topic postings in
soc.culture.israel. For each one of them, I sent him E-mail stating
that the posting had nothing to do with Israeli culture and therefore
should not have been posted to soc.culture.israel.
The fact that he posted there because he posted a followup without
checking its Newsgroups line does not change the fact that he was
wrong. Quoting from "A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet
Community" in news.announce.newusers:
Check the Headers When Following Up.
The news software has provisions to specify that follow-ups to an
article should go to a specific set of newsgroups -- possibly
different from the newsgroups to which the original article was
posted. Sometimes the groups chosen for follow-ups are totally
inappropriate, especially as a thread of discussion changes with
repeated postings. You should carefully check the groups and
distributions given in the header and edit them as appropriate. If
you change the groups named in the header, or if you direct
follow-ups to a particular group, say so in the body of the message
-- not everyone reads the headers of postings.
Quoting further, from "Rules for posting to Usenet" in the same group:
When posting a followup, be careful about newsgroups. The article
that you're responding to might have been cross-posted to several
newsgroups, and by default your followup will go to ALL of those
newsgroups. Or the article might have a Followup-To line in its
header, and in that case, by default your followup will go where the
Followup-To line says -- which might not be the newsgroup where you're
reading the article. You should ensure that your article is posted
only to newsgroups where its actual content is appropriate. Sometimes
it's better to leave the newsgroups on your own article the same as
they were, but put a Followup-To line in its header to confine
followups to an appropriate group. In any case, it's best for
articles that have a Followup-To line to be posted to whatever groups
are mentioned in that line, and to mention in the text of the article
that followups are redirected. The idea is for the threads of
articles to make sense in each newsgroup where the articles appear,
for people who don't read the others.
Another quote from the "Primer" posting:
Be familiar with the group you are posting to before you post! You
shouldn't post to groups you do not read, or post to groups you've
only read a few articles from -- you may not be familiar with the on-going
conventions and themes of the group. One normally does not join
a conversation by just walking up and talking. Instead, you listen
first and then join in if you have something pertinent to contribute.
In short, If Mr. Dunphy was familiar with soc.culture.israel before
posting there, he should have known that his articles weren't
appropriate there, so he should have either not posted them there or
posted them with a Followup-To directing followups elsewhere. If he
was *not* familiar with soc.culture.israel, then he shouldn't have
posted there at all. Do you have a different interpretation of the
rules I've quoted? If so, please explain it.
Now, as for "harassing" him, as I said, I sent him one message for
each of his off-topic postings. For as long as I've been on the
Usenet (no, longer, actually), it has been axiomatic that if you post
to the Usenet, people have the right to send you E-mail (*not*
mail-bombs) about your postings. If you don't want to receive the
E-mail, you shouldn't post. If you don't want to receive E-mail from
a particular person, then you can set up a mail filter to discard mail
from them. But that doesn't change the fact that they have the right
to write to you about your postings.
> and got a number of his friends to help out.
I never posted in soc.culture.israel about Mr. Dunphy's off-topic
postings, short of mentioning them briefly in a followup to someone
else over two weeks later, because I was accused of attacking Dunphy
and had to mention the episode with him in order to defend myself.
I never asked anyone else to complain to Mr. Dunphy. I have no idea
if anyone else ever complained to Mr. Dunphy. Mr. Dunphy has no
evidence that I ever asked anyone to "help out" in my complaints
against him, because I did not. His accusation that I did is
libelous.
> In a true
> master stroke, Jon lead a mailbombing campaign against me for
> making a post on a spam thread, asking people to take the thread
> out of soc.culture.israel.
I never mail-bombed Mr. Dunphy. I never asked anyone else to
mail-bomb Mr. Dunphy. I have no idea if anyone else wrote to
Mr. Dunphy about his off-topic postings in soc.culture.israel. If so
many other people did that Mr. Dunphy was "mail-bombed", then it seems
that a large number of people besides me were upset by his actions.
Were we all trying to censor him, Mr. Denninger?
I don't know what Mr. Dunphy is talking about when he references a
"spam thread", since the meaning of the term "spam" makes it
impossible for there to be such a thing as a "spam thread".
When Mr. Dunphy posted a message "asking people to take the thread out
of soc.culture.israel", he did so without putting a Followup-To line
in his message, and I responded with a single E-mail message which
read as follows:
When you post a message telling people that the list of newsgroups being
cross-posted to is inappropriate, then you should include a Followup-To line
so that followups to *your* posting will not appear in the inappropriate
newsgroups.
Is that a "mailbombing compaign"?
> Jon felt that that post didn't belong in
> soc.culture.israel.
No, I didn't. I didn't criticize him for asking people to remove
soc.culture.israel from followups, I criticized him for not acting on
his own advice and putting a Followup-To line in *his* posting.
> After having several weeks of my time wasted,
> dealing with harassment from that group,
I have no idea what wasted "several weeks" of Mr. Dunphy's time. All
of my E-mail messages to him were sent between Sun, 8 Oct 1995
13:12:38 +0200 and Mon, 9 Oct 1995 22:17:04 +0200. If he had "several
weeks" of complaints from readers of soc.culture.israel after he
started posting there, then perhaps he was doing something to merit
those complaints?
In short, I did not harass Mr. Dunphy. I did not mail-bomb
Mr. Dunphy. I did not encourage other people to mail-bomb
Mr. Dunphy. I did not spend several weeks attacking Mr. Dunphy. I
did not criticize Mr. Dunphy for posting a message in
soc.culture.israel telling people not to post there. No, I am not
"guilty as charged above". But why does that matter? Are
Mr. Dunphy' malicious off-topic postings in soc.culture.israel against
your policy or aren't they?
Jonathan Kamens
*****
Return-Path: <ka...@mcs.com>
Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy <st...@MCS.COM>'s attack on soc.culture.israel
To: j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 09:16:02 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
Cc: j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com
In-Reply-To: <1995122210...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> from "Jonathan Kamens" at Dec 22, 95 10:06:19 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
> |> It will be investigated based on the evidence you provide. If you can
> |> substantiate an actual violation of our policy, sanctions can be imposed.
> |> We do in fact impose them when warranted.
>
> Really? Name one case when you did. No names, just the circumstances and the
> sanctions you imposed.
We have removed over 100 accounts in the last year for violations of our
terms of service.
> |> If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
> |> answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
> |> with our firm or with me personally.
>
> I don't care what Mr. Dunphy says. I have no interest in the topics of his
> postings, and indeed, I don't even know what his views are. I just don't want
> him posting them in soc.culture.israel.
Why? They don't look that far off topic to me.
> |> Many others before you have tried to shut people up they don't like or
> |> disagree with, and none have succeeded. That record extends over almost
> |> 8 years now since I've been providing Usenet access to the public, which
> |> likely exceeds your total time on the net.
>
> I've been providing services to the Usenet for longer than you've been
> providing public access, and I've never made a cent for any of it. Neener
> neener. (In other words, who cares how long you've been providing public
> access to the Usenet? If you're allowing your users to abuse the Usenet and
> the people on it, then you're not running your site properly. End of story.)
Really? Jonathan, you've been the subject of SEVERAL complaints by our
users in your behavior on the net over the years. Would you like cites?
Remember one "ARF"?
--
--
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] | 10 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 only FULL Clarinet feed!
*****
Return-Path: <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 1995 19:16:54 GMT
From: Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
To: ka...@mcs.com
In-reply-to: <m0tT9CU...@venus.mcs.com> (ka...@mcs.com)
Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy <st...@MCS.COM>'s attack on soc.culture.israel
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 09:16:02 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
> |> If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
> |> answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
> |> with our firm or with me personally.
>
> I don't care what Mr. Dunphy says. I have no interest in the topics of his
> postings, and indeed, I don't even know what his views are. I just don't want
> him posting them in soc.culture.israel.
Why? They don't look that far off topic to me.
I'd like to see you explain how the seventeen postings from
Mr. Dunphy, which are purportedly about sexual abuse and in which he
mentions the word Israel only when he is justifying his off-topic
postings attacking the group, are "not that far off topic".
I'd like to see you explain how you can claim that they belong in the
newsgroup when Mr. Dunphy has ALREADY EXPLICITLY ADMITTED that they
don't, and that he's posting them there only to torment the readers of
the group.
Readers of news.admin.net-abuse.misc can see for themselves whether
the articles belong in soc.culture.israel by searching for the
Subjects "Why I would not be inclined to forgive....", "Why I wouldn't
be inclined to forgive..." and "This is why I think that your little
group sucks" in soc.culture.israel, or by retrieving the articles in
that group with Message IDs: <4b6rkl$e...@Mercury.mcs.com>
<4b89os$n...@Mars.mcs.com> <4b8agj$o...@Mars.mcs.com>
<4bck8b$n...@Mars.mcs.com> <4bckgf$n...@Mars.mcs.com>
<4bckrs$o...@Mars.mcs.com> <4bcl91$o...@Mars.mcs.com>
<4bcliv$p...@Mars.mcs.com> <4bclu9$q...@Mars.mcs.com>
<4bcm6v$q...@Mars.mcs.com> <4bcmjf$r...@Mars.mcs.com>
<4bcms9$r...@Mars.mcs.com> <4bcn9t$s...@Mars.mcs.com>
<4bcnn1$t...@Mars.mcs.com> <4bcnva$a...@Mars.mcs.com>
<4bco8c$p...@Mars.mcs.com> <4bcos3$1...@Mars.mcs.com>
<4bd1os$g...@Mars.mcs.com>.
> I've been providing services to the Usenet for longer than you've been
> providing public access, and I've never made a cent for any of it. Neener
> neener. (In other words, who cares how long you've been providing public
> access to the Usenet? If you're allowing your users to abuse the Usenet and
> the people on it, then you're not running your site properly. End of story.)
Really? Jonathan, you've been the subject of SEVERAL complaints by our
users in your behavior on the net over the years. Would you like cites?
Remember one "ARF"?
1) You're once again evading the issue. Why does whether or not users
of your site have complained about me have anything whatsoever to do
with whether (a) Mr. Dunphy is abusing soc.culture.israel or (b)
Mr. Dunphy has mail-bombed people?
2) Yes, of course I remember "ARF" (a.k.a. Jack Schmidling). Are you
claiming that I did something to him which merited a legitimate
complaint about my behavior? If so, please provide proof. I spent a
long time arguing with Jack about his anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic
diatribes in talk.politics.mideast and soc.culture.israel, but that's
all I did. If you are accusing me of doing something else, something
that was not an appropriate form of discourse, then please specify
your charges and prove them.
(Anyone in news.admin.net-abuse.misc who seriously doubts what I'm
saying can verify it by searching in DejaNews for postings by "ARF" or
"Jack Schmidling" and by me in talk.politics.mideast.)
Jack Schmidling, incidentally, was another crackpot who delighted in
widely cross-posting his diatribes to inappropriate newsgroups, as
anyone who looks in DejaNews will see. Attempting to use him as a
proof of flaws in my character isn't going to do anything to
strengthen your argument.
But again, why does this matter? Why would bad behavior on my part
make it OK for your user to mail-bomb other people or abuse
soc.culture.israel?
Bruce Ediger
:Glad to -- when the people who mailbombed him FIRST have their accounts
:tanked -- permanently.
What is the criteria for "mailbomb" here? What Dunphy considers a "mailbomb"
is about 4 messages, all probably sent from different people.
:I have the list, and the proof right here.
Please post the list. I want to see if I'm on it: I sent 1 (one) email to
Dunphy pointing out that his "Back Spamming" campaign was rude as hell,
and he seemed to consider that part of a "mailbomb".
:The user in question doesn't even RECEIVE most email any more -- he's had to
:install filters to discard it unread.
That's because he's such an enormously abrasive person that he gets tons
of complaints.
--
I have killfiled all usenet articles from prodigy.com, indirect.com,
hollyberry.com and interramp.com due to interminable phone sex spams and
unethical ad spams. Although I'm much happier, I'm disappointed in ISP
management that allows and fosters unchecked spams and unethical ads.
wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu
quoting j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) :
| ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
|
||> Some of them are the VERY PEOPLE doing the bitching here.
|
| The people who have participated in the thread about Dunphy in this newsgroup
| are: Jonathan Kamens, Tim Skirvin, wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu, Russ Allbery,
| Karl Denninger. Presumably, you did not mail-bomb your own user. Tim and I
| have already given you permission to post whatever "private" information about
| us you need to post in order to prove that we mail-bombed your user. At this
| point, if you don't either (a) post that proof or (b) state publicly that the
| person you're accusing is either wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu or Russ Allbery,
| everyone will know that you're lying. And, of course, werner and Russ are
| free to post a message giving you permission to post about them as well.
as should be well known here, I do not believe in email privacy
of abuse. I will make abusive email public knowledge as I see fit
and, of course, invite anyone who believes to have such a claim
against me to drag me into Judge Wapner's Stupid Netters Court.
| So, how about it? Let's see the proof.
by all means, Karl, let us help you deal with abusers of
your users and site, too.
Tim Skirvin
j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>|> I have the list, and the proof right here.
>If I have mail-bombed someone at your site, I give you permission to post any
>and all proof that you have to this newsgroup. You will not be violating my
>privacy if you do so. Tim Skirvin has already made the same statement. So,
>let's see the proof!
To make this perfectly clear, Karl, I agree entirely. You may
post any and all evidence that supposedly points towards me mailbombing
your user. Please do so with all haste.
Aaron Marquez
Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>>Here's the most recent E-mail I've received from Mr. Denninger:
>[snip -- the following quotes are from Karl]
>>You make accusations above, but present no evidence. Line-item-by-line-item
>>please.... that is, if you really have a serious issue that is supported by
>>the evidence.
>
> Karl, you know perfectly well that, when I told you I was going
>to do this, you threatened to sue me in civil and criminal court.
>
> You refuse to do anything without proof, and you do not *accept*
>proof. Do you see nothing wrong with this?
>
>--
><a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a>
><a href="http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/killfile.html">The Daemons</a>
(my usual disclaimer that I'm not a Usenet god and am just speculating...)
Is this sysadmins continued ill behavior and bad form ground for a
possible declaration of his as a rogue site in the future? I'm speaking
of Denninger, of course...Any ideas?
--
-----
KoX, SP4, #1 fan of the Panty Inspector...
Clam Diner Supreme and Enemy Marcabian since 1973...
mar...@emrl.com NOTE: All flame mail WILL be posted publicly. Threats too.
Karl Denninger
>In article <4bf4la$q...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>>>Here's the most recent E-mail I've received from Mr. Denninger:
>>[snip -- the following quotes are from Karl]
>>>You make accusations above, but present no evidence. Line-item-by-line-item
>>>please.... that is, if you really have a serious issue that is supported by
>>>the evidence.
>>
>> Karl, you know perfectly well that, when I told you I was going
>>to do this, you threatened to sue me in civil and criminal court.
>>
>> You refuse to do anything without proof, and you do not *accept*
>>proof. Do you see nothing wrong with this?
>>
>> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
>>--
>><a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a>
>><a href="http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/killfile.html">The Daemons</a>
>
>
> (my usual disclaimer that I'm not a Usenet god and am just speculating...)
>
>
> Is this sysadmins continued ill behavior and bad form ground for a
>possible declaration of his as a rogue site in the future? I'm speaking
>of Denninger, of course...Any ideas?
Both Tim Skirvin and Jonathan Kamans are judged "non credible" at MCSNet
absent concrete, verifyable proof of an allegation *AND* proof of lack of
provocation.
This is due to a long history that we have had with both "gentlemen".
Again, those who wish to allege that a customer of ours is violating our
terms of service are welcome to submit their evidence through our normal
procedure.
We do not respond to threats, nor act on same.
Tim Skirvin
>Both Tim Skirvin and Jonathan Kamans are judged "non credible" at MCSNet
>absent concrete, verifyable proof of an allegation *AND* proof of lack of
>provocation.
Ah. So it's okay for your users to mailbomb us if we provoked
it.
Thank you for making this perfectly clear.
Does anyone see any reason why we *shouldn't* start aliasing MCSNet
out of existance?
Karl Denninger
Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>Both Tim Skirvin and Jonathan Kamans are judged "non credible" at MCSNet
>>absent concrete, verifyable proof of an allegation *AND* proof of lack of
>>provocation.
>
> Ah. So it's okay for your users to mailbomb us if we provoked
>it.
