UDPs In Progress: VSNL and SILNET
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote:
>A state of UDP exists against Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (VSNL)
>the India national long distance/network provider, and Satyam
>Infoway (SILNET) [NASDAQ: SIFY]. This includes sites downstream
>through specific net blacks.
>
>The reasons for both are the same: massive network abuse
>originating at those systems, and a demonstrated lack of
>capability and/or willingness to rectify the problem despite
>several attempts to offer assistance.
<...>
I have no objection to the action, as it is clear something must be
done about VSNL. I *do*, however, object to Unit 4 making such
an announcement because Unit 4 is *not* a trusted spam canceller
and is *not* in a position to implement a UDP of any kind.
I call upon the trusted spam cancellers to indicate that they were
fully involved in the discussions leading up to this action, that they
agreed to everything stated in Unit 4's announcement, and that
Unit 4 has the right to speak for them.
If any of the following people had made the announcement, I
would not object. These are the only people in nan-au I trust
to properly handle a UDP.
Andrew Gierth
Chris Lewis
Howard Knight
Mark Burkley
J. Porter Clark
Respectfully submitted,
Henrietta K. Thomas, Individual
h...@wwa.com
Mark Burkley
>I have no objection to the action, as it is clear something must be
>done about VSNL. I *do*, however, object to Unit 4 making such
>an announcement because Unit 4 is *not* a trusted spam canceller
>and is *not* in a position to implement a UDP of any kind.
Unit 4 might not issue cancels, but he is still a trusted and
respected anti-spammer, as is for example David Ritz.
>I call upon the trusted spam cancellers to indicate that they were
>fully involved in the discussions leading up to this action, that they
>agreed to everything stated in Unit 4's announcement, and that
>Unit 4 has the right to speak for them.
FTR, I fully support the UDP and its announcement and am happy to have
Unit 4 speak on my behalf.
--
Mark Burkley (mbur...@iol.ie) Get nfilter at http://www.nfilter.org/
Jeffery J. Leader
Could you expand on this please?
I understand that there's an attempt to organize a large-scale passive
UDP (or even IDP), but are USENET cancels being issued, or similar
active measures being taken?
>Collateral damage is minimal.
Could you expand on this also please? I understand that only tens of
legit posts come out on a given day in any event...
Chris Lewis
> I have no objection to the action, as it is clear something must be
> done about VSNL. I *do*, however, object to Unit 4 making such
> an announcement because Unit 4 is *not* a trusted spam canceller
> and is *not* in a position to implement a UDP of any kind.
I/we asked Unit 4 to make the announcement.
> I call upon the trusted spam cancellers to indicate that they were
> fully involved in the discussions leading up to this action, that they
> agreed to everything stated in Unit 4's announcement, and that
> Unit 4 has the right to speak for them.
That's a "yup", "yup" and "yup".
This particular type of UDP is a group effort, each to his strength.
--
Chris Lewis, 8M50-I
For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
Jeremy
> I call upon the trusted spam cancellers to indicate that they were
> fully involved in the discussions leading up to this action, that they
> agreed to everything stated in Unit 4's announcement, and that
> Unit 4 has the right to speak for them.
>
> If any of the following people had made the announcement, I
> would not object. These are the only people in nan-au I trust
> to properly handle a UDP.
Well, I'm not on your list, but I was present for the decision and was
privy to the communications leading up to it, and I fully support this
action and feel that it is long overdue.
--
Jeremy ( jer...@exit109.com | bo...@netscum.dk )
Chris Lewis
> On 17 Dec 1999 16:12:40 GMT, Un...@cabal.net wrote:
> >Traffic cancelation is in progress.
> Could you expand on this please?
> I understand that there's an attempt to organize a large-scale passive
> UDP (or even IDP), but are USENET cancels being issued, or similar
> active measures being taken?
At the present time, the main effort is on cancellation and trying to
provide assistance to these sites. If this doesn't bear fruit, their
upstreams (which are in the loop) will start considering their options.
> >Collateral damage is minimal.
> Could you expand on this also please? I understand that only tens of
> legit posts come out on a given day in any event...
You answered your own question ;-)
Charles Demas
In article <$-_$%%__%_$$--_$$@news.noc.cabal.net>,
<Un...@cabal.net> wrote:
>
>A state of UDP exists against Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (VSNL)
>the India national long distance/network provider, and Satyam
>Infoway (SILNET) [NASDAQ: SIFY]. This includes sites downstream
>through specific net blacks.
>
>The reasons for both are the same: massive network abuse
>originating at those systems, and a demonstrated lack of
>capability and/or willingness to rectify the problem despite
>several attempts to offer assistance.
[snip]
While I do not disagree with this UDP, I do not recall seeing this
action specifically discussed here in NANAU, nor did I see what has
been the traditional 5 day warning.
Was it discussed elsewhere? Why wasn't it discussed here in NANAU?
I thought that was a major reason for this newsgroup's existance.
In the recent past there has been a policy of some public warning
of the impending UDP, usually 5 business days. That doesn't
seem to have been the case here. Perhaps the level of abuse is
different, but I think some explanation as to why the 5 day notice
was not given would be proper.
FWIW, in the past all my efforts to contact VSNL have been fruitless.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Jeffery J. Leader
[...]
Thanks for the explanations. I doubt anyone is opposed to a sting job
to get HipCrime. I expect most admins would consider the whole thing
something of a headache-causing pissing match between nanau and
HipCrime anyway, and let them duke it out. Please don't interpret
anything that follows as being intended confrontationally:
>the fact that the source is a user, and not an employee. This
>guided the direction the UDP was to take. Since it was a user, we didn't
>want the evidence to disappear from their logs, so we wanted them
>watching while it was happeneing. So, it was essentially a security
>operation.
I don't understand this. The UDP, FAPIAP, affects only HipCrime,
right? (I refer to active cancellation.) Surely HC now knows he's
being UDPed, FWIW. What evidence could disappear from their logs?
They could watch the UDP evidence, but that's not coming from HC and
you could mail them the summaries. The udpcancels wouldn't be on
*their* logs. HC's entries would always be on their logs, if they
kept them, and they should have mountains of evidence--or if they
don't, I don't see how this helps. I don't get it.
>It was a matter of determining how to go about this UDP so as to make it
>end fastest, including possibly before it started. Past evidence
>indicated public notice wouldn't because the ignored everybody.
Well, that's almost redundant--one only gets to the UDP stage by
ignoring complaints and notices, after all. (How often has a UDP been
implemented on people who are in contact with the complainants? YEs,
I know it's happened, but the typical case is as described above.)
And yet it's worked before...more often than not, ISTM, ending before
it started. I don't follow the reasoning.
>At this point everything was already in place and their notice period
>had expired. Public discussion would have only delayed its start and
>alerted the one person we didn't want to. I think it's hardly at
>question whether agreement over going ahead would have been reached.
It still isn't clear to me what is gained by HipCrime not knowing.
Were they refusing to keep or check logs until UDPed?
>I wouldn't disagree that it presumed upon peoples' trust.
HipCrime is certainly a special case; there's always a slippery slope
issue but it really doesn't worry me too much here. I think my only
real concern is that heads remain cool enough to separate the hunt for
a net-abuser from the personal dislike for HC--the "When they came for
HipCrime, I said nothing, for he was rogue cancelling scum" concern.
Public airing serves as a brake on the possible shift from effecting
change to the "They cancelled his posts, they flooded his newsgroups,
they posted altered binaries of his dog--now, he wants revenge!" point
of view.
The presence of Chris Lewis alone in this matter reassures me
considerably since in writing the above paragraph I think of his
frequent exhortations to hate the abuse, not the abuser, and their
influence on my thinking after coming to nanam (hoping that someone
would say "Sure, we can ban Archimedes Plutonium from sci.* for
life!"). (In fact the first argument I lost here was to Chris, albeit
only on the narrow, technical grounds that he was right and I was
wrong.) With that concern expressed, I say: Happy Hunting.
Jeffery J. Leader
>As long as we can answer
>truthfully to peoples' satisfaction, we can continue to do a good job.