> Thank you for making this perfectly clear.
Never said that Tim. Appropriate action for the incident in question was
taken when it PREVIOUSLY was reported. You love to twist the truth and
distort facts; it makes you feel good. The above is yet another distortion.
You might want to see somebody about this pathology.
The issue you refer to is CLOSED, and has been for quite some time. People
who have *contemporary* issues are welcome to raise them THROUGH NORMAL
PROCEDURE here. You do not have one. Other people *do* raise issues of
legitimate Term-of-service problems to us all the time, and we *do* act on
these reports.
When they are justified.
This vendetta of yours, Jonathan's and a few others is purely personal,
driven in no small part by your inability to get me to deny this individual
an account as an act of prior restraint. Ever since I said "no way" a few
months ago you and a number of other net.kooks have done everything in
your power to goad this person and create operational problems for him
and our network.
It will not be tolerated Tim, nor will I respond further to you here. Prior
restraint has NEVER been practiced by this company, nor will it be in the
future. I have both ethical and legal reasons for this position and MCSNet
has a firm has no intention of ever modifying that stance.
Russ Allbery
> Both Tim Skirvin and Jonathan Kamans are judged "non credible" at MCSNet
> absent concrete, verifyable proof of an allegation *AND* proof of lack of
> provocation.
> This is due to a long history that we have had with both "gentlemen".
An old adage about knowing someone by their enemies comes to mind.
Jonathan Kamens
|> Both Tim Skirvin and Jonathan Kamans are judged "non credible" at MCSNet
|> absent concrete, verifyable proof of an allegation *AND* proof of lack of
|> provocation.
|>
|> This is due to a long history that we have had with both "gentlemen".
Prove it.
That is, please provide proof of a single incident in which Tim or I has done
something inappropriate with respect to your site.
And we're still waiting for you to back up your accusation that one of us
mail-bombed Mr. Dunphy.
And we're still waiting for you to answer the many questions I've asked you.
I provided you with verifiable proof that Mr. Dunphy is intentionally posting
off-topic articles in soc.culture.israel, just to annoy the readers of that
newsgroup. I then offered to forward to you every E-mail message exchanged
between Mr. Dunphy and me, in order to prove that I did not "provoke" his
actions, in anything but his mind. You refused to accept that evidence.
You're giving us the run-around. You don't seem to understand that character
smears against Tim and me are not going to work, because Tim and I have far
more respect on the Net than you do, and because people *know* that we
wouldn't do what you're accusing us of doing.
|> Again, those who wish to allege that a customer of ours is violating our
|> terms of service are welcome to submit their evidence through our normal
|> procedure.
I have done that. You refused to investigate Mr. Dunphy's mail-bombing of me,
and you refused to investigate his (continuing) hosing of soc.culture.israel
with off-topic postings.
Jonathan Kamens
|> The issue you refer to is CLOSED, and has been for quite some time.
But *my* "issue" isn't closed, is it? You refused to investigate when Mr.
Dunphy mail-bombed me, and you are currently refusing to do anything about his
continuing off-topic postings to soc.culture.israel.
If these issues are "closed", then what have you done about them?
|> This vendetta of yours, Jonathan's and a few others is purely personal,
I have already proven this to be untrue. As I've already pointed out, when
Mr. Dunphy posted an on-topic posting in soc.culture.israel, I discussed it
with him without any trouble. My only concern is is continuing to post
intentionally off-topic postings there (and his continuing to mail-bomb people
with you refusing to do anything about it).
|> Ever since I said "no way" a few
|> months ago you and a number of other net.kooks have done everything in
|> your power to goad this person and create operational problems for him
|> and our network.
As I've already pointed out, everything I did to complain about Mr. Dunphy's
mail-bomb etc. was done alone. I have never cooperated with "a number of
other net.kooks" to do anything to "goad him and create operational problems
for him", and you have no proof otherwise. If Mr. Dunphy has been receiving
complaints from many people, it's because he earned them all by himself.
Karl Denninger
Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>You have not submitted tracable evidence pointing to the "mailboming" you
>>allege occurred, including message IDs from the messages which you claim
>>were sent by this person. Email is *EASILY AND TRIVIALLY* forged,
>
>Does MCS have logs of outgoing email? Were they examined?
>
>Non-rogue sites will examine their logs to determine the truth of
>allegations. Rogue sites will sometimes demand proof before doing
>anything, and then won't act.
To examine logs one must have something to match against.
Saying "I got 2 MB of email from xxxx" is insufficient. Again, look at
our web page -- there is a detailed list of what we consider a reasonable
and proper TOS violation report and request for investigation.
Those issues which are reported using these guidelines are investigated. If
the report includes threats, it is discarded. Period.
If you deal with us in a *rational* manner, you will get a fair evaluation
and appropriate response. We take TOS issues very seriously and can and do
suspend or revoke accounts for violations.
Or do you read only this group on the net, and none of the others?
>Too bad you won't take any of those actions against your rogue users.
Really? And what documented *CONTEMPORARY* violation of our terms of
service are you alleging Seth? Have you, in fact, sent in such a report?
The answer is NO.
>>Your and Tim's activities in this thread amount to extortion.
>
>I wonder if that statement is actionable libel. You're accusing
>people of a crime, you should realize.
Only if its false. This isn't, and the thread here and the VOLUMES of
postings, including those calling for us to be aliased out, prove it.
The truth cannot be libelous. Sorry Seth.
>>Think about it.
>
>Going to sue me, too, for posting this?
>
>Seth
Nope. Just add you to the "complaints are invalid when from you" list.
Karl Denninger
Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
>In article <4bmsc7$f...@Venus.mcs.com>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>|> The issue you refer to is CLOSED, and has been for quite some time.
>
>But *my* "issue" isn't closed, is it? You refused to investigate when Mr.
>Dunphy mail-bombed me, and you are currently refusing to do anything about his
>continuing off-topic postings to soc.culture.israel.
I did not refuse to investigate.
I refused to give you the results. Internal issues with our subscribers and
the consequences of those investigations are none of your damn business.
There is a privacy issue here.
>If these issues are "closed", then what have you done about them?
Read the above paragraph. You have no standing to compel disclosure related
to disciplinary actions here, and we will not be goaded into violating our
subscriber's privacy nor our own internal policies by you or anyone else.
Jonathan Kamens
which I sent him:
*****
Return-Path: <ka...@mcs.com>
Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy <st...@MCS.COM>'s attack on soc.culture.israel
To: j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 08:07:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
In-Reply-To: <1995122604...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> from "Jonathan Kamens" at Dec 26, 95 04:44:34 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
>
> In article <4bmsc7$f...@Venus.mcs.com>, ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
> |> The issue you refer to is CLOSED, and has been for quite some time.
>
> But *my* "issue" isn't closed, is it? You refused to investigate when Mr.
> Dunphy mail-bombed me, and you are currently refusing to do anything about his
> continuing off-topic postings to soc.culture.israel.
>
> If these issues are "closed", then what have you done about them?
Our investigatory and censureship procedures are properly between us and our
customers. You have no standing to ask these questions.
> |> This vendetta of yours, Jonathan's and a few others is purely personal,
>
> I have already proven this to be untrue. As I've already pointed out, when
> Mr. Dunphy posted an on-topic posting in soc.culture.israel, I discussed it
> with him without any trouble. My only concern is is continuing to post
> intentionally off-topic postings there (and his continuing to mail-bomb people
> with you refusing to do anything about it).
>
> |> Ever since I said "no way" a few
> |> months ago you and a number of other net.kooks have done everything in
> |> your power to goad this person and create operational problems for him
> |> and our network.
>
> As I've already pointed out, everything I did to complain about Mr. Dunphy's
> mail-bomb etc. was done alone. I have never cooperated with "a number of
> other net.kooks" to do anything to "goad him and create operational problems
> for him", and you have no proof otherwise. If Mr. Dunphy has been receiving
> complaints from many people, it's because he earned them all by himself.
Jonathan, there are no current TOS issues which you have properly raised
through our procedure and which are open.
Whining isn't going to change that.
--
--
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] | 10 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 only FULL Clarinet feed!
*****
Return-Path: <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 14:32:14 GMT
From: Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
To: ka...@mcs.com
In-reply-to: <m0tUa2S...@venus.mcs.com> (ka...@mcs.com)
Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy <st...@MCS.COM>'s attack on soc.culture.israel
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 08:07:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <ka...@mcs.com>
Our investigatory and censureship procedures are properly between us and our
customers. You have no standing to ask these questions.
I have the right to know the disposition of complaints that I have
directed against one of your users. If one of your users mail-bombs
me, and I report it to you, I have the right to know what you have
done about it, or why you haven't done anything about it. If one of
your users intentionally and with malice posts a large amount of
off-topic material in a newsgroup, and I report it to you, I have the
right to know what you have done about it or why you haven't done
anything about it.
Now, I will ask you again: was your user's 2.88Mb mail-bomb of me a
violation of your policy, or not? If it was, then what have you done
to censure the user or ensure that he will not violate your policy
again? Are your user's continuing intentional off-topic postings in
soc.culture.israel a violation of your policy, or not? If they are,
then what are you doing to censure your user or ensure that he will
cease and desist from his off-topic posting in that group?
Over and over, I have asked these simple questions. Over and over,
you have failed to answer them. If you're still unwilling to answer
these questions, then answer an even simpler one: Has Mr. Dunphy
violated your policy, or hasn't he? A simple yes or no answer will
suffice.
Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | j...@cam.ov.com
*****
Return-Path: <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 14:34:56 GMT
From: Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com>
To: ka...@mcs.com
In-reply-to: <m0tUa2S...@venus.mcs.com> (ka...@mcs.com)
Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy <st...@MCS.COM>'s attack on soc.culture.israel
Another thing.... You wrote:
Jonathan, there are no current TOS issues which you have properly raised
through our procedure and which are open.
Please tell me if you believe that I have "properly raised through
[your] procedure" *any* TOS issues concerning Mr. Dunphy. That is,
are you really claiming that you have investigated the complaints I've
raised and have found them to be without merit, or that I have somehow
failed to follow your "letter of the law" for how such complaints must
be reported, so my complaints don't count? If the latter, then please
tell me in detail what I have done wrong so that I may file my
complaints in the manner you consider "proper".
Jonathan Kamens
|> I did not refuse to investigate.
|>
|> I refused to give you the results.
As of 24 Dec 1995 05:06:17 -0600, your user is still intentionally posting
off-topic postings in soc.culture.israel, so the "results" of your
"investigation" seem quite clear: your user abuses the Usenet, and you won't
do anything about it.
After Tim Skirvin was mail-bombed by your user and you were notified of that
mail-bombing, your user was still around later to mail-bomb me. Again, the
"results" of your "investigation" are quite clear: your user mail-bombs
people, and you won't do anything about it.
At this point, it seems quite clear that you have no intention of addressing
any complaints about Mr. Dunphy's actions. Nor does it seem likely that you
are going to provide answers to any of the questions that have been asked
about why you refuse to rein in your user, which seems to make it quite clear
that you do not *have* legitimate answers to provide. I am not going to waste
bandwidth by quoting the many simple questions which you have failed to
answer; if you want to see them, you have only to read the previous articles
in this thread.
The situation as it now stands: You refuse to discipline one of your users for
mail-bombing other users on at least two different occasions (you won't even
admit that there was anything wrong with those mail-bombings). You refuse to
discipline one of your users for on-going, completely off-topic postings in a
newsgroup, even though the fact that those postings are off-topic and are
being posted in the newsgroup for malicious reasons has been explicitly
admitted by the user. You have responsed to the accusations of misconduct
against your user with accusations of misconduct against the accusers, and you
have claimed on multiple occasions that you have proof of your accusations,
but when asked to provide it you have refused to do so (or simply ignored the
request) (Can you say "McCarthyism"? I knew you could).
There is nothing to be gained from arguing with you further. Therefore,
barring any significant new developments or accusations against me by you
against which I feel the need to defend myself, I will not post anything
further in this thread.
Instead, I will wait until a week goes by without any messages appearing in
the thread (to give you a chance for any last licks you wish to post), and
then I will alias out your site on my home NNTP server and on the NNTP server
I maintain at my place of employment. I will also contact the News admins at
MIT, with whom I still have some involvement, and ask (after presenting the
messages in the thread in news.admin.net-abuse.misc) for them to alias out
your site too (I can't do it at MIT unilaterally, because I'm no longer one of
the News Admins In Charge(tm) there). I will also modify our SMTP
configuration at work, and the one on my home machine, to disallow incoming
mail from your site.
(To the readers of news.admin.net-abuse.misc: I've gotten the impression, from
E-mail I've received recently and from postings in this newsgroup, that in the
six months since I stopped reading news.admin.net-abuse.misc, the concept of a
"rogue site" has been somewhat codified, and some procedures (perhaps ad hoc)
have been established for designating a site as "rogue" based on a consensus
in news.admin.net-abuse.misc. If that is indeed the case, then it seems clear
to me that it is time for Mr. Denninger's site to be designated a "rogue
site". If there are no such procedures, then perhaps it's about time we came
up with some.)
Karl Denninger
Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
>Here's another message I received from Karl, followed by two responses to it
>which I sent him:
Posting private email is an act of copyright violation and is a serious
issue here. We will no longer correspond with you in any form whatsoever
since you have seen fit to publish private correspondance.
> Our investigatory and censureship procedures are properly between us and our
> customers. You have no standing to ask these questions.
>
>I have the right to know the disposition of complaints that I have
>directed against one of your users.
No you don't. This isn't a courtroom, and you have no right to COMPEL
release of ANY information about our subscribers -- unless you bear a
valid subpoena. You do not.
>your users intentionally and with malice posts a large amount of
>off-topic material in a newsgroup, and I report it to you, I have the
>right to know what you have done about it or why you haven't done
>anything about it.
No. you don't.
>Another thing.... You wrote:
>
> Jonathan, there are no current TOS issues which you have properly raised
> through our procedure and which are open.
>
>Please tell me if you believe that I have "properly raised through
>[your] procedure" *any* TOS issues concerning Mr. Dunphy. That is,
>are you really claiming that you have investigated the complaints I've
>raised and have found them to be without merit, or that I have somehow
>failed to follow your "letter of the law" for how such complaints must
>be reported, so my complaints don't count? If the latter, then please
>tell me in detail what I have done wrong so that I may file my
>complaints in the manner you consider "proper".
>
>Jonathan Kamens | OpenVision Technologies, Inc. | j...@cam.ov.com
I have called out, here and in email to you, specific procedures.
Either follow them or not. They are also on our web page. I suggest you
read them.
Karl Denninger
Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
>
>The situation as it now stands: You refuse to discipline one of your users for
>mail-bombing other users on at least two different occasions (you won't even
>admit that there was anything wrong with those mail-bombings). You refuse to
>discipline one of your users for on-going, completely off-topic postings in a
>newsgroup, even though the fact that those postings are off-topic and are
>being posted in the newsgroup for malicious reasons has been explicitly
>admitted by the user. You have responsed to the accusations of misconduct
>against your user with accusations of misconduct against the accusers, and you
>have claimed on multiple occasions that you have proof of your accusations,
>but when asked to provide it you have refused to do so (or simply ignored the
>request) (Can you say "McCarthyism"? I knew you could).
In fact, I have not refused to discipline anyone. The investigations
conducted here, and their results, ARE NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS.
Got it?
Our TOS issues are between our subscribers and US. Not you, not the public,
not anyone who feels like demanding that we "open our books". No sir.
That's not how we operate here.
In fact, several people *have* called for directed, email harassment of this
user, and the posting of email-bombs to his account. You've been implicated
in this, and in fact HAVE sent the user in question email. That much I've
proven.
You've also not alleged that ANY further transmissions were recieved by you
once you ceased sending email to this user, and notified him that you wanted
no further contact. Why is that Jonathan? Perhaps the original replies
were in response to *YOUR* unsolicited email to him? What was in that
email Jonathan? What was in your posted material? Was there, by any
chance, an attempt made by you to orchestrate a mass-response to Mr. Dunphry
with the intent of overflowing his mail spool and our resources here?
A "mailbomb", defined as *unsolicited* email message(s) from a person of
inordinate size, has not been substantiated here. If you orchestrate a
campaign of harassment, and the target returns your (and your cohorts)
messages to you as a package, do you have a right to complain?
I think not.