There's a fair bit that's still murky but I can deal. I'm taking away
from your post the understanding that the intent is to force VSNL (I'm
not clear on the relationship to SIFY?) to keep and use logs in a
worthwhile way. In any event the accountability on the Cabal end
isn't an issue so I'm content to be patient. Thanks for your post.
J. Porter Clark
>If any of the following people had made the announcement, I
>would not object. These are the only people in nan-au I trust
>to properly handle a UDP.
>Andrew Gierth
>Chris Lewis
>Howard Knight
>Mark Burkley
>J. Porter Clark
Odd. I've never issued any UDP cancels.
FWIW, I am in agreement with Unit 4's announcement. He writes prettier
than me. 8-)
--
J. Porter Clark porter...@msfc.nasa.gov
NASA/MSFC Computers and Data Systems Group
Charles Demas
Unit 4 <un...@sputum.com> wrote:
>On 17 Dec 1999 22:32:32 GMT, de...@sunspot.tiac.net (Charles Demas)
>wrote, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
>
> }Was it discussed elsewhere? Why wasn't it discussed here in NANAU?
> }I thought that was a major reason for this newsgroup's existance.
> }In the recent past there has been a policy of some public warning
> }of the impending UDP, usually 5 business days. That doesn't
> }seem to have been the case here. Perhaps the level of abuse is
> }different, but I think some explanation as to why the 5 day notice
> }was not given would be proper.
>
> that. Warning was given to them days before that. They had their
> warning.
But as Henrietta pointed out, those not wishing to participate had no
warning, though it seems reasonable that those not wishing to participate
would have the "udpcancel" pseudosite aliased out as a general practice.
I assume this as well as some other pseudosite were used.
My concern was only about the target getting warning, so I am satisfied
that a warning was given, and will trust your word that it was given.
Posting a copy of the warning that was given would probably be a good
idea even now, but would have been more appropriate had it been
posted along with the announcement you did post.
I think you should post a copy of the warning sent, just for the
public record. YMMV
> Due to such high levels of reported abuse going unchecked, we considered
> the possibility that this was an inside job. We tested this by keeping
> all mention of UDP strictly between us and them. Then we watched to see
> if there was any indication that it leaked out from there. This wouldn't
> have worked if there'd been public discussion. Doing this provided us
> with the fact that the source is a user, and not an employee. This
> guided the direction the UDP was to take. Since it was a user, we didn't
> want the evidence to disappear from their logs, so we wanted them
> watching while it was happeneing. So, it was essentially a security
> operation.
What you say makes some sense, but your belief that it was a possible
inside job proved unfounded.
It is such "justifications" that lend themselves to "star chambers"
and "secret trials."
The facts in this case did not warrant the paranoia that caused these
actions to be discussed in secret, and did not warrant the actions
taken in secret. They could have been done in public with the same
results. IMO, this sets a dangerous trend. We need openness if cancels
are to be used to fight abuse. Nothing here has proven that the secrecy
used in this instance achieved anything. If it were an inside job,
would that inside person have given himself away by reacting to inside
information, or not reacted, making it seem like it was a user, not
an insider? Do you really think the secrecy actually did anything
real other than reinforce that there really is a cabal???
> It was a matter of determining how to go about this UDP so as to make it
> end fastest, including possibly before it started. Past evidence
> indicated public notice wouldn't because the ignored everybody. If it
> had been an employee, corporate notice might have been employed instead.
>
> Despite the collateral damage being only around 15 messages per day,
> they're still users and deserve the consideration to have their loss
> minimized. We felt this was the best way to do so.
>
> At this point everything was already in place and their notice period
> had expired. Public discussion would have only delayed its start and
> alerted the one person we didn't want to. I think it's hardly at
> question whether agreement over going ahead would have been reached.
>
> I wouldn't disagree that it presumed upon peoples' trust. I do think the
> reasons it was done this way were reasonable enough to make that
> presumption, and I hope the explanation reaffirms the trust was worth
> giving.
As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
"THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
Charles Demas
<HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
>Hi Charles ...
>
>You really hit the nail on the head with this one:
>
>>
>> As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
>>
>> "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
>>
>> This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
>>
>
>trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
>
What it proves is that there is a cabal out to end the abuse you
have been creating. There may indeed now be a cabal, but to me,
it looks like you caused it to be formed.
>There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
I would not say secretly, after all, they do sign their work, and
people are able to contact then both virtually and in real life.
You and your clones are not so open.
>THERE IS A CABAL AND IT'S SECRETELY CENSORING (ab)USENET.
>
>This silent, "star chamber" UDP is just an example, albeit
>a very visible one. Why not ask about how newsgroups are
>being "poisoned", and how many non-HipCrime groups are also
>poison (i.e. under direct & secret censorship)?
>
>Once again, my point is finally made: THERE IS A CABAL!
>
> ... HipCrime
>
[the rest snipped]
Now that you've "made your point," do you intend to continue
trying to prove it? To what end?
HipC...@mobsters.com
You really hit the nail on the head with this one:
>
> As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
>
> "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
>
> This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
>
You said it! And that is what my demonstration has been
trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
THERE IS A CABAL AND IT'S SECRETELY CENSORING (ab)USENET.
This silent, "star chamber" UDP is just an example, albeit
a very visible one. Why not ask about how newsgroups are
being "poisoned", and how many non-HipCrime groups are also
poison (i.e. under direct & secret censorship)?
Once again, my point is finally made: THERE IS A CABAL!
... HipCrime
================================================================
Rebecca & Günter admit there is NO TROJAN in NewsAgent:
She stopped spreading that rumour after I did an extremely
controlled test with extensive firewalls in place. I used
multiple machines and ended up discovering that I had a Trojan
Horse (another program) on one machine.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=560334414&fmt=text
================================================================
As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
"THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
David Ritz
[Newsgroups trimmed.]
On 18 Dec 1999 03:29:24 GMT, in article <83ev2k$h...@news-central.tiac.net>, "CD" == Charles Demas <de...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
CD> In article <There.is...@ab.USE.net>,
CD> <HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
> >In article <83eqvv$7...@news-central.tiac.net>, de...@sunspot.tiac.net wrote:
> >Hi Charles ...
> >You really hit the nail on the head with this one:
> >> As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
I've been rather up front with my solution. While I haven't found
the need to say it five thousand (5000) times a day, I have stated
it publicly more than once.
The only way to put an end to this problem appears to be the full
excommunication of India from Usenet. This can be accomplished by
having just two providers set up port 119 router blocks on a total of
two and a half B-blocks. If it can't connect to any NNTP server,
its all over.
> >> "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
> >> This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
> >You said it! And that is what my demonstration has been
> >trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
CD> What it proves is that there is a cabal out to end the abuse you
CD> have been creating. There may indeed now be a cabal, but to me,
CD> it looks like you caused it to be formed.
CD> >There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
CD> I would not say secretly, after all, they do sign their work, and
CD> people are able to contact then both virtually and in real life.
CD> You and your clones are not so open.
> >THERE IS A CABAL AND IT'S SECRETELY CENSORING (ab)USENET.
There is a cabal and it consists of spammers, misfits and
miscreants. Several are easily identifiable by their Tom Gartman
supplied email addresses. INTERNATIONAL-ISP.NET, my ass.
This is the only "censorship cabal" I'm aware of.
> >This silent, "star chamber" UDP is just an example, albeit
> >a very visible one. Why not ask about how newsgroups are
> >being "poisoned", and how many non-HipCrime groups are also
> >poison (i.e. under direct & secret censorship)?
> >Once again, my point is finally made: THERE IS A CABAL!
> >
> > ... HipCrime
CD> [the rest snipped]
CD> Now that you've "made your point," do you intend to continue
CD> trying to prove it? To what end?
The only thing close to censors we have around here are this
whiney, infantile, little troll and the spammers who support him.
This attention starved, insecure, inarticulate little sociopath is
more than happy to support the ongoing trashing of Usenet, by
burying it in repetitive pink crap and content cancelling
exemplified spammers such as Mike "Dirty Dick" Jones.
Hasn't Mikey supplied an account or two, to be used in the ongoing
attack against the infrastructure of the network, such as
<diablo_xxx>? How about my little buddies, Tom Gartman and the
Stemple brothers, who provided the <leaveme> account? At least
they're not superseding legitimate posts and replacing it with
their repetitive, boring, pink pork product any more.
What went on with the GTEI.NET news server? Was that Steve Repsis,
perhaps? Repsis had been actively spamming through the same
network, until this thuglette managed to finally get that account
slagged.
Where would this twit be without the assistance of the real scum
of Usenet, who depend on theft and the stifling of legitimate
discourse to drive their businesses?
I don't think this sociopathic little sociopath will be happy with
anything less than getting the entire nation of India permanently
excommunicated from Usenet. This action, in itself, is long
overdue. Here's hoping the little troll can expedite the process,
so it can be done with, once and for all.
This isn't censorship. Its a move designed to defend a thriving
community from the misdeeds of a jerk so absorbed in its own
selfworth, it doesn't care about anything other than seeing how
many vanitiy newsgroups it can create. In that case, its willing
to newgroup the same group over fifty (50) times in one session.
Stopping all NNTP traffic from India is actually much closer to
disarming a serial rapist.
So what's this little baby gonna do now? Throw another tantrum?
Is it time for another ineffectual hissy fit? All it can do is
speed along its own Usenet demise.
Go for it, spammer.
- --
David Ritz <dr...@primenet.com>
"The Zen nature of a spammer resembles a cockroach,
except that the cockroach is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
- Peter Olson, Delphi Information Engineer; 27-AUG-1998
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
Comment: Finger:dr...@primenet.com for public keys
iQCVAwUBOFs2ANzLrWGabIhRAQHZTgP+JbKE22YrhWD9+UetWQFTJFd4wUNUszyj
gzxCeIiHxP+5kMvBWw0U3ltBQgLp4k56delTm0s/QJe8eujI3/xXuFYwb/uVEOc4
2fUsw9xhFvsdwvWI1vA+LhA2FOayytb0b6lPLndyb3ObDv0i0xE4v2Mp8n75Hs6j
o4+cn3GSwC0=
=25ft
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Henrietta K. Thomas
cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:
>According to Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>:
>> I have no objection to the action, as it is clear something must be
>> done about VSNL. I *do*, however, object to Unit 4 making such
>> an announcement because Unit 4 is *not* a trusted spam canceller
>> and is *not* in a position to implement a UDP of any kind.
>
>I/we asked Unit 4 to make the announcement.
Coupla questions:
1. Why did you wait so long?
2. Why didn't you tell him about the pseudosites?
3. Why didn't you tell him to post the notice to all four newsgroups?
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
de...@sunspot.tiac.net (Charles Demas) wrote:
>In article <hfjl5sc5kge3prmmi...@4ax.com>,
>Unit 4 <un...@sputum.com> wrote:
>>On 17 Dec 1999 22:32:32 GMT, de...@sunspot.tiac.net (Charles Demas)
>>wrote, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
>>
>> }Was it discussed elsewhere? Why wasn't it discussed here in NANAU?
>> }I thought that was a major reason for this newsgroup's existance.
>> }In the recent past there has been a policy of some public warning
>> }of the impending UDP, usually 5 business days. That doesn't
>> }seem to have been the case here. Perhaps the level of abuse is
>> }different, but I think some explanation as to why the 5 day notice
>> }was not given would be proper.
>>
>> I was asked to construct the announcement. The UDP was initiated before
>> that. Warning was given to them days before that. They had their
>> warning.
>
>But as Henrietta pointed out, those not wishing to participate had no
>warning, though it seems reasonable that those not wishing to participate
>would have the "udpcancel" pseudosite aliased out as a general practice.
>
>I assume this as well as some other pseudosite were used.
From the UDP Notice for Ameritech.net:
>Should this action become unavoidable, sites not wishing to participate
>may alias out the pseudosite !ameritechudp!.
>Sites not wanting to participate in any active UDPs may alias out the
>pseudosite !udpcancel!.
There is another possibility -- sites which have !udpcancel! aliased
out, but might wish to participate in selected UDPs. In this case,
they had no chance to exercise that right because they weren't even
informed of the UDP.
<...>
>The facts in this case did not warrant the paranoia that caused these
>actions to be discussed in secret, and did not warrant the actions
>taken in secret. They could have been done in public with the same
>results. IMO, this sets a dangerous trend. We need openness if cancels
>are to be used to fight abuse. Nothing here has proven that the secrecy
>used in this instance achieved anything. If it were an inside job,
>would that inside person have given himself away by reacting to inside
>information, or not reacted, making it seem like it was a user, not
>an insider? Do you really think the secrecy actually did anything
>real other than reinforce that there really is a cabal???
I can understand a certain degree of secrecy for preliminary
investigations, but once the decision was made to go ahead
and UDP, an announcement should have been posted before
commencement of hostilities. Charles Demas is correct, IMO,
when he says, "We need openness if cancels are to be used
to fight abuse." Where there is openness, there can be trust,
but not where there is secrecy.
My thanks to the spam cancellers who responded to my request
that they stand up and be counted here.
Henrietta
Jeremy
> There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
If there's a cabal, you created it. And you have absolutely no right
to complain about censorship.
- Prof Jonez©
Charles Demas <de...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote in message
news:83ev2k$h...@news-central.tiac.net...
> In article <There.is...@ab.USE.net>,
> <HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
> >Hi Charles ...
> >
> >You really hit the nail on the head with this one:
> >
> >>
> >> As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
> >>
> >>
> >> This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
> >>
> >
> >You said it! And that is what my demonstration has been
> >trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
> >
>
Said the Nazis to the Jews ... you caused use to bake you in the ovens.
Don't you see, silly Jew, it's your own fault.
>
> >There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
>
> I would not say secretly, after all, they do sign their work, and
> people are able to contact then both virtually and in real life.
>
> You and your clones are not so open.
>
> >THERE IS A CABAL AND IT'S SECRETELY CENSORING (ab)USENET.
> >
> >This silent, "star chamber" UDP is just an example, albeit
> >a very visible one. Why not ask about how newsgroups are
> >being "poisoned", and how many non-HipCrime groups are also
> >poison (i.e. under direct & secret censorship)?
> >
> >Once again, my point is finally made: THERE IS A CABAL!
> >
> > ... HipCrime
> >
> [the rest snipped]
>
> Now that you've "made your point," do you intend to continue
> trying to prove it? To what end?
To the end that NO ONE is entitled to censor anything on open groups in
USENET.
Now if you want to take _your_ time and moderate various groups, with all
posts going through the appointed .moderators, then fine.
You assholes cabalists are pretending to be the self appointed moderators of
non-moderated groups. Besides USENET os for losers, grow up, http is where
it's at.
Prof Jonez©
>
>
> Chuck Demas
> Needham, Mass.
>
Charles Demas
In article <5v2m5sork6dg7ousi...@4ax.com>,
Unit 4 <un...@sputum.com> wrote:
>On 18 Dec 1999 02:19:43 GMT, de...@sunspot.tiac.net (Charles Demas)
>wrote, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
>
[snippage]
>
>}The facts in this case did not warrant the paranoia that caused these
>}actions to be discussed in secret, and did not warrant the actions
>}taken in secret. They could have been done in public with the same
>}results.
>
>No, it couldn't. We could not have determined whether the problem was
>continuing for so long because the problem was an employee, and being
>protected or even sitting at the account that received the reports,
>without testing whether or not a notice sent only to the admins caused a
>change in behavior. It was not paranoia, it was a calculated decision.
What did you expect might happen?
Did you expect Hipcrime to stop if he had "inside contact/connections?"
I don't understand how the "test" worked. Please explain.
>}IMO, this sets a dangerous trend. We need openness if cancels
>}are to be used to fight abuse. Nothing here has proven that the secrecy
>}used in this instance achieved anything.
>
>It proved the problem was a user, and not an employee.
How?
>That meant the
>admins could be held responsible without requiring notice to the
>corporate officers. Doing so can cause more problems than it solves if
>it makes the admins resent going over their heads. That can happen in
>any case, and cultural difference can make it more or less so. Not
>knowing which might be more likely, we opted to be conservative.