You have not submitted tracable evidence pointing to the "mailboming" you
allege occurred, including message IDs from the messages which you claim
were sent by this person. Email is *EASILY AND TRIVIALLY* forged, and you
are nowhere NEAR to having "clean hands" here.
This also isn't the first time you've tried to get someone you hotly
disagree with removed from the net and our systems. Remember the
others Jonathan? Shall I start listing them? Does "arf" ring any
bells for openers?
>Instead, I will wait until a week goes by without any messages appearing in
>the thread (to give you a chance for any last licks you wish to post), and
>then I will alias out your site on my home NNTP server and on the NNTP server
>I maintain at my place of employment. I will also contact the News admins at
>MIT, with whom I still have some involvement, and ask (after presenting the
>messages in the thread in news.admin.net-abuse.misc) for them to alias out
>your site too (I can't do it at MIT unilaterally, because I'm no longer one of
>the News Admins In Charge(tm) there). I will also modify our SMTP
>configuration at work, and the one on my home machine, to disallow incoming
>mail from your site.
Go ahead Jonathan. You're welcome to alias anything at your home site.
I can and will find your place of employment, and will raise the issue with
them. If you act at MIT, or any other government-subsidized agency, in this
fashion I will bring criminal computer fraud and abuse charges as well as a
First Amendment civil and criminal complaint.
You are fairly warned Jonathan. I will issue no further warnings, and no
directed threats. I am a man of actions Jonathan, and I can and will pursue
this matter to the ends of the earth.
Your and Tim's activities in this thread amount to extortion. If you
continue this charade of extortion here, or in any other form, I'd consult
with your attorney. The fact that there are two identifyable people
involved means that RICO could be invoked here.
Yes, I do play hardball.
Think about it.
Tim Skirvin
>> Ah. So it's okay for your users to mailbomb us if we provoked
>>it.
>Never said that Tim. Appropriate action for the incident in question was
>taken when it PREVIOUSLY was reported.
If appropriate action had been taken, Kamens wouldn't have been
bombed. If appropriate action had been taken the second time, Dunphy
wouldn't have an account anymore.
Neither of those are true.
>The issue you refer to is CLOSED, and has been for quite some time.
Yes, I'm sure that it is. You just plain refuse to deal with
the actions of your user, even when said user mailbombs someone else.
It's now up to us to deal with that.
Karl Denninger
>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>:Glad to -- when the people who mailbombed him FIRST have their accounts
>:tanked -- permanently.
>
>What is the criteria for "mailbomb" here? What Dunphy considers a "mailbomb"
>is about 4 messages, all probably sent from different people.
>
>:I have the list, and the proof right here.
>
>Please post the list. I want to see if I'm on it: I sent 1 (one) email to
>Dunphy pointing out that his "Back Spamming" campaign was rude as hell,
>and he seemed to consider that part of a "mailbomb".
>
>:The user in question doesn't even RECEIVE most email any more -- he's had to
>:install filters to discard it unread.
>
>That's because he's such an enormously abrasive person that he gets tons
>of complaints.
No, its because he received 240MB of email in *TEN* messages. Some of
which have become a matter of criminal referral to law enforcement agencies
when they impacted the network's operation here.
Oh, and I understand there are copies of Usenet postings in which certain
individuals here attempted to form a group to harass this user -- including
sending him inappropriate email, multiple copies of his postings, etc.
I find it interesting that of the people who have complained about receiving
"inappropriate" email replies, NONE OF THEM have been able to show ONE email
message received from this user under the following circumstances:
1) The person receiving the large message WAS NOT ACTIVELY SENDING THIS
USER EMAIL THEMSELVES.
2) ANY Messages received after the person in question (a) sent email
asking for no further contact, and (b) stopped sending email
themselves to that account.
Why is that?
If someone was being mail-bombed and *did nothing to provoke it* (like
organizing and participating in a harassment campaign themselves) that
would be an extremely serious issue.
Its a lot harder to get upset at someone who takes the abusive email they
receive in a day, bundles it up, and sends it as a reply to those who send
him abusive email THEMSELVES.
This isn't the first time Jonathan or Tim has gotten their shorts knotted
up over someone who they disagree with in the "*.israel*" newsgroups.
Their credibility is shot straight to hell for exactly this reason, and
as such I require absolute, concrete proof from these two characters.
Remember "arf"?
I do.
Bruce Ediger
:In fact, several people *have* called for directed, email harassment of this
:user, and the posting of email-bombs to his account. You've been implicated
:in this, and in fact HAVE sent the user in question email. That much I've
:proven.
I've sent Dunphy (well-deserved) email too. It was about his utterly rude
and moronic "Back Spamming" campaign. At the time, I had never had any
contact with Skirvin, and I've not to this day had contact with Jonathon
Kamen. Does this make me guilty of email harrassment? Does this make
me part of an orchestrated campaign? No. Here's the short explanation, Karl:
Dunphy is so astoundingly abrasive and rude that people don't need to
collaborate in order for Dunphy to get lots of angry email.
No need to postulate orchestration or even a 2 person conspiracy in
Dunphy's case.
:inordinate size, has not been substantiated here. If you orchestrate a
:campaign of harassment, and the target returns your (and your cohorts)
:messages to you as a package, do you have a right to complain?
You're conflating a whole bunch of issues here, Karl. How do you know that
everyone that emailed the abrasive Mr Dunphy about his "Back Spamming"
campaign was part of the campaign? I emailed him, and I wasn't. If
Dunphy had dumped a buttload of other people's messages on me, I would
be justifiably very upset. I would have a right to complain to MSC.net
postmaster. And I would have a right to correct you in your mistaken
assumption that I was part of some conspiracy.
Tim Skirvin
>email Jonathan? What was in your posted material? Was there, by any
>chance, an attempt made by you to orchestrate a mass-response to Mr. Dunphry
>with the intent of overflowing his mail spool and our resources here?
Why, yes, he's *certainly* asking everyone to break your
system...
Know what? Dunphy did this to me *explicitly*. I have
message-IDs and everything. I informed you of this; would you like me
to post your response? In which you said "we can't do anything for
having one of our users _encourage_ mailbombs"?
(Goddamn idiot. You have no fragging idea what you're talking
about, do you? None whatsoever?)
>A "mailbomb", defined as *unsolicited* email message(s) from a person of
>inordinate size, has not been substantiated here. If you orchestrate a
>campaign of harassment, and the target returns your (and your cohorts)
>messages to you as a package, do you have a right to complain?
According to you, yes, considering you threatened me with civil
and criminal proceedings when I threatened to bounce back the mailbomb
I'd just received.
>I can and will find your place of employment, and will raise the issue with
>them. If you act at MIT, or any other government-subsidized agency, in this
>fashion I will bring criminal computer fraud and abuse charges as well as a
>First Amendment civil and criminal complaint.
I'm very seriously considering asking UIUC to do the same that he's
asking MIT to do, Karl. And considering you made this same threat to UIUC,
you haven't got a fragging leg to stand on.
Now *sue me*. I dare you.
Seth Breidbart
>In article <4bp3ac$v...@jik.datasrv.co.il>,
>Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
>>
>>The situation as it now stands: You refuse to discipline one of your users for
>>mail-bombing other users on at least two different occasions
>In fact, I have not refused to discipline anyone. The investigations
>conducted here, and their results, ARE NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS.
More simply, and accurately, when you were informed of abuse by one of
your users, you failed to take any action sufficient to prevent
further abuse by that user. The abuse by your user, and your failure
to prevent it, ARE the business of this newsgroup.
>Our TOS issues are between our subscribers and US. Not you, not the public,
>not anyone who feels like demanding that we "open our books". No sir.
>That's not how we operate here.
Not all that long ago, Wolfe Internet had a very similar attitude.
>In fact, several people *have* called for directed, email harassment of this
>user,
You mean, by postings like "if you don't like what he posts, tell
him"? I wouldn't consider that "directed, email harassment"; would
you? If one of your users did it, would you act against that user for
so doing?
>You have not submitted tracable evidence pointing to the "mailboming" you
>allege occurred, including message IDs from the messages which you claim
>were sent by this person. Email is *EASILY AND TRIVIALLY* forged,
Does MCS have logs of outgoing email? Were they examined?
Non-rogue sites will examine their logs to determine the truth of
allegations. Rogue sites will sometimes demand proof before doing
anything, and then won't act.
>> I will also contact the News admins at
>>MIT, with whom I still have some involvement, and ask (after presenting the
>>messages in the thread in news.admin.net-abuse.misc) for them to alias out
>>your site too (I can't do it at MIT unilaterally, because I'm no longer one of
>>the News Admins In Charge(tm) there).
> If you act at MIT,
He just posted that he won't _act_ at MIT, he'll _advise_ the news
admins there to take appropriate action.
> or any other government-subsidized agency, in this
>fashion I will bring criminal computer fraud and abuse charges as well as a
>First Amendment civil and criminal complaint.
I take it you're using Grubor as your attorney? The First Amendment
does not apply civilly, and mcs has _no_ right to have its postings
appear on anybody else's disks (absent an explicit contract). Do you
have a signed contract with MIT?
>You are fairly warned Jonathan. I will issue no further warnings, and no
>directed threats. I am a man of actions Jonathan, and I can and will pursue
>this matter to the ends of the earth.
Too bad you won't take any of those actions against your rogue users.
>Your and Tim's activities in this thread amount to extortion.
I wonder if that statement is actionable libel. You're accusing
people of a crime, you should realize.
> If you
>continue this charade of extortion here, or in any other form, I'd consult
>with your attorney. The fact that there are two identifyable people
>involved means that RICO could be invoked here.
>
>Yes, I do play hardball.
Not very well.
Doug Weller
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
[SNIP]
> Our TOS issues are between our subscribers and US. Not you, not the public,
> not anyone who feels like demanding that we "open our books". No sir.
> That's not how we operate here.
I don't know about the case here, but it does raise a couple of
questions.
I know quite a few service providers do let people know the results
of complaints. Which is the most common response?
Isn't this basically a claim that they don't feel responsible in
any way to other users of the Internet?
[SNIP]
>
> I can and will find your place of employment, and will raise the issue with
> them. If you act at MIT, or any other government-subsidized agency, in this
> fashion I will bring criminal computer fraud and abuse charges as well as a
> First Amendment civil and criminal complaint.
Now what is this all about. Civil and criminal complaints under the
first amendment? This is nonsense, so why is he threatening it?
> You are fairly warned Jonathan. I will issue no further warnings, and no
> directed threats. I am a man of actions Jonathan, and I can and will pursue
> this matter to the ends of the earth.
[SNIP]
>
> Yes, I do play hardball.
>
> Think about it.
What's a directed threat?
--
Doug Weller
"We must know the truth, and we must love the truth we know,
and we must act according to the measure of our love."
Thomas Merton
Jay Maynard
the last of what I can only describe as an increasingly belligerent series
of messages.
I jumped into the middle of this thread, surprised that two respected system
administrators were going at it like this. From where I sit, it looks like
one of them has decided to follow in the finest of rogue site traditions in
reacting to complaints from the other.
Karl, I'm deeply disappointed in you.
At this point, I'm about this far --> <-- from initiating rogue-site
procedures against mcs.com, and recommending that the administrators of the
other systems here at this institution do so as well. Bear in mind that,
until 5 minutes ago, I had no reason to do so. It is your responses in this
thread that have convinced me that you are in fact protecting a mailbomber.
I have written no other participant in this thread, nor have I spoke to
anyone else. I am not part of any conspiracy. I simply feel that mailbombers
should get one warning, and then have their account permanently revoked on a
second offense. Instead, I se you protecting one.
The only defense the net has against abuse is public revocation of access.
It is the standard of behavior at most sites; those who do not do so are
invariably havens for abusers, who care more about short-term profitability
then the good of the net. The net is right to defend itself from these.
Karl, you have a history of protecting people from attacks based on their
opinions. I respect that. This does not appear to be the case, this time.
While there may be philosophical disagreements here, there are also two
confirmed cases of net abuse from one user, one apparently after he should
have been warned not to do so again.
I would appreciate it if you were to explain yourself, especially why you
believe it is inappropriate for the rest of the net to publicly state that
an abusive user's account has been revoked, since you apparently feel that
way from your explanations of your site's policy. I would also appreciate an
explanation of why you consider mailbombing appropriate under any
circumstances at all, including retaliation for a mailbomb. (No, I'm not
accusing Jonathan Kamens or Tim Skirvin of mailbombing; this is a general
question.) I can tell you that, in such a case here, the user would lose his
ability to send Internet email at minimum, and the fact would be made
public.
I appreciate that this is the holiday season, and that you would like to
spend time with your family; OTOH, I also believe from your writings here
that you no longer care about the net overall. I would appreciate a reply
at your earliest convenience.
Thanks.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
http://k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Right now, Pinky, your brain waves are giving The Amazing Kreskin a
pounding headache." -- The Brain, _A Pinky and the Brain Christmas_
Karl Denninger
>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>:user, and the posting of email-bombs to his account. You've been implicated
>:in this, and in fact HAVE sent the user in question email. That much I've
>:proven.
>
>and moronic "Back Spamming" campaign. At the time, I had never had any
>contact with Skirvin, and I've not to this day had contact with Jonathon
>Kamen. Does this make me guilty of email harrassment? Does this make
>me part of an orchestrated campaign? No. Here's the short explanation, Karl:
>
> Dunphy is so astoundingly abrasive and rude that people don't need to
> collaborate in order for Dunphy to get lots of angry email.
>
>No need to postulate orchestration or even a 2 person conspiracy in
>Dunphy's case.
I'm not postulating anything. I have been sent a copy of the Usenet posts
in which such a request to mailbomb him was made. The posts appeared at the
time to be authentic. None of the combatents have said they in fact did not
participate in such a call, and in fact, one of them has said "so, does that
justify the action", which looks pretty much like an admission to from where
I sit (as an disinterested party).
And such an attack was in fact initiated. We have logged that and sent it
on to the authorities. If they decide to prosecute then the senders may have
significant problems; this is a federal matter as the traffic crossed state
lines.
>:inordinate size, has not been substantiated here. If you orchestrate a
>:campaign of harassment, and the target returns your (and your cohorts)
>:messages to you as a package, do you have a right to complain?
>
>You're conflating a whole bunch of issues here, Karl. How do you know that
>everyone that emailed the abrasive Mr Dunphy about his "Back Spamming"
>campaign was part of the campaign? I emailed him, and I wasn't. If
>Dunphy had dumped a buttload of other people's messages on me, I would
>be justifiably very upset. I would have a right to complain to MSC.net
>postmaster. And I would have a right to correct you in your mistaken
>assumption that I was part of some conspiracy.
Uh, I didn't say you were.
I don't consider someone emailing a person *megabytes* of data to be
someone "complaining" about a post -- unless you are annotating the mail
you're sending, which wasn't happening. I also do not believe you have
the right to continue to send unsolicited email to someone who has asked
you to stop -- which Mr. Dunphy has in fact done, both in public in his
signature and in private email to the combatents in this issue.
In particular, there is a PUBLIC forum in which you can respond -- where the
original articles were posted.
Calling for mailbomb attacks is unwarranted, probably illegal, and most
definitely in poor taste.
Again, none of the combatents involved here have "clean hands". Those who
do have "clean hands" are welcome to use our normal reporting procedures.
Those who do not will face a significantly-higher standard of proof, as
might be expected.
We will not permit people to run others off the net that they disagree
with, abrasive or not. The First Amendment *precisely* protects abrasive
and offensive speech. If it doesn't protect that kind of speech, what
good is it anyway? Why would we need a First Amendment and the principle
that it is based on if the speech in question *wasn't* offensive?
Finally, the predicate issue here took place some time ago. Now, two people
with OLD complaints that were previously dealt with are coming back here
demanding a SECOND go-around on the same subject matter.
Ever hear of double jeopardy?
Tim Skirvin
>>Seth
>Nope. Just add you to the "complaints are invalid when from you" list.
You're not taking complaints from Seth fragging Breidbart?
And you expect us *not* to alias you out?
Seth Breidbart
>In article <4bpj7p$r...@panix3.panix.com>,
>Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>allege occurred, including message IDs from the messages which you claim
>>>were sent by this person. Email is *EASILY AND TRIVIALLY* forged,
>>
>>
>>Non-rogue sites will examine their logs to determine the truth of
>>allegations. Rogue sites will sometimes demand proof before doing
>>anything, and then won't act.