Indian customs are very strange. Not at all like U.S. customs.
>}If it were an inside job,
>}would that inside person have given himself away by reacting to inside
>}information, or not reacted, making it seem like it was a user, not
>}an insider? Do you really think the secrecy actually did anything
>}real other than reinforce that there really is a cabal???
>
>My professional field is human behavior.
>Given the two+ years I've studied this particular problem, I am entirely
>confident they would have reacted in some very characteristic ways if
>they were told. And if they were told, either they were an employee or
>so close to the employees that they'd warn him. Either way, that would
>mean the admins could not be trusted and steeper measures were required.
>That was what was acomplished.
What did you expect to happen if it was an "inside job?"
What did you expect to happen if it wasn't?
You say it is clear now that it is a user. I'd like to know how
it is clear in order to understand why it was felt that secrecy
was required.
I am not trying to be on one side or the other, but there is a claim
that secrecy was necessary to test the if the admins were involved.
I'd like to know what that test was, and how the results were evaluated.
You've already made that determination that the admins are not involved,
so showing how the secrecy helped in that evaluation seems relevant in
deciding whether the secrecy was indeed warranted. It is unclear to me
how or what was expected. I'd like to understand the reasoning not only
for this case, but for future cases.
[snip]
>Last time these things were said, it was pointed out that the people who
>carry these things out talk to each other as they always have, and that
>some participate in some things, and others don't. You can call that
>whatever you want.
I called it "paranoia," but if your happier with "unproven suspicions,"
I'll use that term. That is what it turned out to be, only now
I suppose they are "disproven" suspicions (about the admins).
Also, would you be happier if I called the secret group a "clique" or
"star chamber?" What label would you prefer I use for the group that
held the "secret discussions?"
>I remain open to any reasonable questions and clarifications. However,
>due to time constraints I won't be engaging in any extended discussions
>for their own sake beyond direct answers. Once I've made it
>understandable to anyone, about all that's left is for you to not like
>it. Feel free to do so. I'm sure there will be ample people to take both
>sides, and you can discuss it with them.
I would like to understand what was expected to happen as a result of
telling the admins privately, and how it was determined that it was
a user that was responsible. I've heard the conclusions, but I
have not heard the logic of how those conclusions were reached, and
why a lack of secrecy would have changed things.
You want trust saying that things will be explained. I'm willing to
trust, but I'd like to get the explanation promised.
>When I see things like "paranoia" and "cabal" inserted it starts to
>become evident that this is no longer a line of questioning, but a line
>of accusation. The all caps CABAL is a give away.
OK, perhaps "paranoia" was too extreme, I'll go with "very suspicious"
in the future. I suppose that "overly suspicious" might be justified,
given your conclusions, but I'll stick to "very suspicious."
I'll also agree that "cabal" is too much, and I'd be willing to go with
"clique" or "coterie" if you prefer, but those don't connote the
secrecy that was involved here. "Star-chamber" is probably a more
accurate label, but perhaps hou can suggest a better label.
My point in saying, "THERE IS A CABAL." was to point out that the
secrecy used in this instance tends to give credence to those that
see a secret group trying to do things to usurp and pervert open
discussions by canceling posts.
I am not convinced that there was a need for secrecy here, but I am
open to the idea that it might have been justifiable. So please,
explain it for me. I recognize that it's always easier to operate
without having lengthy discussions, but that is not a justification,
it is a rationalization. There is a big difference.
>As I can easily imagine my revered predecessor saying, if you want
>answers, I got 'em. Come and ask me. But don't expect me to waste my
>time with silly shit because I'm too busy for that right now.
Well, don't dismiss my questions just because I used the word
"paranoia" rather than "very suspicious," and don't ignore me when
I am annoyed that you and your "clique" chose to have secret
discussions and to make secret plans when in the past these same
people said that such things should be openly discussed.
>If that reinforces your conclusion, it really doesn't matter.
I have not reached conclusions as to whether secrecy was required.
Surely in the discussions the secrecy of the warning and the start of
the canceling must have been discussed WRT how others in NANAU would
respond, and how it would look and what precidents would be set.
It must have been considered how others would react, not just myself,
but others that are also anti-spam and anti-abuse. The reaction of
others that see canceling as an act of the devil was also considered.
I did conclude that the secrecy of this UDP and associated actions
does give those that oppose UDPs and canceling more examples to use
in their rhetoric. I find it hard to justify giving them that
ammunition.
The botom line is, I'd like to understand the logic of the decisions,
what was expected, and what happened.
Please answer so that I (and probably others) might understand.
I don't promise to agree, but I will try to understand.
If you wish to answer my questions in email, that's OK, I'll keep
it private, but I think public answers would be better.
- Prof Jonez©
Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote in message
news:385b3975...@il.news.verio.net...
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on 17 Dec 1999 21:20:53 GMT,
> cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:
>
> >According to Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>:
> >> I have no objection to the action, as it is clear something must be
> >> done about VSNL. I *do*, however, object to Unit 4 making such
> >> an announcement because Unit 4 is *not* a trusted spam canceller
> >> and is *not* in a position to implement a UDP of any kind.
> >
> >I/we asked Unit 4 to make the announcement.
>
> Coupla questions:
>
> 1. Why did you wait so long?
Because they ARE a secret starchamber ... and you're out.
>
> 2. Why didn't you tell him about the pseudosites?
See the above.
>
> 3. Why didn't you tell him to post the notice to all four newsgroups?
Because they really are the censoring fascist cabalists ...
Moderate the .moderated groups, don't censor the unmoderated groups.
- Prof Jonez©
- Prof Jonez©
Jeremy <bo...@netscum.dk> meowed in message
news:83fdhm$a1l$1...@s00perNooZ.com...
> <HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
>
> > There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
>
> to complain about censorship.
Said the Nazis to the Jews ... it's your own fault.
Rebecca Ore
>
> Hi Charles ...
>
> You really hit the nail on the head with this one:
>
> >
> > As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
> >
> > "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
> >
> > This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
> >
>
> You said it! And that is what my demonstration has been
> trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
>
> There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
HipCrime, poor baby. Here you are posting to nanau after throwing a
multi-group cancel fit.
Like so censored. OOoh.
Fuckhead.
> THERE IS A CABAL AND IT'S SECRETELY CENSORING (ab)USENET.
>
> This silent, "star chamber" UDP is just an example, albeit
> a very visible one. Why not ask about how newsgroups are
> being "poisoned", and how many non-HipCrime groups are also
> poison (i.e. under direct & secret censorship)?
Ask me if the guy I had dinner with was happy to hear about this?
Not a Cabalista, just an general sysadmin who likes to read a groupp or
two without having to deal with your cruft.
>
> Once again, my point is finally made: THERE IS A CABAL!
And as Jeremy Nixon said, where the organization before your capers was
minimal and disorganized, now we have a Cabal. Do you really think that
you were going to destroy the use of cancels and filters by your mauling
of this or any other groups? Don't blame us (there are friends and
circles of friends).
Fuckhead.
> ================================================================
>
> Rebecca & Günter admit there is NO TROJAN in NewsAgent:
>
> She stopped spreading that rumour after I did an extremely
> controlled test with extensive firewalls in place. I used
> multiple machines and ended up discovering that I had a Trojan
> Horse (another program) on one machine.
Oh, right, IRS-Agent says there's no Trojan in NewsAgent. Can't prove
it by me.
You were whining about me dropping the peacemaker role just as you
initiated contact with me. Well, I don't play the diplomat on Usenet to
exonerate crap behavior. And you weren't moving -- just wanted me to
justify what you did, tell you you weren't that bad a boy.
To quote a dead friend of mine, "yeah, right."
How do I know there's no Trojan in NewsAgent. After all, you told me
user names and passwords were what its users gave you to let you in to
their accounts. The price of registration.
Maybe I misread the letter? Gee, can't prove it by me -- all my
correspondence of that period went by, by.
Except some of it.
Mackall said you weren't in India. He's dead. Wonder who's hunting you
now?
Wonder how many civil lawsuits you will get slapped with.