>
>
>Saying "I got 2 MB of email from xxxx" is insufficient.
Why? I'd think that a competent administrator could easily determine
the truth of that statement.
> Again, look at
>our web page -- there is a detailed list of what we consider a reasonable
>and proper TOS violation report and request for investigation.
In other words, people have to fill out _your_ forms for anything to
happen. Every reasonable provider (e.g. AOL, Prodigy, Microsoft
Network -- how does it feel to be lower than they?) just requires
sufficient information. (A simple email to any of them, "It appears
that your user <X> is posting a spam with this subject: ..." will
cause investigation and, if warranted, action.)
>Those issues which are reported using these guidelines are investigated. If
>the report includes threats, it is discarded. Period.
Other providers merely ignore threats, and act based on the facts made
available to them.
>If you deal with us in a *rational* manner, you will get a fair evaluation
>and appropriate response.
It's rational for me to report net abuse in simple understandable
terms. It is not rational for me to look up your requirements for the
hoops I must run through in order to do so. It's much more rational
for me to request that mcs.com be aliased out of Usenet.
> We take TOS issues very seriously and can and do
>suspend or revoke accounts for violations.
Good. Unfortunately, you don't seem to check to determine whether
violations have occurred when they are alleged, however.
>Or do you read only this group on the net, and none of the others?
I read quite a few, including one that one of your users
"back-spammed" (his term); you took no action when I reported that.
>>Too bad you won't take any of those actions against your rogue users.
>Really? And what documented *CONTEMPORARY* violation of our terms of
>service are you alleging Seth? Have you, in fact, sent in such a report?
>The answer is NO.
I _very recently_ sent you email that one of your users is posting to
a newsgroup exhorting people to violate its faq. He has done so
within the last week, I believe. If I send you a copy of one of those
posts, will you investigate and act? (I don't expect you to act on my
word alone, of course; for one thing, only your logs can determine if
the post is a forgery.)
>>>Your and Tim's activities in this thread amount to extortion.
>>I wonder if that statement is actionable libel. You're accusing
>>people of a crime, you should realize.
>Only if its false. This isn't, and the thread here and the VOLUMES of
>postings, including those calling for us to be aliased out, prove it.
Calling for you to be aliased out isn't illegal, therefore a threat to
do so isn't extortion. Aliasing you out isn't illegal either,
fortunately.
>The truth cannot be libelous. Sorry Seth.
However, I think you've misinterpreted the crime of extortion, so your
statement isn't true.
>>>Think about it.
>>Going to sue me, too, for posting this?
>Nope. Just add you to the "complaints are invalid when from you" list.
So much for your dedication to facts.
Seth
Karl Denninger
Jay Maynard <jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
>I am not part of any conspiracy. I simply feel that mailbombers
>should get one warning, and then have their account permanently revoked on a
>second offense. Instead, I se you protecting one.
Nope. I have had exactly ONE credible *allegation* of a mailbomb. ONE.
We *did* take action on that allegation and investigated the issue.
>Karl, you have a history of protecting people from attacks based on their
>opinions. I respect that. This does not appear to be the case, this time.
>While there may be philosophical disagreements here, there are also two
>confirmed cases of net abuse from one user, one apparently after he should
>have been warned not to do so again.
No.
There is *ONE* PRESUMED confirmed case.
I say PRESUMED because the person in question was receiving *multiple*
messages in reply to the TRANSMISSION of multiple messages.
That is, the user raising the bitch was sending email to the user and
getting replies. He has ADMITTED to this.
WHEN HE STOPPED SENDING EMAIL, AND ASKED FOR NO FURTHER CONTACT, HE STOPPED
GETTING REPLIES. That was Tim, who conveniently forgets that I gave him a
mechanism to prevent further contact, with a specific statement that if he
followed this sequence of actions and got further email we would take
enforcement action.
He followed the request, and got his wish -- no further contact.
We have had *NO* confirmed cases of net abuse from this user.
Of course, Tim conveniently forgets to report here that he filed a TOS
complaint, we investigated, and came up with a suggestion (we were unable
to substantiate the complaint on its face) and he FOLLOWED IT. He also
conveniently forgets to report here that he got the desired results --
no further contact via email.
Now why did that happen? Could it be because Mr. Dunphry was responding to
the original messages? I don't know -- but I *DO* know that I'm not going
to go rooting through someone's mailbox or directory looking for the
contents of an email message to substantiate or refute that point. If your
hands are dirty enough that I have to go *look in someone's mailbox* to
either prove or disprove your allegation and the other party's guilt,
then you automatically lose -- you've ruined your own case.
This is a serious privacy issue and I will not authorize any of my people to
take these actions, nor will I go reading people's email myself without a
court order compelling me to do so.
First rule on the net:
If you want no email from a user, *DO NOT SEND ANY EMAIL TO THEM
YOURSELF*.
I will note that Mr. Dunphry has stated, repeatedly, that he *is not
accepting comment via email*. Mr. Skivins continued transmission to
Mr. Dunphry is, IMHO, an actionable case of harassment given that he
was well aware at the time that Mr. Dunphry wished no email contact
with Mr. Skivins.
We took the action we felt was appropriate and closed that case; there
were dirty hands all the way around on this particular issue, and
insufficient evidence to substantiate that the user had sent an
*unsolicited* reply of substantial size (see below for my definitions
of this "offense").
I refuse to pollute any contemporary allegations with past issues.
This is due process -- it includes not mixing up prior events with current
ones. We believe in it, strongly.
>I would appreciate it if you were to explain yourself, especially why you
>believe it is inappropriate for the rest of the net to publicly state that
>an abusive user's account has been revoked, since you apparently feel that
>way from your explanations of your site's policy.
I believe it is generally inappropriate for a site admin to discuss ANY
subscriber issues, including but not limited to TOS complaint resolution.
That is properly between the customer and ISP involved. TOS complaints
ARE filed here in the permanent business records of the customer involved.
By our user agreement, our business records, including TOS records, are
CONFIDENTIAL. I will violate that ONLY if the user in question does so
first, by raising a false accusation or otherwise beginning public
discussion on our policies and their implementation.
This is, in fact, a local dispute between three people. I'm not going to
take enforcement action based on a local personality conflict, especially
when there are enough allegations on both sides to fill a swimming pool
and never touch bottom.
BOTH sides of this dispute allege mailbombing by the other and insist on
their own innocence. Without a wiretap and/or invading the privacy of
BOTH parties I cannot prove or disprove EITHER party's allegations.
My *general* advice to ALL of these combatants is *GROW UP. YOU ARE ALL
ACTING LIKE THREE YEAR OLDS WHO HAVE JUST TATTLED ON YOUR BROTHER AFTER HE
RETALIATED AGAINST YOU FOR YOUR PUSHING HIM OVER ON HIS BICYCLE. IF I WAS
YOUR FATHER I WOULD KICK <BOTH> OF YOUR ASSES FOR BEHAVING LIKE INFANTS*
>I would also appreciate an
>explanation of why you consider mailbombing appropriate under any
>circumstances at all, including retaliation for a mailbomb. (No, I'm not
>accusing Jonathan Kamens or Tim Skirvin of mailbombing; this is a general
>question.)
I have had *NO* substantiation of mailbomb attacks which survived our
scrutiny.
I define a mailbomb as a transmission which *YOU DID NOT SOLICIT BY YOUR
OWN ACTIONS*, and which is of significant size and causes a network
operations issue to arise. I FURTHER define it as ANY email contact with
someone with whom you have made clear you do NOT wish to receive email from.
A *number* of people have violated Mr. Dunphry's rights in THAT regard, in
that he has made it very, very clear that if you have anything to say to
him you can do so in public via the newsgroups.
*HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO STATE THIS*.
NOBODY is required to answer, process, or even read email. NOBODY.
>I can tell you that, in such a case here, the user would lose his
>ability to send Internet email at minimum, and the fact would be made
>public.
That's seriously misguided. What if the so-called email bomb was FORGED
and not really sent by the person who was alleged to have done so? Are
you willing to take the lawsuit that could result from that, especially
when you compound your error by adding libel to the picture?
I'm not. And unless I can substantiate without question that the user is
in fact guilty of the offense charged, I'm not jumping into that frying
pan. That is particularly true in this case, where a number of people,
including the combatants, took it upon themselves to call for specific
illegal and abusive actions (including denial of service attacks and
harassment) against us *and* the user in question, and in fact that
harassment DID occur and WAS operationally significant enough that we
involved law enforcement agencies on our side of the equation.
That *instantly* raises the possibility of forgery of *any* alleged
email-bomb, and makes your standard of proof as a complainer tougher.
That's life.
>I appreciate that this is the holiday season, and that you would like to
>spend time with your family; OTOH, I also believe from your writings here
>that you no longer care about the net overall. I would appreciate a reply
>at your earliest convenience.
Not even close.
I care deeply about the net. I also care deeply about the rise of assholes
who think they can remove anyone they disagree with from the net.
I generally refuse to stoop to this level. That is, I will not reply to
the multitude of messages alleging that we have "ignored" reports. If
I have something to say, I will generally say it once per point -- repeated
catcalls from the peanut gallery will net nothing in response.
Since you asked specifically, I'll say it here ONCE:
WE HAVE IGNORED NOTHING IN THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE, HOWEVER, JUDGED
SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS TO BE NON-CREDIBLE DUE TO THEIR OWN
INVOLVEMENT AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF VERIFYING THEIR CLAIMS --
AGAIN, DUE TO THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
It is NOT an offense under our TOS to reply to a mailbomb by
*returning* the message to the originator, or even returning
a digest of their messages to you.
This is NOT the first time these jerks have tried this. We had calls within
*minutes* of this user's appearance here to censor him as an act of *PRIOR
RESTRAINT* from these same people. We refused then and we will refuse now.
As you are well-aware, I have been a defender of people's speech rights on
this network for damn near 10 years now, and do not intend to stop any time
soon on that front.
At a minimum, if you wish to allege an email-bomb, you must demonstrate:
1) That the message is authentic. This means sending the HEADERS of
that message within a couple of days to "ro...@mcs.net", COMPLETE
AND INTACT, with *NO* modifications of ANY kind. If our logs
expire off the system, you're hosed -- I can no longer prove where
the message originated. We normally only keep these things around
for a few days, so speed is important in these issues. You can also
*call* our technical desk (the primary voice number has that contact
information) if there is an active denial-of-service issue in
process. Our technical staff has specific instructions on dealing
with TOS issues; we have a structured reporting procedure for these
allegations.
2) That the *USER YOU ALLEGE* sent the email. This requires that
the system logs match the origination time on the message,
demonstrating that in fact the mailer was invoked by that user.
It is *TRIVIALLY* easy to forge email, and absent that evidence in
our system logs the investigation goes *NO* further.
3) That *YOU* have clean hands. If you send someone 5MB of data, and
they reply to the message, returning it to you, that is *NOT* an
email-bomb. If you continue to send *volumes* of email to someone
AFTER they have asked you to stop (publically or privately), and
they start returning archives of your material (or theirs), that is
not an email-bomb.
In both cases above you SOLICITED the response which you received,
and have NO standing to complain.
If you allege an email bomb, the user you claim did it says that he
had asked you for no further contact, you ignored him and sent 20
messages, and he says he turned around, catted them together and
mailed 'em back to you, you've substantiated no TOS violation --
except possibly a violation of your ISPs TOS by YOU.
You destroy your own case by involving yourself in a fistfight and
then alleging the OTHER GUY threw the first punch, when in fact
there are no disinterested parties to substantiate or refute your
statements.
Our internal disciplinary proceedings are, in general, not for publication.
We can and do take enforcement action, and in fact have revoked many
accounts over the last year for TOS violations. If you have clean hands
you will generally find that if you substantiate a TOS violation the user
will either be warned or have their access removed, depending on the
severity of the issue raised. We take our terms of service very seriously
at MCSNet, as a number of people who thought they could get away with one
thing or another over the years will attest.
The issue referred to by Tim Skivins was *DEALT WITH AND CLOSED* quite some
time ago. Tim has *ZERO* standing to raise ANY further complaint on that
issue, as it is a *CLOSED ISSUE*.
If Jonathan Kamens wishes to allege something CONTEMPORARY (within the last
week), he is welcome to do so. Reporting procedures are on our web page
off the POLICY reference. He has been told this several times, and refuses
to follow our procedure, insisting that I outline exactly what I want from
him. I believe our web server has more than enough information for anyone
with a lukewarm IQ to figure out what we need, and the standard of proof
required.
MCSNet does not, has not, and will not remove accounts without *proof* that
the user who has had an allegation made about their conduct did, in fact,
perform the act alleged.
The burden of proof is on the accuser, as it should be.
Muddying the waters by harassing someone in a fashion that prevents a clean
evaluation of your claim, and then bitching when they respond, is not going
to get you far.
Again, there are four issues which are paramount in these matters:
1) If I cannot substantiate a TOS violation without invading the
privacy of a user, you lose immediately. This means that if you're
alleging that someone mail-bombed you, and the logs show a bunch
of messages *FROM* you to that person in the last couple of days,
you have just destroyed your case -- quite possibly beyond any hope
of repair. Why? Because I won't go into the user's mailbox to
*PROVE* that you didn't send the bomb in the first place -- and that
what you got back was nothing more than a reply or an accumulation
of your own messages which you sent in the first place!
Moral: Don't do that. If you harass someone, it should be expected
that it will be more difficult to complain about their conduct
later and prove a TOS violation. So don't harass people if
you wish to bitch about their conduct.
2) If you have "dirty hands", defined as harassment aimed at our site,
participating in calls for mailbombs against a person here, or threats
levelled against the site or users here, and then wish to raise a
complaint against the person who you have been threatening (or
harassing) you can expect heightened scrutiny. This may make it
impossible for you to get a ruling that you desire. That's the
risks of playing the game of net.escalation. We believe that this
is just retribution for raising the level of assholishness on the
net in general when you participate in these shenanigans.
Moral: Don't do that. If you really believe there is a TOS issue,
then *USE PROPER CHANNELS*. Calling for someone to be
mailbombed, sending harassing email to the user in question,
plotting or executing denial of service attacks against us
or any of our users will only get the evidence sent to the
FBI and a criminal complaint initiated. If your *REAL*
agenda is to rectify the problem, then *FOLLOW ESTABLISHED
PROCEDURE ON THE NET*. That means reporting the problem via
reasonable, and established means, and providing enough
evidence to substantiate your allegation in a *contemporary*
format.
3) If you're just trying to silence someone you disagree with, or
believe that we will pay any credence to guilt-by-association
tactics, go stuff it and waste someone else's time.
Moral: If this is your real agenda, go pound sand. The sand
will enjoy it -- tilting at this windmill with us will
get you absolutely nowhere, other than insuring that we
blacklist you for future TOS reports, reducing your
credibility to an absolute zero.
4) If you're alleging a TOS violation, you are raising an ALLEGATION.
Including threats, demands, requirements that we act in a certain
way, etc. is just going to get your report filed where it belongs -
in the bitbucket. Attitude is a BIG part of the picture in these
matters; if you come off as a one-shot asshole who has nothing better
to do than silence those you disagree with, you won't get a fair
hearing. Try going into a courtroom, screaming obscenities at
the judge, and see what happens -- this is pretty much the same
issue at work.
Ask questions, request an investigation, cite our policy and show
examples of where you believe it was violated. That's fine. Going
beyond that to "do this or else" is going to prejudice your case.
Threatening mailbomb attacks, "you're going to get our feeds
yanked", etc. goes nowhere. After all, if your basic position is
that heated when you make first contact on an issue with the site
admins, how can we have *any* reasonable belief that you didn't
actively provoke the particular reaction you received, or that you
might even be forging your evidence? Think about it.
Moral: You're asking for help. Do you start by demanding
assistance and making threats? Why should we presume you
didn't start with that same position in the first place --
or actively provoked the behavior you're complaining
about now?
That's all I have to say on the issue. I will make no further responses to
this thread of any kind.
Again, if you wish to report a TOS issue with *ANY* of our customers here,
there is a defined operational policy for doing so. Look on our web page;
you will find the necessary informaton there.