Why don't you have your lawyers call some of the major providers and
find out?
Rebecca Ore
>
> Hi Charles ...
>
> You really hit the nail on the head with this one:
>
> >
> > As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
> >
> > "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
> >
> > This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
> >
>
> You said it! And that is what my demonstration has been
> trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
>
> There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
>
>
> This silent, "star chamber" UDP is just an example, albeit
> a very visible one. Why not ask about how newsgroups are
> being "poisoned", and how many non-HipCrime groups are also
> poison (i.e. under direct & secret censorship)?
>
>
And there is a BI. You don't need to repeat yourself.
Rebecca Ore
>
> Hi Rebecca ...
>
> In <385B4D99...@ogoense.net>, you invoked the bastard Briedfart:
>
> >
> > And there is a BI. You don't need to repeat yourself.
> >
>
> (see below). Not just mine, but loads of innocent bystanders too.
Oh, geee. It's called a UDP. And funny, we accept cancels on this
system and I saw your posts.
If you're going to flood, well, then you will be cancelled. And various
people have probably told you this.
>
> The only way for me to be involved in the discussion of the Secret Cabal
> UDP against me, is to flood this stupid NANAU newsgroup. Since Chris
> continues to cancel everything bearing certain IP addresses, the only
> way for me to be heard is to FLOOD. Fuck Briedfart and his BI.
>
> That's not what you want, but it's what you'll get.
>
Basically, if you want a dialogue, you've got one. I've seen your post
to doofus Charles Demas who still doesn't understand ISP culture or why
I work night shifts (because I don't go ahead and try to fix things even
if I make them worse trying to solve it myself way of the engineer who
would strangle management if it tried to be top-down rather than select
'um and stay out of their way). I've seen your reply. I replied to
you. David Ritz replied to you. If you want, we can get someone to
wake up Unit IV if he's asleep now and get him to reply to you.
I think you've proved that spammers will happily destroy communities for
the sake of selling their wares, but we kinda knew that already. If you
had just played games with nanau, this might have continued for quite a
while. Jeff Weisberg, the first news admin who allowed me to cancel,
thought the cancels/reposts cycles of nanau were just part of the fun
for the group. But you decided to flood control.newgroups. IRS-Agent
wasn't able to get an account with us because our news admin really
didn't like things that made more work for him. So, knowing that you
weren't getting your way, you escalate and you do the thing that is
likely to make the average news admin take notice.
ISPs don't like you. You've put out a bot that get an instant reaction
from any ISP if they catch a user with it. You think you have anything
to negotiate with? You don't.
You get to surrender. Now, how you want to do this is up to you, but if
I'd screwed up as badly as you have, I'd get my attorneys to call MSN,
AOL, CompuServer (you might want to ask David Ritz to suggest other ISPs
that might be thinking of civil suits against you), and the big news
companies. Ask what terms they're willing to give you if you stop now,
publically identify yourself (or, if you're afraid of Rich Tietjens and
his ilk, which is reasonable) or identify yourself to David Ritz, David
Formosa, Unit IV, Chris Lewis, and JOWazzoo, plus to representatives of
the major ISPs whose time you've wasted.
I haven't discussed these terms with anyone -- but the general ideas has
been discussed with at least one of the players.
Quit. There's another person who made major messes in the past. As
long as he's stopped, we really don't care who he really is (we meaning
here, me, David Ritz, Chris Lewis, and Sputum -- and this has been
discussed, but I haven't been officially authorized to make any offers
other than an account on my own machine if I want to risk it). Maybe if
you stop with the messes, and don't push the bot on the distraught,
then everyone will sort of forget it. But that is really not my call.
It's the call of the ISPs who may want to take you to court for civil
damages.
As far as I know, there are no Federal charges even though some of your
exploits were against government and military machines.
All I can try to get for you is protection against the Rich Tietjens and
others who might physically threaten you. I find that deplorable. I
apologize for my own emotional troll of you re suicide. I feel guilty
about that.
Okay, that's what I think is on the table, but I don't really speak for
anyone. The minimum is you quit and fade into the background. Take
yourself off the board and hope nobody is hunting you. The next offer
is asking the people I named for advice on how further to proceed.
JOWazzoo has been someone you've been in contact with for years. Ask
his advice.
Otherwise, you push. We push back. There are more of us than there are
of you. John Grubor said you were the Cabal's last active major enemy.
I've very committed to free speech, but it's not a given on Usenet. And
I do prefer that Usenet be a dialogue between people, even people
opposed to each other, flamers, the superciliously good, Bloxy's and
all, to infomercials and the condition of Muzak (if you know your
Michael Moorcock).
When you oppose this variety and dialogue, you unite people I doubt you
could have remotely realized you would unite.
Jeremy
>> If there's a cabal, you created it. And you have absolutely no right
>> to complain about censorship.
>
> Surely you realize that the phrase TINC predates HipCrime.
> People had been complaining about a "Usenet Censorship Cabal"
> since long before my site went online (02-Jul-1996).
>
> How could my actions have created something that preexisted me?
The existence of complaints doesn't mean the thing being complained
about exists.
> P.S. just for the record, how many non-HipCrime newsgroups have you
> "poisoned"?
Outside my own systems? Zero. And zero HipCrime groups, as well. How
could the number be any different? I think you overestimate my
influence.
--
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>I can understand a certain degree of secrecy for preliminary
>investigations, but once the decision was made to go ahead
>and UDP, an announcement should have been posted before
>commencement of hostilities.
This is my view as well, there needs to be an announcement.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
I R A Darth Aggie
<HipC...@Mobsters.COM>, in <There.IS...@ab.use.net> wrote:
+ Hi Charles ...
+
+ You really hit the nail on the head with this one:
+
+ > "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
No, Dippy, you've adequate pissed off enough people with enough pull to
try and do something about your happy home.
Wind. Whirlwind. Reap.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
Rebecca Ore
>
> On 18 Dec 1999 00:30:07 -0600, HipC...@Mobsters.COM
> <HipC...@Mobsters.COM>, in <There.IS...@ab.use.net> wrote:
>
> + Hi Charles ...
> +
> +
> + > "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
>
> No, Dippy, you've adequate pissed off enough people with enough pull to
> try and do something about your happy home.
>
> Wind. Whirlwind. Reap.
Have done something about his happy home is more like it.
And DataBasix lives.
--
Rebecca Ore
Dean of Subversive Arts and Foreign Affairs
Bungmunch University
**Hey, Raoul, want to take the Deanship away now, or what?**
Ed Foster
<jo...@norcom.no> wrote:
> Jeremy <bo...@netscum.dk> meowed in message
> news:83fdhm$a1l$1...@s00perNooZ.com...
> > <HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
> >
> > > There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
> >
> > If there's a cabal, you created it. And you have absolutely no right
> > to complain about censorship.
>
> Said the Nazis to the Jews ... it's your own fault.
Godwin invoked. You lose.
--
erfo...@nospam.MediaOne.net
(remove the word before
MediaOne.net to reply)
I R A Darth Aggie
<385B7530...@ogoense.net> wrote:
+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
+ > No, Dippy, you've adequate pissed off enough people with enough pull to
+ > try and do something about your happy home.
+ Have done something about his happy home is more like it.
Oh, I think he'll find another campsite...and then he'll try even
harder to cause problems. No, I'm not saying its pointless, but
vigilence is required.
And I'd advise keeping all the doors locked and bolted for the next two
or three weeks...
Anonymous
Posted by Bloxy's, the hunted man, the first dissident
in the history of usenet.
On December 16, 1999 the first anonymous
usenet server removed the field, where the poster
puts his usenet name. Thus, all the posts now come
from the Anonymous, no matter who posts.
Now, the question becomes:
Who pushed cotse.com into this and why?
Is cotse.com a part of the same equasion?
------------------------------------------------------
First of all, you bet yer royal tootoo there is.
In article <slrn85n5if....@gurcragntba.pbz>,
sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 11:51:14 GMT, Rebecca Ore
<reb...@ogoense.net>, in
><385B7530...@ogoense.net> wrote:
>+ I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
>+ > No, Dippy, you've adequate pissed off enough
>+ > people with enough pull
Trigger happy pullers?
Uniting into what?
Hey, dripping good here indeed.
>+ > to try and do something about your happy home.
Like what?
>+ Have done something about his happy home is more like it.
>Oh, I think he'll find another campsite...
Only natural, and plus you can go around bragging
how "good" you are, saving the free sucking werld
from those, who set up to be hunted?
Great progress, i tellya.
>and then he'll try even harder to cause problems.
PROBLEMS is a keyword.
What sucky "problems", sire?
>No, I'm not saying its pointless, but
>vigilence is required.
Vigilante?
Like get the gun out of your chest and go out on
the street and shoot those "evil", that you yoursel
create here every day, or WHO is creating them?
They are just born "evil"?
>And I'd advise
Uhu.
>And I'd advise
>And I'd advise
>And I'd advise
>And I'd advise
>And I'd advise
>And I'd advise
>And I'd advise
And you better listen.
>And I'd advise
And you better listen.
>And I'd advise
And you better listen.
>And I'd advise
And you better listen.
>And I'd advise
And you better listen.
> keeping all the doors locked and bolted
Hey, don't forget to stack on bullets and granades,
just in case.
> for the next two or three weeks...
Otherwise what?
Hipcrime is gonna come and steal your guns?
>James
>--
>Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
>The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities
Nah, in bullshit.
> - Jean McGuire
>To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
the mirror.
That helps.
Now, you are NOT on topic here, doc.
Did you see the name of this thread?
It says:
Re: THERE REALLY IS A CABAL! (was: UDPs In Progress: VSNL
and SILNET)
And wadaya peddle here?
Paranoya?
ra...@adsl-151-203-22-73.bellatlantic.net
>On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 00:58:36 GMT, Unit 4 <Uni...@SPUTUM.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>the fact that the source is a user, and not an employee. This
>>guided the direction the UDP was to take. Since it was a user, we didn't
>>want the evidence to disappear from their logs, so we wanted them
>>watching while it was happeneing. So, it was essentially a security
>>operation.
>
>I don't understand this. The UDP, FAPIAP, affects only HipCrime,
>right? (I refer to active cancellation.) Surely HC now knows he's
>being UDPed, FWIW. What evidence could disappear from their logs?
>They could watch the UDP evidence, but that's not coming from HC and
>you could mail them the summaries. The udpcancels wouldn't be on
Connection times and user logs could be wiped from inside their network. Some
crackers do things like this while obscuring their traces.
>*their* logs. HC's entries would always be on their logs, if they
>kept them, and they should have mountains of evidence--or if they
>don't, I don't see how this helps. I don't get it.
Oh, my. You've never seen what a nasty cracker (such as HipSlime and his
clones have shown themselves to be) will do to a system to cover their
traces, have you? Can you say "/bin/rm -rf /var /home /usr /" in
the boot scripts?
>>At this point everything was already in place and their notice period
>>had expired. Public discussion would have only delayed its start and
>>alerted the one person we didn't want to. I think it's hardly at
>>question whether agreement over going ahead would have been reached.
>
>It still isn't clear to me what is gained by HipCrime not knowing.
>Were they refusing to keep or check logs until UDPed?
The only thing I can think of is actually getting our friends to actually
*READ* their damn logs and nail down evidence of who HipSlime is, in order
to prosecute or prevent him from using other throwaway accounts under the
same name. If HipSlime was an employee there, it would be grounds for
firing his greasy little ass.
>HipCrime is certainly a special case; there's always a slippery slope
>issue but it really doesn't worry me too much here. I think my only
>real concern is that heads remain cool enough to separate the hunt for
>a net-abuser from the personal dislike for HC--the "When they came for
>HipCrime, I said nothing, for he was rogue cancelling scum" concern.
>Public airing serves as a brake on the possible shift from effecting
>change to the "They cancelled his posts, they flooded his newsgroups,
>they posted altered binaries of his dog--now, he wants revenge!" point
>of view.
Good point. It makes me slightly nervous, too.
--
Nico Kadel-Garcia
nka...@bellatlantic.net
ra...@adsl-151-203-22-73.bellatlantic.net
>>No, it couldn't. We could not have determined whether the problem was
>>continuing for so long because the problem was an employee, and being
>>protected or even sitting at the account that received the reports,
>>without testing whether or not a notice sent only to the admins caused a
>>change in behavior. It was not paranoia, it was a calculated decision.
>
>What did you expect might happen?
>
>Did you expect Hipcrime to stop if he had "inside contact/connections?"
>
>I don't understand how the "test" worked. Please explain.
From various experience with delinquent children: punks told that there is a
cop watching them almost invariably say "where?", then either run for the
hills or start acting up worse to prove to their puny little manhoods that
they don't care about the cops, even though much of their behavior is actually
to draw those selfsame cops to notice them.
I see no difference for HipCrime. I'd expect an attempt to move his activity
to another site, or a stepped-up attack with more attention paid to covering
his traces.
It is manipulative to do this, and goes against the very open, above-board
dealings with ISP's and spamhausen to try and reform them that we've seen
in the past. But since these guys refused so often and so long to deal
with it, I can see getting sneaky.
--
Nico Kadel-Garcia
nka...@bellatlantic.net
ra...@adsl-151-203-22-73.bellatlantic.net
>In article <83ffg4$3oh$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "- Prof Jonez©"
>
>> Jeremy <bo...@netscum.dk> meowed in message
>> news:83fdhm$a1l$1...@s00perNooZ.com...
>> > <HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
>> >
>> > > There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
>> >
>> > If there's a cabal, you created it. And you have absolutely no right
>> > to complain about censorship.
>>
>> Said the Nazis to the Jews ... it's your own fault.
>
>
>Godwin invoked. You lose.
No, that's a corollary. Godwin's Law is that in any Usenet discussion,
someone will eventually be called a Nazi.
It's a corollary that the first one to do it is usually a flaming wacko.
--
Nico Kadel-Garcia
nka...@bellatlantic.net
silverpelican
wrote:
>
>Charles Demas <de...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote in message
>news:83ev2k$h...@news-central.tiac.net...
>> In article <There.is...@ab.USE.net>,
>> <HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
>> >Hi Charles ...
>> >
>> >You really hit the nail on the head with this one:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As I said, all that this secrecy has proven is that,
>> >>
>> >> "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
>> >>
>> >> This is not good. Tell your fellow cabal members.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You said it! And that is what my demonstration has been
>> >trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
>> >
>>
>> What it proves is that there is a cabal out to end the abuse you
>> have been creating. There may indeed now be a cabal, but to me,
>> it looks like you caused it to be formed.
>
>Said the Nazis to the Jews ... you caused use to bake you in the ovens.
>Don't you see, silly Jew, it's your own fault.
>
>
>>
>> >There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
>>
>> I would not say secretly, after all, they do sign their work, and
>> people are able to contact then both virtually and in real life.
>>
>> You and your clones are not so open.
>>
>> >THERE IS A CABAL AND IT'S SECRETELY CENSORING (ab)USENET.
>> >
>> >This silent, "star chamber" UDP is just an example, albeit
>> >a very visible one. Why not ask about how newsgroups are
>> >being "poisoned", and how many non-HipCrime groups are also
>> >poison (i.e. under direct & secret censorship)?
>> >
>> >Once again, my point is finally made: THERE IS A CABAL!
>> >
>> > ... HipCrime
>> >
>> [the rest snipped]
>>
>> Now that you've "made your point," do you intend to continue
>> trying to prove it? To what end?
>
>
>To the end that NO ONE is entitled to censor anything on open groups in
>USENET.
>Now if you want to take _your_ time and moderate various groups, with all
>posts going through the appointed .moderators, then fine.
>
>You assholes cabalists are pretending to be the self appointed moderators of
>non-moderated groups. Besides USENET os for losers, grow up, http is where
>it's at.
>
>Prof Jonez©
Correct me if i,m wrong, but aren't you just another slime-bagged
spammer, with a name conveniently like that of Mike Jones?
Alias Dirty Dick?
>
>>
>>
>>.
>>
>
>
>
>
Pelicans fish but they never troll.