Russ Allbery
> I'm not postulating anything. I have been sent a copy of the Usenet posts
> in which such a request to mailbomb him was made. The posts appeared at
> the time to be authentic. None of the combatents have said they in fact
> did not participate in such a call, and in fact, one of them has said "so,
> does that justify the action", which looks pretty much like an admission
> to from where I sit (as an disinterested party).
The last thing you can possibly claim to be at this point is a disinterested
party.
> And such an attack was in fact initiated. We have logged that and sent it
> on to the authorities. If they decide to prosecute then the senders may
> have significant problems; this is a federal matter as the traffic crossed
> state lines.
And since you've consistently refused to produce any evidence that this
supposed attack actually occurred, even after you've been challenged to on
several occasions, I have to conclude that you're lying.
Why am I not surprised.
tre...@slip.net
>I've sent Dunphy (well-deserved) email too. It was about his utterly rude
>and moronic "Back Spamming" campaign.
Oh! Is *that* the guy you folks are talking about? Damn... <remembering>
What a piece of work he was!
Naw, I never sent him any email.
Rudyard John Coltman
>In article <4bpj7p$r...@panix3.panix.com>,
>Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>>. . . .
>. . . .
>>Going to sue me, too, for posting this?
>Nope. Just add you to the "complaints are invalid when from you" list.
Remind me not to subscribe to mcs.com if I ever move to Chicago.
Daniel Reitman
On borrowed account
Howard Goldstein
:
: Karl, I'm deeply disappointed in you.
I also jump in here, and share your disappointment.
:
: At this point, I'm about this far --> <-- from initiating rogue-site
: procedures against mcs.com, and recommending that the administrators of the
: other systems here at this institution do so as well. Bear in mind that,
: until 5 minutes ago, I had no reason to do so. It is your responses in this
: thread that have convinced me that you are in fact protecting a mailbomber.
: I have written no other participant in this thread, nor have I spoke to
: anyone else. I am not part of any conspiracy. I simply feel that mailbombers
: should get one warning, and then have their account permanently revoked on a
: second offense. Instead, I se you protecting one.
Jay's article [much good stuff omitted] gives me hope that there is a
chance to have a civilized internet in our future. What we're seeing here
is a replay in substance of the zygn affair, and only the parties names
are changed. OK some of the details too such as a humorous attempt to
wield the first amendment as both a club and a shield in the same posting
- surely a classic -- are different, but the palming off of
responsibility, the hiding, and the UNneighborliness are the same.
What gives me hope is growing acceptance of the need to promptly rogue
site irresponsible systems. ^^^^^^^^
I don't know about the rest of you but I'm rapidly tiring of philadelphia
lawyers hiding behind some non-existent first amendment right to email
spam. The next clown to skulk behind the imaginary veil of some
'constitutional right' to do same gets rogue sited, no discussion. Maybe
if we all start doing this we'll enforce some sense of responsibility in
avaricious newbie admins and help preserve the internet as a useable place
to live in.
--
Howard Goldstein <h...@n2wx.ampr.org> http://www.tapr.org/~n2wx/
Peter da Silva
Getting people to email him then mailbombing them back when they do, with the
excuse that they sent him email first?
That's a clever kind of abusive behaviour, if so, taking blatant advantage
of a blind spot in his TOS. But it's still abuse. If that is actually what's
happening then MCS needs to re-evaluate their TOS.
If not, then just what is going on?
DrG
> On 21 Dec 1995, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> writes:
> >
> > > I say that if you send someone email harassing them, and you get a strong
> > > response, you had it coming.
> >
> > No one has a mailbomb coming. Period. Ever.
> >
> Look stupid. Certain acts are justified in the law.
> I am not allowed to punch you. But if you punch me, I am justified
> in punching you back.
>
> If you mailbomb me, I am justified in mailbombing you back
> That is the law.
>
> > > If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
> > > answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
> > > with our firm or with me personally.
> >
> > You have nowhere near the credibility in this forum as Tim Skirvin does.
> > You're defending one of your user's mailbombs, and you are advocating that
> > the same thing be done in the future. This is absurd.
>
> It is your misunderstanding of the law that is absurd.
> >
> > Stop your users from sending mailbombs. This is not negotiable.
>
> If my users are mailbombed, they have every right to mailbomb back.
> > --
> > Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
> >
> >
> DrG
>
Doug Weller
> subscriber issues, including but not limited to TOS complaint resolution.
> That is properly between the customer and ISP involved. TOS complaints
> ARE filed here in the permanent business records of the customer involved.
Microsoft Network has just emailed me that they have suspended a user
for a week after I complained about a Spam. As far as I am concerned
that's the way ISP's should be acting.
[SNIP]
Mary Conner
I've extracted the parts of your post that most concern me,
specifically, demonstrating that someone mailbombed me. By my reading
of what you have said, if say, someone posts a message to misc.kids
asking for investment advice, and I send them email suggesting that
they might get a better response in misc.invest, very politely, and
that person responds by sending me a 5MB core file with the addenda
"Fuck off bitch, I can post anywhere I like." I cannot expect you to
conclude that your user has sent me a mail bomb, right? Even if you
can verify that that the user did in fact send me the core file, the
fact that I sent a mail message to him, no matter how innocuous, is
enough to excuse the mail bomb? Is my reading of your policy in this
matter correct?
>I define a mailbomb as a transmission which *YOU DID NOT SOLICIT BY YOUR
>OWN ACTIONS*, and which is of significant size and causes a network
>operations issue to arise. I FURTHER define it as ANY email contact with
>someone with whom you have made clear you do NOT wish to receive email from.
>3) That *YOU* have clean hands. If you send someone 5MB of data, and
> they reply to the message, returning it to you, that is *NOT* an
> email-bomb. If you continue to send *volumes* of email to someone
> AFTER they have asked you to stop (publically or privately), and
> they start returning archives of your material (or theirs), that is
> not an email-bomb.
> In both cases above you SOLICITED the response which you received,
> and have NO standing to complain.
> If you allege an email bomb, the user you claim did it says that he
> had asked you for no further contact, you ignored him and sent 20
> messages, and he says he turned around, catted them together and
> mailed 'em back to you, you've substantiated no TOS violation --
> except possibly a violation of your ISPs TOS by YOU.
>
>Again, there are four issues which are paramount in these matters:
>1) If I cannot substantiate a TOS violation without invading the
> privacy of a user, you lose immediately. This means that if you're
> alleging that someone mail-bombed you, and the logs show a bunch
> of messages *FROM* you to that person in the last couple of days,
> you have just destroyed your case -- quite possibly beyond any hope
> of repair. Why? Because I won't go into the user's mailbox to
> *PROVE* that you didn't send the bomb in the first place -- and that
> what you got back was nothing more than a reply or an accumulation
> of your own messages which you sent in the first place!
--
Mary Conner tr...@serv.net
Currently seeking: A Pez watch
wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu
well, I encourage everyone to repeat an exercise: subscribe
to soc.culture.israel, catch up and then do a reverse search
of all articles posted by someone with a FROM-address at
MCS. form your own opinion -- it's just a matter of minutes...
| Getting people to email him then mailbombing them back when they do,
| with the excuse that they sent him email first?
I am left to wonder if Karl is making the claim that a poster
to USEnet has reason and right to demand that others (some/all)
not send their reaction/response as email. He seems to be be
making that (mistaken, in my opinion) claim...
That is rather disturbing coming from an admin, especially when
the case at hand appears to be such a persistent and deliberate
case of group abuse.
and, no, 'clever' isn't the word that comes to mind....
| That's a clever kind of abusive behaviour, if so, taking blatant
| advantage of a blind spot in his TOS. But it's still abuse.
| If that is actually what's happening, MCS needs to re-evaluate their TOS.
Karl's position does not appear to be that Dunphy is falling
through the cracks of a poorly written TOS, but rather that
there is nothing going on that should give anyone reason to
complain to Dunphy or about Dunphy to him, that there is no
reason for Karl to advise his user to change his posting
behavior, not to think of demanding a change and enforcing
it by cancelling the already posted group abuse.
Now beat me with a wet noodle, but articles crossposted to:
alt.christnet, alt.satanism, talk.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc,
alt.abuse.transcendence, alt.feminism, soc.culture.israel...
which read, in part:
| Why this thread, here ?
|....
| They'll also appear in soc.culture.israel, in honor of that incredible
| dork and netcop, Jonathan Kamens (j...@jik.datasrv.co.il) who took
| it upon himself to harass anyone who accidentally stumbled into his
| precious group, even if pulled in while doing a followup from
| another group, and got a number of his friends to help out. In a true
| master stroke, Jon lead a mailbombing campaign against me for
| making a post on a spam thread, asking people to take the thread
| out of soc.culture.israel. Jon felt that that post didn't belong in
| soc.culture.israel. After having several weeks of my time wasted,
| dealing with harassment from that group, and getting my mailfilter
| set up, I decided, screw them, and have been including their worthless
| little group in the followup-to lines in my posts on a regular basis,
| and am not alone in this. So, soc.culture.israel is there as part of a
| continuing public service. People like that need to be taught a few
| manners. Maybe they'll stop harassing random passers by. If not,
| tormenting them should be good fun.
demonstrate a basic misunderstanding about who is harassing
whom here. If Dunphy, accidentally, cross-posted a followup
to soc.culture.israel and received a few emailed complaints
about it, well, he should have said "sorry" or ignored it....
However it has the appearance, that he decided to "punish"
the complainers by continuous off-topic posting to the group.
That people who are concerned about the group react by publicly
discussing the group abuse and what to do about it, in fact
encouraging each other to voice complaints to both the poster,
as well as to his postmaster, that is nothing if not the
normal (and moderate) reaction by the community to someone
who abuses, and otherwise behaves like a regular bonehead.
(I don't know if that's what had happend next; if so, then
such articles have expired already from my news spool)
Now, if as it was claimed, Dunphy's reaction to the number of
emailed complaints he received was an escalation in message
size of his replies (what one normally calls 'a mail bomb')
then he committed another 'mistake'. But be that as it may,
I am concerned about the group abuse exclusively at the moment.
That I can see and verify.
What I would expect from any site admin (worth having as a net-
neighbor) is the good sense to say: "hey, don't post off-topic
to newsgroups. and don't act up like this when people send you
complaints about it. and, get it straight, I'm not going to let
you continue to abuse a newsgroup like this, just because you
think that is an effective way of getting back at some people
you are having an email war with. A newsgroup is community
property, a community playground. And I like my community.
As a matter of fact, that's why I am in business helping the
community play there. So don't mess it up, or I'll be the one
inconvenienced for having to remove your litter and making sure
you don't litter any more. No more USEnet posting privileges.
It's not a right, you know. In fact, I'd have to encourage you
to move on."
If an admin is not showing cooperation and interest in
protecting newsgroups from abuse by his user, what's the
point in having a USEnet (of lots of sites with abusers!)
like that?!?
p.s.: I just went on an excursion into Alta Vista and DejaNews to see
what I might find to illuminate the history of this flop.
It is ironic to locate a post by Dunphy (<4afcfg$n...@Mars.mcs.com>
titled "A rebuttal to a perfectly assinine point") which includes
the following:
|...
| A point, also, that really seems to be missed here is the absence of
| consideration. The attitude that a lot of AOL posters and the like seem
| to take is that this is an entertainment service that they're paying for,
| and on some subconscious level, they seem to think that the rest of us
| are employees of "Internet, Inc.", who are being payed to entertain them.
| No, wrong. We are paying customers, just like you. You are not paying
| us for our time, directly or indirectly. So you have no business
| expecting us to go out of our way to indulge your whims, and no matter how
| much nonsensical rhetoric you wish to print about "kindness and
| consideration", that's exactly what you're doing. When you make an
| unreasonable request, and then throw a fit or start acting
| self-righteous because you hear the word "no", the person saying it to you
| isn't being "selfish", or "inconsiderate", you're being a spoiled brat.
| The fact that you want a consideration doesn't automatically entitle you
| to receive it. I really wonder where so many people got the idea that the
| rest of the species exists for their convenience ?
|
that after having just read the soc.culture.israel abuse, and
finding a kooksy track record in the web-archives.... <choke>
seeing this character lecture about "whims" and "consideration",
about "nonsensical" and "inconsiderate" -- and about "spoiled
brats", is enough to make one nauseous. One is left wondering
where he got the idea to hold a soc.culture newsgroup hostage...?!?
Ah, yes, there is the evil-twin theory of split personalities...
...and then that now standard request at the end of Dunphy's abuse
articles :
> Hi. Please don't send any e-mail...
a requested courtesy? or a demand with an implied "or else" ?!?
where does he get those ideas...
Karl, get out of the abuse-protection business, please.
--
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
-> Tiananmen Square: 5 years later, ignoring it became OFFICIAL US policy <--
-> will a 14-year sentence for a Wei Jingsheng change anything ?!? hah! <--
---> ( I believe in emailing courtesy copies of follow-up articles ) <---
Karl Denninger
<wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>| Why this thread, here ?
>|....
>| They'll also appear in soc.culture.israel, in honor of that incredible
>| dork and netcop, Jonathan Kamens (j...@jik.datasrv.co.il) who took
>| it upon himself to harass anyone who accidentally stumbled into his
>| precious group, even if pulled in while doing a followup from
>| another group, and got a number of his friends to help out. In a true
>| master stroke, Jon lead a mailbombing campaign against me for
>| making a post on a spam thread, asking people to take the thread
>| out of soc.culture.israel. Jon felt that that post didn't belong in
>| soc.culture.israel. After having several weeks of my time wasted,
>| dealing with harassment from that group, and getting my mailfilter
>| set up, I decided, screw them, and have been including their worthless
>| little group in the followup-to lines in my posts on a regular basis,
>| and am not alone in this. So, soc.culture.israel is there as part of a
>| continuing public service. People like that need to be taught a few
>| manners. Maybe they'll stop harassing random passers by. If not,
>| tormenting them should be good fun.
>
> demonstrate a basic misunderstanding about who is harassing
> whom here. If Dunphy, accidentally, cross-posted a followup
> to soc.culture.israel and received a few emailed complaints
> about it, well, he should have said "sorry" or ignored it....
I don't consider 210MB of email in a 10 minute window, emergency filtering
action on our part to stop the mailbombing, installation of mail processing
filters and the involvement of the FBI to be a "few emailed complaints".
Like I said, this is a personality conflict and a case of two people having
declared war on someone they dislike. These folks also tried to get this
guy's account pulled *before he had even managed to use it*!
One of the problems of having a DS-3 based backbone is that it becomes
trivially simple to really blast someone's free disk space with this kind
of attack. In the old T1 days there was enough time to figure out what was
going on.
At 28 times the speed things get rather interesting indeed.
Tim Skirvin
>In article <4bpsvk$4...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>,
>Jay Maynard <jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> wrote:
>>I am not part of any conspiracy. I simply feel that mailbombers
>>should get one warning, and then have their account permanently revoked on a
>>second offense. Instead, I se you protecting one.
>Nope. I have had exactly ONE credible *allegation* of a mailbomb. ONE.
>We *did* take action on that allegation and investigated the issue.
>>Karl, you have a history of protecting people from attacks based on their
>>opinions. I respect that. This does not appear to be the case, this time.
>>While there may be philosophical disagreements here, there are also two
>>confirmed cases of net abuse from one user, one apparently after he should
>>have been warned not to do so again.
>No.
>There is *ONE* PRESUMED confirmed case.
>I say PRESUMED because the person in question was receiving *multiple*
>messages in reply to the TRANSMISSION of multiple messages.
>That is, the user raising the bitch was sending email to the user and
>getting replies. He has ADMITTED to this.
>WHEN HE STOPPED SENDING EMAIL, AND ASKED FOR NO FURTHER CONTACT, HE STOPPED
>GETTING REPLIES. That was Tim, who conveniently forgets that I gave him a
>mechanism to prevent further contact, with a specific statement that if he
>followed this sequence of actions and got further email we would take
>enforcement action.
Yes, I have to ask to not be mailbombed. Amazing how these
rules pop up out of nowhere, isn't it?
>We have had *NO* confirmed cases of net abuse from this user.
Oh, of course not. We'd never consider Excessive Cross-Posting
(when done maliciously) net-abuse. And the rest of those complaints...
well, we don't want to confirm them, so we won't...
>Of course, Tim conveniently forgets to report here that he filed a TOS
>complaint, we investigated, and came up with a suggestion (we were unable
>to substantiate the complaint on its face) and he FOLLOWED IT. He also
>conveniently forgets to report here that he got the desired results --
>no further contact via email.
>Now why did that happen? Could it be because Mr. Dunphry was responding to
>the original messages?
Responding to the original messages? Dunphy? Karl, I refer you
to my web page of correspondence with you two, http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/
dunphy.html. See especially an excerpt of what was sent to me and the
notice that he left me somewhere in the middle of it all.
>We took the action we felt was appropriate and closed that case;
IE, nothing at all. And when the user continues to mailbomb
others, you continue that action. Now, why don't you understand that
the rest of the world isn't going to stand for that, Mr. Denninger?
>I define a mailbomb as a transmission which *YOU DID NOT SOLICIT BY YOUR
>OWN ACTIONS*,
From your terms of service:
> You agree not to attempt to cause, or actually cause, any disruption of
> service on MCSNet or any other network or subscriber, including but not
> limited to malicious traffic generation,[...]
I see nothing of "soliciting" a mailbomb here, Mr. Denninger. I
do see that mailbombing someone (or "malicious traffic generation") is
strictly against your contract, and that you are well within your rights
to nuke the offender's account at any time for the offense.
Obviously, a mailbomb reached me. Apparently, a mailbomb
reached Mr. Kamens, which you have refused to investigate for whatever
reason. This is a second offense from the same user; yet, you have
still not ended the contract.
>I'm not. And unless I can substantiate without question that the user is
>in fact guilty of the offense charged, I'm not jumping into that frying
>pan.
You refuse to even investigate the matter, however. Which gives
you zero credibility. In the mean time, you've put it off long enough
that you *cannot* investigate the matter...which to me seems, at the
least, dishonest.
> That is particularly true in this case, where a number of people,
>including the combatants, took it upon themselves to call for specific
>illegal and abusive actions (including denial of service attacks and
>harassment)
Oh yes? I'd love to see this. Especially in light of what
your user has tried to do to me.
>I generally refuse to stoop to this level. That is, I will not reply to
>the multitude of messages alleging that we have "ignored" reports.
You have ignored reports, Mr. Denninger. You have made up your
own convoluted procedures, to make it virtually impossible for you to
nuke the accounts of offenders. You have set rules that the rest of the
'net has no reason to know, and expect everyone else to follow them.
And you harbor a repeat offender, for no reason but your own pride.
Thus, we are beginning to call out for you to be aliased out.
We don't want to do it, but it's our only option.
Posted and mailed; why not.
Tim Skirvin
>I don't consider 210MB of email in a 10 minute window, emergency filtering
>action on our part to stop the mailbombing, installation of mail processing
>filters and the involvement of the FBI to be a "few emailed complaints".
So you ignore your user's actions because people get upset by
them? One way or another, he *is* breaking your rules, Karl.
wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu
quoting ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) :
| <wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
|>> Why this thread, here ?
|>>....
|>> They'll also appear in soc.culture.israel, in honor of that incredible
|>> dork and netcop, Jonathan Kamens (j...@jik.datasrv.co.il) who took
|>> it upon himself to harass anyone who accidentally stumbled into his
|>> precious group, even if pulled in while doing a followup from
|>> another group, and got a number of his friends to help out. In a true
|>> master stroke, Jon lead a mailbombing campaign against me for
|>> making a post on a spam thread, asking people to take the thread
|>> out of soc.culture.israel. Jon felt that that post didn't belong in
|>> soc.culture.israel. After having several weeks of my time wasted,
|>> dealing with harassment from that group, and getting my mailfilter
|>> set up, I decided, screw them, and have been including their worthless
|>> little group in the followup-to lines in my posts on a regular basis,
|>> and am not alone in this. So, soc.culture.israel is there as part of a
|>> continuing public service. People like that need to be taught a few
|>> manners. Maybe they'll stop harassing random passers by. If not,
|>> tormenting them should be good fun.
|>
|> demonstrate a basic misunderstanding about who is harassing
|> whom here. If Dunphy, accidentally, cross-posted a followup
|> to soc.culture.israel and received a few emailed complaints
|> about it, well, he should have said "sorry" or ignored it....
|
| action on our part to stop the mailbombing, installation of mail processing
| filters and the involvement of the FBI to be a "few emailed complaints".
I don't either. Good luck pursuing that matter and nailing
the cretin(s). Name names and demonstrate proof and we shall
help throw tar and feathers in the right direction.
btw, had there been contact attempts to postmaster@mcs (or abuse@mcs
or whomever) relating to matters which led to that 210meg bomb?
what was the story, and what preceded the 210meg bomb exactly
(no, I am not going to excuse such a mail-bomb under any circum-
stances, but given that you had been speaking so much about
provocation in earlier messages, I think there might be a similar
story here of one kid throwing with rocks resulting in a barrage
of rocks from the rest of them).
But back to the issue at hand here: the newsgroup abuse by your
user. Why are you tolerating it?
| Like I said, this is a personality conflict and a case of two people
| having declared war on someone they dislike.
someone who unrepentedly abused a newsgroup and whose admin did
show no inclination to do anything about it, by any chance?!?
what's there to like?
| These folks also tried to get this guy's account pulled
| *before he had even managed to use it*!
I don't really care. You can handle that just fine. The guy
is a kook -- good luck getting rid of him and the enemies he
seems to make whereever he steps.
Back to the topic, though: For how long are you going to tolerate
the newsgroup abuse?
| One of the problems of having a DS-3 based backbone is that it becomes
| trivially simple to really blast someone's free disk space with this kind
| of attack. In the old T1 days there was enough time to figure out what was
| going on. At 28 times the speed things get rather interesting indeed.
It takes two T3s to tango trivially.
But back to the topic: what are you going to do about the
newsgroup abuse? when? or do you not think that question
deserves an answer, principally?
and will I get mail-bombed if I send an emailed objection
in response to such articles, and will you defend my right
(the community's right, really) to respond by email (nothing
outlandish, a simple statement of protest with the article
in question attached in this case) to posted articles?
Nathan J. Mehl
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <4bnujg$h...@jik.datasrv.co.il>,
>Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
>>But *my* "issue" isn't closed, is it? You refused to investigate when Mr.
>>Dunphy mail-bombed me, and you are currently refusing to do anything about his
>>continuing off-topic postings to soc.culture.israel.
>
>I did not refuse to investigate.
>
>I refused to give you the results. Internal issues with our subscribers and
>the consequences of those investigations are none of your damn business.
>There is a privacy issue here.
Let me make certain that I have this *crystal* clear: if I raise a
complaint against an MCSnet customer, you refuse a priori to disclose
to me the resolution of that complaint?
Dandy. You own the hardware, so absent a subpoena that's certainly
your right. But I would predict that such a priggishly antisocial
policy would be bound to have stunningly negative consequences. Try
telnetting to anatolia.org should you care to contemplate the matter.
--
"The life of a sysadmin is always intense!"
If you think I speak for my employer, they'll be happy to correct you.
Nathan J. Mehl -- BBN Planet System Operations -- nat...@bbnplanet.com
<A HREF="http://web.near.net/~nmehl">homepagesque</A>
Nathan J. Mehl
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <4bpj7p$r...@panix3.panix.com>,
>Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>Going to sue me, too, for posting this?
>
>Nope. Just add you to the "complaints are invalid when from you" list.
EXCUSE ME?!
Karl, perhaps I have seriously misread what you just posted, but it looked
damn close to saying that anyone who has the misfortune to disagree
publically with Karl Denninger in a debate will not be considered a
credible person in any future complaints about MCSnet users.
I'll have to remember this. If Seth ever pisses me off, I'll just get
an account with you (under an assumed name, of course, just in case you
remember this post) and toss a few uuencoded vmunix'es in his direction,
safe in the knowledge that you won't do a damn thing.
But you didn't really mean it that way. Of course not. You couldn't
even begin to be that stupid.
Rudyard John Coltman
tski...@arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) writes:
>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>. . . .
>. . . .
>>I generally refuse to stoop to this level. That is, I will not reply to
>>the multitude of messages alleging that we have "ignored" reports.
> You have ignored reports, Mr. Denninger. You have made up your
>own convoluted procedures, to make it virtually impossible for you to
>nuke the accounts of offenders. You have set rules that the rest of the
>'net has no reason to know, and expect everyone else to follow them.
>And you harbor a repeat offender, for no reason but your own pride.
>. . . .
This case has gotten well out of control. I think it would be helpful if
someone posted Mr. Denninger's procedures, so we can determine whether they are
reasonable.
In the long term, maybe a recommended complaint procedure should be developed.
hillary
In article <Pine.BSD.3.91.951227...@pink.lm.com>, DrG
<ma...@manus.org> wrote:
[redundant and irrelevant mailbombing discussion snipped]
I really have nothing new to add. Sorry. I just felt this really strong
urge to edit the newgroups header on DrG's latest.
<returning to support mail now>
hrg
--
-Hillary
Tim Skirvin
>This case has gotten well out of control. I think it would be helpful if
>someone posted Mr. Denninger's procedures, so we can determine whether they are
>reasonable.
Their Terms of Service can be found at http://www.mcs.com/policy/
index.html, along with other various documents detailing their policies.
>In the long term, maybe a recommended complaint procedure should be developed.
When you get mail to postmaster alleging a problem, you start
an investigation of it. That's how it works in most of the world, at
least...
Jonathan Kamens
|> This case has gotten well out of control. I think it would be helpful if
|> someone posted Mr. Denninger's procedures, so we can determine whether they are
|> reasonable.
(I said in my last posting that I wouldn't post unless Mr. Denninger made new
accusations against me against which I felt it necessary to defend myself.
Well, he accused me of not following his site's procedures for filing a
complaint, which is pretty much a crock, but I didn't really feel like it was
a big enough crock to post a correction. However, since Mr. Reitman ("On
borrowed account") has asked for a clarification of the same point, I think
it's worth a posting.)
Quoting from <URL:http://www.mcs.net/policy/allege.html>:
>If you notice a problem...
>
>MCSNet does not knowingly or willfully violate the laws of the State of
>Illinois, the County of Cook, and the United States, nor will we as an
>organization knowingly permit any such activity to continue if we become aware
>of conduct, or content, which does violate these provisions.
>
>If you believe that any user of our network has violated any law during their
>use of MCSNet, or if you wish to allege a violation of our policy document,
>please provide the following via email to "ro...@mcs.net":
>
> A reference to the law, or policy provision, you believe has been violated.
> Please be specific.
> Enough information to substantiate your charge. If material posted or emailed
> is a portion of this evidence, all headers must be provided for us to
> properly consider this as evidence.
>
>If you believe that there is material on our network which is being distributed
>by any means, including Usenet, web pages, or other uses which violates the law,
>please bring it to our attention by sending email to "ro...@mcs.net" as well. In
>this case a complete reference to the material you belive to be illegal is
>extremely helpful in our investigation.
When Mr. Dunphy mail-bombed me, I wrote to postm...@mcs.com and provided
precise details of the mail-bomb, including the exact starting and ending
times at which the messages were sent from MCS, the number of messages, and
the total size of those messages. I also provided (obviously) the username of
the user who sent them. Finally, I offered to send any Message ID's, headers,
log entries, etc. that were necessary for the administrators at MCS to verify
that a mail-bomb had been sent. I did not send that information to begin
with, because to send that much information about a mail-bomb is itself a
mail-bomb, and because Mr. Denninger's logs contained all the essential
information (i.e., the number of messages sent by Mr. Dunphy to me, along with
their sizes), so I saw no reason to burden Mr. Denninger's mailbox with
unnecessary verbiage. He did not request any of the information I offered to
send him, and he refused to investigate my complaint, as quoted by me in
message <4bdvo2$8...@jik.datasrv.co.il> in this thread.
When Mr. Dunphy started posting malicious off-topic postings to
soc.culture.israel, I forwarded to postm...@mcs.com the entire posting in
which he threatened to do that, including the headers of that posting (I
confess, I omitted the "Path", "Xref" and "Lines" headers, which my news
reader strips by default, but since "Message-ID" was there, it seems to me
that someone with as much experience as Mr. Denninger has would be able to use
the Message ID to retrieve the message from his NNTP server).
When Mr. Denninger asked me in response to specifically point out which
clauses in his policy had been violated, I did so; I have already posted that
E-mail earlier in this thread.
So, how have I failed to followed Mr. Denninger's procedures? Well, gee, I
don't know, maybe the problem is that I wrote to postm...@mcs.com instead of
ro...@mcs.net? Consider, however:
* In message <4bc652$a...@Venus.mcs.com> in this thread, Mr. Denninger wrote to
Tim Skirvin, "If you have a *new* issue to raise, a contemporary one, then do
it through the proper channels. Make your allegations and list specifics,
backed by evidence. Send the email to "ne...@mcs.net" or "use...@mcs.net"."
So, it seems that "ro...@mcs.net" is not the exclusive address for sending
complaints to MCS.
* Where exactly does mail to all of these addresses go? Let's find out:
> set type=mx
> mcs.com
...
Non-authoritative answer:
mcs.com preference = 10, mail exchanger = mailbox.mcs.com
...
> mcs.net
...
Non-authoritative answer:
mcs.net preference = 10, mail exchanger = mailbox.mcs.com
...
>
Trying 192.160.127.87...
Connected to mailbox.mcs.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 mailbox.mcs.com Smail3.1.28.1 #5 ready at Thu, 28 Dec 95 01:41 CST
expn postmaster
250-karl
250 "|/usr/bin/vacation karl"
expn root
250-karl
250 "|/usr/bin/vacation karl"
expn news
250-karl
250 "|/usr/bin/vacation karl"
expn usenet
250-karl
250 "|/usr/bin/vacation karl"
quit
221 mailbox.mcs.com closing connection
Connection closed by foreign host.
Gee, it sure looks to *me* like it makes a lot of difference which address I
send complaints to, eh?
If anyone reading this thread can explain to me in what way I have failed to
follow Mr. Denninger's procedure, please do so. I've asked Mr. Denninger to
do so several times, and he has refused to do so.
Let's be blunt here -- I followed Mr. Denninger's procedures. He's just
playing stubborn bureaucrat in order to avoid doing anything about my
complaints. And in any case, even if I *didn't* follow his procedure -- as
people have pointed out in other messages in this thread, any responsible ISP
will investigate a complaint as soon as sufficient information has been
received, regardless of whether the "proper forms" were filled out. Even AOL,
which I'm sure gets far more complaints than MCS could even dream of getting,
doesn't require any specific "procedure" for submitting a complaint.
Karl Denninger
Nathan J. Mehl <nm...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>In article <4bp0av$5...@venus.mcs.com>,
> ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>In article <4bnujg$h...@jik.datasrv.co.il>,
>>Jonathan Kamens <j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com> wrote:
>
>>>But *my* "issue" isn't closed, is it? You refused to investigate when Mr.
>>>Dunphy mail-bombed me, and you are currently refusing to do anything about his
>>>continuing off-topic postings to soc.culture.israel.
>>
>>I did not refuse to investigate.
>>
>>I refused to give you the results. Internal issues with our subscribers and
>>the consequences of those investigations are none of your damn business.
>>There is a privacy issue here.
>
>Let me make certain that I have this *crystal* clear: if I raise a
>complaint against an MCSnet customer, you refuse a priori to disclose
>to me the resolution of that complaint?
Nope. I refused *in this specific instance*. In *general*, the outcome of
a specific investigation is between us and the subscriber in question.
Karl Denninger
<wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> btw, had there been contact attempts to postmaster@mcs (or abuse@mcs
> or whomever) relating to matters which led to that 210meg bomb?
> what was the story, and what preceded the 210meg bomb exactly
> (no, I am not going to excuse such a mail-bomb under any circum-
> stances, but given that you had been speaking so much about
> provocation in earlier messages, I think there might be a similar
> story here of one kid throwing with rocks resulting in a barrage
> of rocks from the rest of them).
Nope. The FIRST notice *I* had on this (and I get the mail to postmaster,
usenet, etc) was a low-space alarm from the cluster system here.
Investigation resulted in emergency filtering action and logs being cut for
transmission to the authorities.
> But back to the issue at hand here: the newsgroup abuse by your
> user. Why are you tolerating it?
What leads you to believe that I am? In fact, I'm not.
> Back to the topic, though: For how long are you going to tolerate
> the newsgroup abuse?
Again, what evidence do you have we had?