Rebecca Ore
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 07:40:32 GMT, Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >I can understand a certain degree of secrecy for preliminary
> >investigations, but once the decision was made to go ahead
> >and UDP, an announcement should have been posted before
> >commencement of hostilities.
>
> This is my view as well, there needs to be an announcement.
I had a very minor amount of advance knowledge about one of the aspect
of this, to wit the attempt to block VSNL at port 119 of their
upstreams.
The cancels bother me a little -- but not enough to fuss about if VSNL
itself got the five day notice.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://www.nfilter.org
Jeffery J. Leader
ra...@adsl-151-203-22-73.bellatlantic.net () wrote:
>The only thing I can think of is actually getting our friends to actually
>*READ* their damn logs and nail down evidence of who HipSlime is
Yeah, this is what I am taking away from this too. One hopes if he
was "rm -r"-ing things *every* time to hide cracking that someone
would have noticed by now. I gather the intent is to make them keep
them long enough and more importantly then make use of them...
Rebecca Ore
> Hi Rebecca ...
>
> In <385B4D99...@ogoense.net>, you invoked the bastard Briedfart:
>
> >
> > And there is a BI. You don't need to repeat yourself.
> >
>
> Ah, but with the StarChamber UDP in effect, my posts are being censored
> (see below). Not just mine, but loads of innocent bystanders too.
>
> The only way for me to be involved in the discussion of the Secret Cabal
> UDP against me, is to flood this stupid NANAU newsgroup. Since Chris
> continues to cancel everything bearing certain IP addresses, the only
> way for me to be heard is to FLOOD. Fuck Briedfart and his BI.
>
> That's not what you want, but it's what you'll get.
Sorry, but you're being a trifle melodramatic. I saw this post at
work and it's still on the same (cancel-accepting) server it was on a
couple of hours ago.
And the answer is still no.
Jeffery J. Leader
Sounds like Steve Boursy run through a spell-checker, but it says it's
from Denver, CO...Wouk?
how...@primenet.com
: How about my little buddies, Tom Gartman and the Stemple brothers,
: who provided the <leaveme> account?
They also provided the NuthinButNews account that Dipshit used to post
to this thread (X-Authenticated-User: 7175365). Here's dipshit's
headers:
| From: HipC...@Mobsters.COM
| Reply-To: HipC...@DavidRitz.NET
| Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime,
| news.admin.censorship
| Subject: THERE REALLY IS A CABAL! (was: UDPs In Progress: VSNL and
| SILNET)
| Message-ID: <There.is...@ab.USE.net>
| References: <83eqvv$7...@news-central.tiac.net>
| X-my-URL: http://www.HipCrime.com
| X-na-URL: http://hipclone.da.ru
| X-na-URL: http://hipclone.home.dhs.org
| X-na-URL: http://members.xoom.it/hipcrime
| NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.144.52.69
| Date: 17 Dec 1999 21:54:51 -0600
| X-Trace: 17 Dec 1999 21:54:51 -0600, 202.144.52.69
| Organization: NuthinButNews.com
| Lines: 148
| X-Authenticated-User: 7175365
| Path: ...!nntp.corpcomm.net!news.nuthinbutnews.com!202.144.52.69
Here's the headers of some Gartman spam:
| Message-ID: <0085B42F6F0...@abaxb.com>
| From: nbn...@asdzsvm.nl
| Subject: R)A)P)E)D HOOKERS ON VHS-HERE!
| Newsgroups: alt.sex.aluminum.basebal
| Date: 30 Nov 1999 02:47:49 GMT
| X-No-Archive: Yes
| X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
| X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
| X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
| NNTP-Posting-Host: a210-34.hstn.tx.verio.net
| X-Trace: 30 Nov 1999 01:29:20 -0600, a210-34.hstn.tx.verio.net
| Organization: NuthinButNews.com
| Lines: 66
| X-Authenticated-User: 7175365
| Path: ...!nntp.corpcomm.net!news.nuthinbutnews.com!abaxb.com
Howard
Rebecca Ore
Think about who else we know in Colorado. Fake Arabs?
Jeffery J. Leader
wrote:
>Indian customs are very strange. Not at all like U.S. customs.
Then the word you are searching for is most likely "different," not
"strange." I can see how the "test" might have resulted in info.,
BTW.
>I'd like to understand the reasoning not only
>for this case, but for future cases.
If I thought this was a precedent for future UDPs, I'd agree.
However, it seems to me more a case of desperate times call for
desperate measures. (I might liken it to the dolphinbot but that
would offend many I suspect.) It *is* a bending of the (agreed-upon)
rules. If it happens again next month to whatever ISP Gartman is
abusing, I'll say the wrong lesson has been learned and complain.
That is far from what I expect.
Given how carefully the rules have been applied before and the folks
involved, I'm willing to say they thought about it, had their reasons,
and while I might have disagreed with them, suspect that they're
acting in good faith.
The "current" rules came out of something of a post-game analysis. If
needed, that can be done here too. IMO it's a special case, and more
a manhunt than a UDP per se. I also agree with David Ritz that it may
simply come to walling off India--a terrible shame.
>I'll also agree that "cabal" is too much, and I'd be willing to go with
>"clique" or "coterie" if you prefer, but those don't connote the
>secrecy that was involved here. "Star-chamber" is probably a more
>accurate label, but perhaps hou can suggest a better label.
Of course there's a cabal of sorts here, but it isn't secret by any
means. The cabal seems to consist of any reasonable person willing to
put the time, effort, and expense into running the software necessary
to effect some change (interpreted more broadly than just despamming;
NoCeMs. etc.). That gift of time/effort/software back to the
community is a USENET tradition, I say. That those who do do
something are entrusted to do something follows...
I ain't nobody, and they read and respond to me on occasion. We could
use more Cabals like that IMO. (That is, more Cabals that listen to
people in general, not just to me--though let me just take this
opportunity to say "Socialized Medicine Now!") This Cabal is just the
folks willing to do something--how often is that the case anyway in
life? "Why is so-and-so in charge, or given so much respect--Well, he
was the only one who volunteered to do the job." Volunteers do
something and sooner or later they're made an official committee. Get
a cancelbot and join the crowd and you'll likely be Cabal before you
know it, Charles.
>I am not convinced that there was a need for secrecy here, but I am
>open to the idea that it might have been justifiable. So please,
>explain it for me. I recognize that it's always easier to operate
>without having lengthy discussions, but that is not a justification,
>it is a rationalization.
The latter thought concerns me a bit too. I'm not perfectly sure that
there was a need for secrecy but am prepared to be patient.
>I think public answers would be better.
USENET is a public medium. Ideally it should *all* be out here--the
system working within itself, not having to go "outside" of itself in
order to protect itself. (I think Howard Knight as Remo Williams.) I
like that ideal. It's my vision of USENET. It's why I *avoid*
USENET-related mailing lists and such--I want to keep as close to that
ideal as I can.
But it's unrealistic. The medium wasn't built with enough safeguards
to make that feasible in every case.
Jim Manson
>There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
You mean the asshole who's been canceling huge numbers of posts at
random?
Hmm...sounds like Hipcrime to me.
HipC...@antisocial.com
You must really be ignoring history, when you wrote:
>
>> HipC...@DavidRitz.NET wrote:
>>
>> There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
>
> If there's a cabal, you created it. And you have absolutely no
> right to complain about censorship.
>
Surely you realize that the phrase TINC predates HipCrime.
People had been complaining about a "Usenet Censorship Cabal"
since long before my site went online (02-Jul-1996).
How could my actions have created something that preexisted me?
Besides, JoWazzoo contends that complaining is a basic inalienable
right. He's said so many times. So have others in the complaint
newsgroups known as N.A.N-A.Usenet/Email. What's the matter? Is
it OK for you to complain privately to my ISP, but not OK for me to
complain about YOU in public? Double Standards. Gotta love 'em.
... HipCrime
P.S. just for the record, how many non-HipCrime newsgroups have you
"poisoned"? Like this StarChamber UDP, that's another example
of secret, behind-the-scenes censorship. There's NEVER been
any public discussion of newgroup poisoning, has there?