> and will I get mail-bombed if I send an emailed objection
> in response to such articles, and will you defend my right
> (the community's right, really) to respond by email (nothing
> outlandish, a simple statement of protest with the article
> in question attached in this case) to posted articles?
The user in question has asked for no contact via email.
They have that right too. You already have a forum for a response -- a
public one, called Usenet.
If you wish to file a *specific* protest regarding our TOS, again, the
procedure for doing so is on our web page. It doesn't differ much from
other ISPs.
Karl Denninger
>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) wrote:
>
>I've extracted the parts of your post that most concern me,
>specifically, demonstrating that someone mailbombed me. By my reading
>of what you have said, if say, someone posts a message to misc.kids
>asking for investment advice, and I send them email suggesting that
>they might get a better response in misc.invest, very politely, and
>that person responds by sending me a 5MB core file with the addenda
>"Fuck off bitch, I can post anywhere I like." I cannot expect you to
>conclude that your user has sent me a mail bomb, right? Even if you
>can verify that that the user did in fact send me the core file, the
>fact that I sent a mail message to him, no matter how innocuous, is
>enough to excuse the mail bomb? Is my reading of your policy in this
>matter correct?
No, that's not correct.
But if you participate in a thread on the net calling for people to mailbomb
a user, that mailbomb happens, and you *WERE* in fact involved, or there
is evidence that *you* sent 5MB of data to the person in question, I argue
that they have EVERY right to hit "R" in ELM and send it right back to you
without fear of enforcement action here.
If I look and find 30 messages emailed to the user in a 20 minute window
from you, I might conclude that it is entirely possible that you did in
fact source the data in the first place and provoke that reply.
Again, I will *NOT* invade the user's privacy to prove this -- which is
exactly what I would have to do to prove or disprove that allegation. Our
terms of service and investigatory policy is very explicit on this point.
If you wish to request enforcement action from us, don't take the law into
your own hands first. Once you start shooting you're in a poor position to
request our assistance.
Karl Denninger
Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>>WHEN HE STOPPED SENDING EMAIL, AND ASKED FOR NO FURTHER CONTACT, HE STOPPED
>>GETTING REPLIES. That was Tim, who conveniently forgets that I gave him a
>>mechanism to prevent further contact, with a specific statement that if he
>>followed this sequence of actions and got further email we would take
>>enforcement action.
>
> Yes, I have to ask to not be mailbombed. Amazing how these
>rules pop up out of nowhere, isn't it?
Why were you sending INCESSANT emails to this user? WHY DID YOU CONTINUE TO
HARASS MR. DUNPHY VIA EMAIL AFTER HE ASKED YOU TO STOP, BOTH PUBLICALLY AND
PRIVATELY?
> Oh, of course not. We'd never consider Excessive Cross-Posting
>(when done maliciously) net-abuse. And the rest of those complaints...
>well, we don't want to confirm them, so we won't...
Tim, just what proof do you have that we have taken no enforcement action
regarding the newsgroups and that user's use of them?
> Responding to the original messages? Dunphy? Karl, I refer you
>to my web page of correspondence with you two, http://arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu/
>dunphy.html. See especially an excerpt of what was sent to me and the
>notice that he left me somewhere in the middle of it all.
Of course, you won't include the email YOU transmitted to Dunphy, will you?
> You refuse to even investigate the matter, however. Which gives
>you zero credibility. In the mean time, you've put it off long enough
>that you *cannot* investigate the matter...which to me seems, at the
>least, dishonest.
I did not refuse to investigate your case.
> Thus, we are beginning to call out for you to be aliased out.
Good luck.
Karl Denninger
Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <4bpqmr$k...@Venus.mcs.com>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>
>>To examine logs one must have something to match against.
>>
>>Saying "I got 2 MB of email from xxxx" is insufficient.
>
>Why? I'd think that a competent administrator could easily determine
>the truth of that statement.
Really? Why should I sift through 420MB X 5 of logs (yes, that's one day's
worth) to look for something when the person complaining won't provide a key
to look up the index from?
I believe requiring the unadultered, and unaltered headers is very
reasonable. We're NOT a small site, and have multiple mail handlers. The
headers allow us to substantiate that in fact the transmission took place
(or was forged) as well as telling us WHICH log to look at.
>In other words, people have to fill out _your_ forms for anything to
>happen. Every reasonable provider (e.g. AOL, Prodigy, Microsoft
>Network -- how does it feel to be lower than they?) just requires
>sufficient information. (A simple email to any of them, "It appears
>that your user <X> is posting a spam with this subject: ..." will
>cause investigation and, if warranted, action.)
Forms? No. We ask for the specifications and charges on first contact.
This gets you a speedier resolution, and lets us get to the heart of the
matter, make a determination, and take action more quickly.
That's in the best interests of people who REALLY have something concrete to
report, and prevents wild goose chases.
>Other providers merely ignore threats, and act based on the facts made
>available to them.
Rule #1 of dealing with people:
Don't threaten them unless (1) you mean it, and (2) you don't CARE
if they help you.
>It's rational for me to report net abuse in simple understandable
>terms. It is not rational for me to look up your requirements for the
>hoops I must run through in order to do so. It's much more rational
>for me to request that mcs.com be aliased out of Usenet.
Hoops? Again, since when is it a "hoop" to require verifyable headers on
messages you ALLEGE came from our customers?
>> We take TOS issues very seriously and can and do
>>suspend or revoke accounts for violations.
>
>Good. Unfortunately, you don't seem to check to determine whether
>violations have occurred when they are alleged, however.
We sure do. If enough information is provided to make that a reasonable
task.
>"back-spammed" (his term); you took no action when I reported that.
Can you prove that we took no action? Or are you ASSuming?
>I _very recently_ sent you email that one of your users is posting to
>a newsgroup exhorting people to violate its faq. He has done so
>within the last week, I believe. If I send you a copy of one of those
>posts, will you investigate and act? (I don't expect you to act on my
>word alone, of course; for one thing, only your logs can determine if
>the post is a forgery.)
Did you send me a COMPLETE copy of the post, including the headers?
If not, why not?
That is a REASONABLE procedure that ISPs have asked for since I've been on
the net.
>Calling for you to be aliased out isn't illegal, therefore a threat to
>do so isn't extortion. Aliasing you out isn't illegal either,
>fortunately.
Threatening to do harm unless someone takes a specific action (which they
are under no compulsion legally to take) is in fact extortion.
>However, I think you've misinterpreted the crime of extortion, so your
>statement isn't true.
Crime? Who said "crime"?
>>Nope. Just add you to the "complaints are invalid when from you" list.
>
>So much for your dedication to facts.
>
>Seth
Truth requires that you actually be interested in the facts. Kamens and
Skivin are not here, and IMHO historically never have been.
Nathan J. Mehl
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>Tim, just what proof do you have that we have taken no enforcement action
>regarding the newsgroups and that user's use of them?
Oh, I dunno - the same proof he has that you did take enforcement
action, perhaps? You know, the one that you refuse to disclose to
him?
When you deliberately create a vacuum, Karl, it's considered bad
form to bitch about air quality.
Howard Goldstein
: In article <4bqd4o$i...@news1.mpcs.com>, h...@n2wx.ampr.org wrote:
: (relating to the MCS business)
: > What gives me hope is growing acceptance of the need to promptly rogue
: > site irresponsible systems. ^^^^^^^^
: >
: > I don't know about the rest of you but I'm rapidly tiring of philadelphia
: > lawyers hiding behind some non-existent first amendment right to email
: > spam. The next clown to skulk behind the imaginary veil of some
: > 'constitutional right' to do same gets rogue sited, no discussion. Maybe
: I do feel that roguing some site just for blathering about
: constitutional rights is a bad mistake- look at the actions, folks, just
: like usual. :)
It's not the blathering that'll get them rogue-sited from this end, but
rather the maddening - and meaningless - cite to "rights" coupled with a
failure to act responsibly with respect to the rest of us who share this
place.
If one of my neighbors becomes brutish, he isn't allowed to visit anymore.
All internet systems are virtual neighbors of my system, and if they
behave uncivilized they'll not be allowed to visit and will find the smtp
door barred.
Nathan J. Mehl
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>"back-spammed" (his term); you took no action when I reported that.
>
>Can you prove that we took no action? Or are you ASSuming?
"Look, I complained about this user of yours a few weeks ago - can
I know what the resolution of that complaint was?"
"Internal disciplinary matters are none of your damn business."
[...later...]
"I complained about one of this guy's users, and as far as I can tell
he didn't do anything about it."
"Can you prove that we didn't do anything?!"
Karl, if you don't like people drawing their own conclusions about
your actions, a slightly less paranoid attitude towards disclosure
might be indicated. Otherwise, damn straight people are going to
"ASSume" as best they can from what little information they can
gather. And you have no right to complain.
Nathan J. Mehl
j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
>Gee, it sure looks to *me* like it makes a lot of difference which address I
>send complaints to, eh?
Although I personally feel that Karl is clearly in the wrong in the
larger scope of this issue, you are, here, making a foolish assumption:
that when mail to multiple addresses is forwarded to a single mailbox,
the contents of the "To:" line become unimportant. They do not. Read
the man pages for procmail or maildelivery or elm to understand why.
Karl Denninger
Rudyard John Coltman <rcol...@oregon.uoregon.edu> wrote:
>In article <4bruo1$8...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> tski...@arh0062.urh.uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) writes:
>>ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>>. . . .
>>. . . .
>
>>>the multitude of messages alleging that we have "ignored" reports.
>
>> You have ignored reports, Mr. Denninger. You have made up your
>>own convoluted procedures, to make it virtually impossible for you to
>>nuke the accounts of offenders. You have set rules that the rest of the
>>'net has no reason to know, and expect everyone else to follow them.
>>And you harbor a repeat offender, for no reason but your own pride.
>
>
>This case has gotten well out of control. I think it would be helpful if
>someone posted Mr. Denninger's procedures, so we can determine whether they are
>reasonable.
>
>
> On borrowed account
Our "policy page" is at http://www.mcs.net/policy/
From Document: http://www.mcs.net/policy/allege.html
<H2>If you notice a problem...</h2>
<p>
MCSNet does not knowingly or willfully violate the laws of the State of
Illinois, the County of Cook, and the United States, nor will we as an
organization knowingly permit any such activity to continue if we become
aware of conduct, or content, which does violate these provisions.
<p>
If you believe that any user of our network has violated any law during
their use of MCSNet, or if you wish to allege a violation of our policy
document, please provide the following via email to "ro...@mcs.net":
<ul><li>A reference to the law, or policy provision, you believe has
been violated. Please be specific.</li>
<li>Enough information to substantiate your charge. If material posted or
emailed is a portion of this evidence, <i>all headers</i> must be provided
for us to properly consider this as evidence.</li>
</ul><p>
If you believe that there is material on our network which is being
distributed by any means, including Usenet, web pages, or other uses which
violates the law, please bring it to our attention by sending email to
"ro...@mcs.net" as well. In this case a complete reference to the material
you belive to be illegal is extremely helpful in our investigation.
<p>
<b>MCSNet reserves the right to turn over to any relavent law enforcement
agency any indication or evidence of law-breaking activity which takes
place on, through, or via our equipment and services. We will cooperate
fully in any investigation of illegally posted, distributed or e-mailed
content and online activity requested by state, local or federal
authorities.</b>
Seth Breidbart
>If I look and find 30 messages emailed to the user in a 20 minute window
>from you, I might conclude that it is entirely possible that you did in
>fact source the data in the first place and provoke that reply.
So, based on a _possibility_, you fail to discipline your user? Neat.
If I decide to mailbomb j...@foo.foo, I'll get two accounts:
m...@foo.foo, and m...@mcs.com. Then, from my m...@foo.foo account, I'll
forge 30 pieces of mail "From: j...@foo.foo" to m...@mcs.com. Then
m...@mcs.com will mailbomb j...@foo.foo, and you'll take no action.
>Again, I will *NOT* invade the user's privacy to prove this
In other words, if somebody _might_ have evidence to prove himself
innocent, you won't look, you'll just conclude he's innocent.
>If you wish to request enforcement action from us, don't take the law into
>your own hands first.
And whatever you do, don't politely ask their user to stop it, because
that will be taken as "evidence" that you started something and any
resulting mailbombs will be "your fault".
It sounds like mcs.com will remain a great place for net.abusers until
it's aliased out, probably some time in the near future.
Seth
wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu
| <wer...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
|
|> btw, had there been contact attempts to postmaster@mcs (or abuse@mcs
|> or whomever) relating to matters which led to that 210meg bomb?
|> given that you had been speaking so much about provocation, there
|> might be a similar story here....
|
| Nope. The FIRST notice *I* had on this was a low-space alarm...
a bomb directed against your problem-user and noone complained
indicating that he was bombing them and to make him stop?
gee....
|> But back to the issue at hand here: the newsgroup abuse by your
|> user. Why are you tolerating it?
|
| What leads you to believe that I am? In fact, I'm not.
the fact that the offending articles still exist in the
soc.culture.israel newsgroup. The fact that you have not
stated that you have asked him to remove them and to stop
posting off topic. So how did your not tolerating express
itself?
|> Back to the topic, though: For how long are you going to tolerate
|> the newsgroup abuse?
|
| Again, what evidence do you have we had?
again, because of the evidence that I see.
|> and will I get mail-bombed if I send an emailed objection
|> in response to such articles, and will you defend my right
|> to respond by email to posted articles?
|
| The user in question has asked for no contact via email.
the user in question should not post to USEnet if he does
not want to play by the traditional rules there.
I do not recognize his right to demand that I do not voice
my protest to him by email. It is a courtesy he is asking
for, and I do not think that he has any reason to expect
that in honor of his behavior patterns.
| They have that right too.
and where does it say that a USEnet participant has that right?
all I read in the FAQs are statements that email responses are
proper and often preferable and indicated. To prevent someone
from sending you mail you have to get a court order. When I get
a court order not to send someone email, I will abide by it.
in other words, you are completely wrong and, in my opinion,
no court will uphold the right of a USEnet poster to demand
that no email be sent in response. Because hundreds of USEnet
expert witnesses would testify that that is not the way USEnet
works -- and neither Karl nor MCS has a say in that.
| You already have a forum for a response -- a public one, called Usenet.
and who gives you the right to deny me the private one?
Respect my right to use that until your user presents a court
order that I must not (and, no, to the best of my knowledge I
have never sent any mail to this particular kook, nor really
care to. but I just might to make the point).
Karl, if YOU want play this game of news for which we all
make available some of our privately owned resources, then YOU
please play by the communal guidelines and rules of the game.
It's not you who writes the TOS for USEnet to abide by, but
one might rather think that the relationship is nearly the
complete opposite, and you should see reason to accomodate
community wishes.
I don't like the calls to alias out MCS -- I actually think
that you do recognize intolerable USEnet behavior when you
see it, and will try to use your influence to see it stopped.
But you sure are saying all the wrong things here...
| If you wish to file a *specific* protest regarding our TOS, again, the
| procedure for doing so is on our web page. It doesn't differ much from
| other ISPs.
I am voicing a complaint following standard USEnet procedures.
That is, I send private email to a poster and, if necessary,
his postmaster/admin.
If you wish not to be a respected and respectable participate on
USEnet, please disconnect your newsfeeds or stop carrying any
but private newsgroup hierarchies.
Seth Breidbart
> ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>Tim, just what proof do you have that we have taken no enforcement action
>>regarding the newsgroups and that user's use of them?
>
>Oh, I dunno - the same proof he has that you did take enforcement
>action, perhaps? You know, the one that you refuse to disclose to
>him?
There's always the evidence of what appears in the newsgroups, of
course. If the user in question is still abusing them, that fact can
be seen in the newsgroup.
>When you deliberately create a vacuum, Karl, it's considered bad
>form to bitch about air quality.
Since he never tells about enforcement actions, you can't prove that
he didn't spank the user, of course. All you can prove is that the
spanking didn't change the user's behavior.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
>In article <4bq8ik$l...@panix3.panix.com>,
>Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <4bpqmr$k...@Venus.mcs.com>, Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>To examine logs one must have something to match against.
>>>Saying "I got 2 MB of email from xxxx" is insufficient.
>>Why? I'd think that a competent administrator could easily determine
>>the truth of that statement.
>Really? Why should I sift through 420MB X 5 of logs (yes, that's one day's
>worth)
That would take whole seconds for grep.
> to look for something when the person complaining won't provide a key
>to look up the index from?
He offered to, didn't he? He said that he didn't include all the
headers in his first message because that would make _it_ a mailbomb,
but he did offer to send them if you asked.
>I believe requiring the unadultered, and unaltered headers is very
>reasonable.
I agree. Did you ask him for them?
>>In other words, people have to fill out _your_ forms for anything to
>>happen. Every reasonable provider (e.g. AOL, Prodigy, Microsoft
>>Network -- how does it feel to be lower than they?) just requires
>>sufficient information. (A simple email to any of them, "It appears
>>that your user <X> is posting a spam with this subject: ..." will
>>cause investigation and, if warranted, action.)
>Forms? No. We ask for the specifications and charges on first contact.
The same (form of) email that gets speedy action from aol, msn.com,
etc. gets a reply from you to look at your web page and file a
complaint according to the procedures listed there.
>This gets you a speedier resolution, and lets us get to the heart of the
>matter, make a determination, and take action more quickly.
>
>That's in the best interests of people who REALLY have something concrete to
>report, and prevents wild goose chases.
OK, next time I have a problem with a user from mcs.com, I'll err on
the side of including too much information. Just don't accuse me of
mailbombing you.
>>Other providers merely ignore threats, and act based on the facts made
>>available to them.
>Rule #1 of dealing with people:
> Don't threaten them unless (1) you mean it, and (2) you don't CARE
> if they help you.
I can't wait to see you really sue mit.edu when they alias mcs.com
out. Even better would be watching you sue someone who posts from .il.
>>It's rational for me to report net abuse in simple understandable
>>terms. It is not rational for me to look up your requirements for the
>>hoops I must run through in order to do so. It's much more rational
>>for me to request that mcs.com be aliased out of Usenet.
>Hoops? Again, since when is it a "hoop" to require verifyable headers on
>messages you ALLEGE came from our customers?
If I give the newsgroup, the poster, and the date, anybody else could
find the messages in question very quickly. Next time, I'll include
the full messages for you, since that's what you seem to prefer.
>>> We take TOS issues very seriously and can and do
>>>suspend or revoke accounts for violations.
>>Good. Unfortunately, you don't seem to check to determine whether
>>violations have occurred when they are alleged, however.
>We sure do. If enough information is provided to make that a reasonable
>task.
Your definition of "reasonable" differs from that of every other site
admin I've corresponded with.
>>"back-spammed" (his term); you took no action when I reported that.
>Can you prove that we took no action? Or are you ASSuming?
I can prove that the user in question continued the same behavior,
therefore any action you took *had no effect*. A difference that
makes no difference is no difference.
>>I _very recently_ sent you email that one of your users is posting to
>>a newsgroup exhorting people to violate its faq. He has done so
>>within the last week, I believe. If I send you a copy of one of those
>>posts, will you investigate and act? (I don't expect you to act on my
>>word alone, of course; for one thing, only your logs can determine if
>>the post is a forgery.)
>Did you send me a COMPLETE copy of the post, including the headers?
No; next time I see one, I will.
>If not, why not?
I prefer to minimize the amount of email sent, not maximize it.
>That is a REASONABLE procedure that ISPs have asked for since I've been on
>the net.
But I'll see if an article hasn't expired yet, and send it to you if I
find it.
>>Calling for you to be aliased out isn't illegal, therefore a threat to
>>do so isn't extortion. Aliasing you out isn't illegal either,
>>fortunately.
>Threatening to do harm unless someone takes a specific action (which they
>are under no compulsion legally to take) is in fact extortion.
Threatening to stop doing something that is of benefit to someone else
is not threatening to do harm. People are threatening to stop
accepting articles and connections from your site.
Is it illegal for me to tell my neighbor "If you don't cut your lawn,
I'll stop weeding mine?"
>>However, I think you've misinterpreted the crime of extortion, so your
>>statement isn't true.
>Crime? Who said "crime"?
Extortion is a crime.
>>>Nope. Just add you to the "complaints are invalid when from you" list.
>>So much for your dedication to facts.
>Truth requires that you actually be interested in the facts.
No, truth is independent of anybody's interests, it just _is_.
> Kamens and
>Skivin are not here, and IMHO historically never have been.
I'm interested in facts, not opinions. Net.abuse is about who sent
how much email to whom, not whether X called Y a baby. The latter
does not excuse the former.
Seth
Karl Denninger
Nathan J. Mehl <nm...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>In article <4bugva$a...@venus.mcs.com>,
> ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>Tim, just what proof do you have that we have taken no enforcement action
>>regarding the newsgroups and that user's use of them?
>
>Oh, I dunno - the same proof he has that you did take enforcement
>action, perhaps? You know, the one that you refuse to disclose to
>him?
Oh, you mean none at all.
Common here and elsewhere on Usenet is asserting things without a shread
of evidence to support the allegation. This is yet another example..
Nathan J. Mehl
ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>Oh, I dunno - the same proof he has that you did take enforcement
>>action, perhaps? You know, the one that you refuse to disclose to
>>him?
>
>Oh, you mean none at all.
*ding* *ding* *ding*
>Common here and elsewhere on Usenet is asserting things without a shread
>of evidence to support the allegation.
Right. Now ask yourself why. (Hint: there seems to be a policy involved,
and you seem to be the one enforcing it.)
>This is yet another example..
It's an example of *something*, that's for sure.
Jonathan Kamens
|> Although I personally feel that Karl is clearly in the wrong in the
|> larger scope of this issue, you are, here, making a foolish assumption:
|> that when mail to multiple addresses is forwarded to a single mailbox,
|> the contents of the "To:" line become unimportant. They do not. Read
|> the man pages for procmail or maildelivery or elm to understand why.
I am fully aware of what procmail does. However, I know that Karl received
the complaint E-mail which I sent to MCS, because he responded to it. If I
sent it to the wrong address, he could have forwarded it to the right address,
just like just about every other site on the Internet does (well, except for
anon.penet.fi, which sends you a response telling you to write to
ab...@anon.penet.fi, but at least they *tell* you that, explicitly). Or, he
could have explicitly told me, "You need to send this same message to
ro...@mcs.net," which he did not do, despite the fact that I asked on several
different occasions for him to explain to me exactly how I failed to follow
his guidelines for submitting a complaint.
The fact that he refused to offer any explanation indicates that either (a)
he's being exceptionally pig-headed, or (b) he can't offer an explanation
because there is none -- i.e., I did in fact follow his precious "procedures",
but he refused to investigate my complaint anyway, and now he's using the
"procedures" as an excuse for that.
Mary Conner
>But if you participate in a thread on the net calling for people to mailbomb
>a user, that mailbomb happens, and you *WERE* in fact involved, or there
>is evidence that *you* sent 5MB of data to the person in question, I argue
>that they have EVERY right to hit "R" in ELM and send it right back to you
>without fear of enforcement action here.
>If I look and find 30 messages emailed to the user in a 20 minute window
>from you, I might conclude that it is entirely possible that you did in
>fact source the data in the first place and provoke that reply.
>Again, I will *NOT* invade the user's privacy to prove this -- which is
>exactly what I would have to do to prove or disprove that allegation. Our
>terms of service and investigatory policy is very explicit on this point.
>If you wish to request enforcement action from us, don't take the law into
>your own hands first. Once you start shooting you're in a poor position to
>request our assistance.
What if your user tells you that I sent him the 5MB core file to start
with? Is the fact that I did send a mail message enough evidence to
"convict me"?
--
Mary Conner tr...@serv.net
Currently seeking: Used CD player in good condition
Pez watch found!
Karl Denninger
What does a series of messages to the person who they are bitching about,
less than 2 minutes apart, say to you?
Reasonable correspondance or harassment?
How fast can *YOU* type?
As I said, the facts were investigated. They did not support the
allegations levelled at the time the complaint was lodged.
--
--
Karl Denninger (ka...@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | T1 from $600 monthly; speeds to DS-3 available
Karl Denninger
Nope.
Likewise, however, if I find a large number of messages FROM you to that
person in a short period of time, far beyond what you could have individually
composed and written, I can presume that you *did* in fact transmit
*something*.
Again, the issue is standard of proof. If you want to allege a mailbomb,
the first order of business is to establish that you aren't trying to get
someone nailed for returning traffic that you originally sourced.
My point is that I'm not going to convict people *on either side* without
appropriate evidence.
Karl Denninger
Seth Breidbart <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <4bunrj$n...@mercury.near.net>,
>Nathan J. Mehl <nm...@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
>> ka...@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>
>>>Tim, just what proof do you have that we have taken no enforcement action
>>>regarding the newsgroups and that user's use of them?
>>
>>action, perhaps? You know, the one that you refuse to disclose to
>>him?
>
>course. If the user in question is still abusing them, that fact can
>be seen in the newsgroup.
And if there were ACTUAL abuse going on, you'd expect to see complaints from
more than one or two people, no?
After all, how many people read that group? Many thousands (or more)
according to the Usenet "census" that comes out periodically.
We have a long, long history from these two characters trying to get people
removed they disagree with or who are critical of certain ethnic groups and
policies. It goes all the way back to "arf", which in and of itself dates
Kamens' activity in this regard. Skivins is a relative newcomer, but it
remains fascinating that their entire "enforcement" activity is confined
to one set of groups.
The lack of complaint from other, regular users of those groups is also
telling.
Bruce Ediger
:policies. It goes all the way back to "arf", which in and of itself dates
:remains fascinating that their entire "enforcement" activity is confined
:to one set of groups.
I remember Jack "ARF" Schmidling, Karl. There's a number of problems in
raising Schmidling to martyr status. ARF was a usenet problem, and also a
problem in real life. As I recall, he got in trouble with the FCC for
some of his ham radio activities, and he got in trouble with the city
of Chicago for never mowing his lawn for some ideological reason.
I can't recall if Schmidling had the same problems with the idea of "on-topic"
that Dunphy has, though. I used to see his articles in alt.conspiracy and
nothing else.
--
I have killfiled all usenet articles from prodigy.com, indirect.com, direct.ca,
hollyberry.com, interramp.com, iadfw.net, gnn.com and megaweb.com due to phone
sex spams and unethical ad spams. Once these sites are in your killfile, you
will be amazed at how few legitimate articles originate from them.
Seth Breidbart
>In article <4burce$g...@panix3.panix.com>,
>less than 2 minutes apart, say to you?
Depends on what they are.
One thing they might say to me is that you _are_ willing to grep your
email logs, despite what you've said elsewhere.
>Reasonable correspondance or harassment?
Either is possible.
1. Stuff could have been batched by hardware/software for some reason
(like the other site's mail-sending software was down for a while).
2. If abuser posted 20 random off-topic messages in a newsgroup in
short order (say, by reposting them from another newsgroup), somebody
might have read them consecutively, and returned each one with a "This
posting is inappropriate for newsgroup x.y.z" message. I consider
that legitimate complaint, not abuse. Multiple messages complaining
about the _same_ posting would be abuse.
>How fast can *YOU* type?
40 or 50 wpm, why? I can send a complaint about an inappropriate post
in well under two minutes, if that's what you're asking.
>As I said, the facts were investigated. They did not support the
>allegations levelled at the time the complaint was lodged.
You claim here that the facts were investigated; you've stated
elsewhere that you _refused_ to look into your user's email to see
what was sent and received. Did you, by any chance, ask the
_complainer_ if he was willing to send you the email that he sent and
received? That wouldn't involve violating anybody's privacy, would
it?
Seth
the wharf rat
>The user in question has asked for no contact via email.
But he has no qualms about mailbombing people he's
quarreled with on the net. That wacko Dunphy sent me about 100 mail
messages in the space of a few hour's time one afternoon. I packaged
'em up and sent them to Mr. Denninger. When the flow suddenly stopped I
assumed that he'd had a talk with Joe Wacko, but I don't really care
_why_ they stopped.
Is it really mcs.com policy that their users are free to engage in
that kind of behavior? That's what I gather from this exchange...
George Herbert
>The user in question has asked for no contact via email.
I think that the user in question is completely nuts if he expects to
be able to post publically and never recieve private email replies.
I think encouraging him in that belief is a great disservice to Usenet.
We've seen examples of this phenomena before (anatolia.org->zuma.uucp)
where people abused the net seriously and hid behind shields denying email
replies, even fair and reasonable ones. Karl, I sincerely hope you are
not planning on participating in another such event. I feel strongly that
public postings to Usenet are an invitation to reasonable public *or private*
response, though that response should not be a la mailbomb (much larger than
the origional post plus included criticisms, in any case). You can *ask* not
to recieve them, but expecting not to, or attacking people who do, is extremely
poor behaviour on your users part.
-george william herbert
gher...@crl.com
Jay Maynard
>Likewise, however, if I find a large number of messages FROM you to that
>person in a short period of time, far beyond what you could have individually
>composed and written, I can presume that you *did* in fact transmit
>*something*.
"Mommmmm! He hit me first!"
That doesn't work for 5-year-olds, and it shouldn't work on the net, either.
Mailbombing is NEVER acceptable, for ANY reason. Period. This is
non-negotiable.
Similarly, I'll invoke a principle from EMS to answer another of your
policies: that you can ignore complaints from someone based on past
disagreements. Us paramedics have a saying: "Even dirtballs have heart
attacks." We have an affirmative duty to treat anyone who wishes us to treat
them, or whose life is in immediate jeopardy, if we can do so safely. This
principle explicitly does not care about what they've done in the past to
others, or to themselves. We must ignore that, and do our very best to save
their life and treat their injuries or medical problems.
I submit that ISP admins have a similar affirmative duty to investigate
EVERY complaint, no matter who it comes from. If the complaint can be
trivially dismissed, that's fine; however, even Jonathan Kamens or Tim
Skirvin (please get his name right, Karl...) may well have a legitimate
complaint against your user, and you have a duty to the rest of the net to
investigate.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
http://k5zc.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Right now, Pinky, your brain waves are giving The Amazing Kreskin a
pounding headache." -- The Brain, _A Pinky and the Brain Christmas_
D...@manus.org
[ Author was DrG ]
[ Posted on Wed, 27 Dec 1995 09:59:20 -0500 ]
On Fri, 22 Dec 1995, DrG wrote:
> On 21 Dec 1995, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > Karl Denninger <ka...@MCS.COM> writes:
> >
> > > I say that if you send someone email harassing them, and you get a strong
> > > response, you had it coming.
> >
> > No one has a mailbomb coming. Period. Ever.
> >
> Look stupid. Certain acts are justified in the law.
> I am not allowed to punch you. But if you punch me, I am justified
> in punching you back.
>
> If you mailbomb me, I am justified in mailbombing you back
> That is the law.
>
> > > If you're trying to silence someone you disagree with, however, then my
> > > answer is "tough cookies kiddo". Give it up now; that battle is pointless
> > > with our firm or with me personally.
> >
> > You have nowhere near the credibility in this forum as Tim Skirvin does.
> > You're defending one of your user's mailbombs, and you are advocating that
> > the same thing be done in the future. This is absurd.
>
> It is your misunderstanding of the law that is absurd.
> >
> > Stop your users from sending mailbombs. This is not negotiable.
>
> If my users are mailbombed, they have every right to mailbomb back.
> > --
> > Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~rra/
> >
> >
> DrG
>
--
Manus, Inc.
D...@manus.org
Stephanie Smith
> I define a mailbomb as a transmission which *YOU DID NOT SOLICIT
> BY YOUR OWN ACTIONS*, and which is of significant size and causes
> a network operations issue to arise. I FURTHER define it as ANY
> email contact with someone with whom you have made clear you do
> NOT wish to receive email from.
Bullshit. Dunphy sent me threatening mail around the time of the
"backspamming" brouhaha (the "fuck you, dyke" commentary was enlightening,
too); he continued to send me mail after I explicitly told him to stop and
had stopped sending him mail myself. I informed Denninger about the
threats and that that the email was continuing. Denninger, of course, did
exactly nothing about it.
Gosh. What a surprise.
--
Stephanie Smith ------- st...@wimsey.com -------mspo...@mtcc.com
You could never be strong / You can only be free
And I never asked for the truth / But you owe that to me
Mary Conner
>What does a series of messages to the person who they are bitching about,
>less than 2 minutes apart, say to you?
>Reasonable correspondance or harassment?
This can be completely reasonable if one is using an off-line reader
and responding individually to several postings.