========================================================================
From: Jeremy <bo...@netscum.dk>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime,news.admin.censorship
Subject: Re: THERE REALLY IS A CABAL! (was: UDPs In Progress: VSNL and SILNET)
Date: 18 Dec 1999 07:36:22 GMT
Organization: There Is No Organization
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <83fdhm$a1l$1...@s00perNooZ.com>
References: <83eqvv$7...@news-central.tiac.net> <There.is...@ab.USE.net>
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
X-Meow: Meow
Xref: gail.ripco.com news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:274446 news.admin.censorship:86295
<HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
> There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
If there's a cabal, you created it. And you have absolutely no right
to complain about censorship.
--
Tim Skirvin
>Hi Charles ...
>> "THERE REALLY IS A CABAL."
>You said it! And that is what my demonstration has been
>trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
Yeah, you've figured it out - groups will form to defend what they
care about. If you're determined enough to find yourself an enemy, you
can make that enemy.
Too bad finding allies isn't that easy, eh, Hippie?
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/> Skirv's Homepage <FISH><
<URL:http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/> The Killfile Dungeon <*>
Jeffery J. Leader
[...]
Thanks for the post and the explanations. I must however be
argumentative about one point:
[Charles wrote:]
>}I did conclude that the secrecy of this UDP and associated actions
>}does give those that oppose UDPs and canceling more examples to use
>}in their rhetoric. I find it hard to justify giving them that
>}ammunition.
I don't see that they need any additional ammunition. I find that the
point of view that UDPs--which cancel the posts of non-spamming,
non-abusing users based solely on their ISP of choice--are
unacceptable is quite supportable on its own. It's like being opposed
to chemical/germ/nuclear warfare--yeah you could win a war better or
sooner with them (in some cases), but a line is drawn for other
reasons. I respect those who draw the line at UDPs on principle; the
principle is, we'll not punish the innocent because of the guilty.
I myself see it differently, and buy into the notion that those
posters must be viewed as supporting a net-abusing (by negligence
perhaps) ISP, esp. given other choices in ISPs (most of the time). I
support their use. But I respect those who oppose them--as long as
they don't burn down Seattle or anything.
>Left to their own, they are quite capable of discrediting themselves.
>It's when otherwise rational people pick up that rhetoric that it seems
>to have justification.
I hope you didn't mean to state it this strongly, and I don't think
that you did, as earlier in the post you did refer to those who harass
the despammers--but this follows the quoted material from Charles
referring to
:those that oppose UDPs and canceling
...in general. There are absolutely rational opposers of UDPs whom I
find to be quite capable of bringing credit upon themselves with
reasonable arguments. (There are also raving loons.) It's one reason
why the pseudo-sites are so important, at least as a matter orf
principle. I'm quite sure you're thinking of the loons but I want to
be careful not to demonize the opposition--for down that path truly
lies Cabalism.
I can respect the point of view HipCrime espouses (that all cancels
are bad). I don't agree, though I see the age of the cancel rapidly
fading. But it's principally his tactics that I disagree with with.
Even Boursy had some reasonable arguments--his looniness (and taking
things to real life, as they say) was in some ways a separate issue.
:> Will Graham: I know that I'm not smarter than you.
:> Doctor Hannibal Lektor: Then how did you catch me?
:> Will Graham: You had disadvantages.
:> Doctor Hannibal Lektor: What disadvantages?
:> Will Graham: You're insane.
[http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0091474]
Jeremy
> They were used to Doug handling it. He knew to do it this way because he
> pretty much developed the process after the discussion following the
> UUNet UDP (the last one I'd handled).
Actually, as I recall, the discussion was following the Compuserve UDP.
The UUNet UDP was discussed in private and implemented without any public
notice at all. The Compuserve UDP was as well, and at that point, some
people started saying "Hmm, let's talk about this."
Henrietta K. Thomas
<Uni...@SPUTUM.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 07:40:29 GMT, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas)
>wrote, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
>
>}In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on 17 Dec 1999 21:20:53 GMT,
>}cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:
>}
>}>According to Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>:
>}>> I have no objection to the action, as it is clear something must be
>}>> done about VSNL. I *do*, however, object to Unit 4 making such
>}>> an announcement because Unit 4 is *not* a trusted spam canceller
>}>> and is *not* in a position to implement a UDP of any kind.
>}>
>}>I/we asked Unit 4 to make the announcement.
>}
>}Coupla questions:
>}
>}1. Why did you wait so long?
>
>From my observations, it was a matter of figuring out how to go about
>it. Chris may have more answers.
>
>These, though, I can handle.
OK.
>}2. Why didn't you tell him about the pseudosites?
>}
>}3. Why didn't you tell him to post the notice to all four newsgroups?
>
>They were used to Doug handling it. He knew to do it this way because he
>pretty much developed the process after the discussion following the
>UUNet UDP (the last one I'd handled).
Agreed. But everyone who read Doug's UDP notices also knew
how to do it. And if they needed to refresh their memory, all they
had to do was search for an example in Deja. That's what I would
have done if I'd been asked to write the announcement.
>When we saw there was already discussion here and I was asked to write
>it, I got in a hurry and posted it, to keep the speculation from running
>rampant and to let everyone know that the secrecy was for a reason.
>
>I posted what I knew and didn't stop to ask what else should go into it.
IOW, the purpose of the notice was to stop speculation in nan-au,
not to inform Usenet at large of what was going on.
Too late to cry over spilt milk. What's needed now is to post
another, more formal, announcement to the appropriate groups,
explaining the situation and including information as to how
sites can participate or not. I hope you and Chris will do that
as soon as possible. It shouldn't be too difficult.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
<reb...@ogoense.net> wrote:
You don't care about Usenet at large not being notified that a UDP
against VSNL & SILNET has been in progress since Tuesday?
Don't you think the admins where you work had a right to know
that? Don't you think other admins had a right to know? That's
the purpose of the public notice -- to give the admins at all sites
proper notice of a UDP so that they can decide whether they
want to opt-in or opt-out. Notifying only the target admins is not
acceptable. I thought this was settled a long time ago in the
wake of the UDPs of UUnet and Compuserve.
The cancels don't bother me too much because I assumed
HipCrime stuff was under autocancel anyway. What bothers
me is what appears to be a rather callous attitude toward
Usenet at large as if site admins throughout the world have
no right to know when the spam cancellers have embarked
on a UDP. This sets a very bad precedent, IMHO, and I'm
not so sure it will never happen again.
Henrietta
Chris Lewis
>You said it! And that is what my demonstration has been
>trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
>There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
Precisely.
It's a secretive attention-seeking little baby named hipcrime and
his fellow vandals.
Thee Bluelist/Brownlist/Reddlist harassment - check
Bluelist reverse bombs - check
sendsys bombs - check
version reply bombs - check
*.test response bombs - check
*.answer bombs - check
attacks on FAQs - check
Forged newgroup/rmgroup/checkgroup floods - check
Forged cancel attacks across all Usenet - check
But we already knew that.
--
Chris Lewis, CyberSheriff (CBC says I am, so it must be true!)
It's not just anyone who has a Starship cruiser class named after them!
For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam
Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension: http://www.cauce.org
Chris Lewis
Charles Demas <de...@sunspot.tiac.net> wrote:
>What you say makes some sense, but your belief that it was a possible
>inside job proved unfounded.
>It is such "justifications" that lend themselves to "star chambers"
>and "secret trials."
I don't see any significant item that's secret, do you?
Secret trials are only secret trials if they remain secret - and we
just publicized it, right?
>The facts in this case did not warrant the paranoia that caused these
>actions to be discussed in secret,
2 years of complete inaction on the part of VSNL was ample justification.
Nor do the events as they transpired provide useful evidence either way.
>and did not warrant the actions
>taken in secret. They could have been done in public with the same
>results.
Some people are unable to differentiate hindsight from foresight - I
thought better of you.
Rebecca Ore
> Unit 4 <un...@sputum.com> wrote:
>
> > They were used to Doug handling it. He knew to do it this way because he
> > pretty much developed the process after the discussion following the
> > UUNet UDP (the last one I'd handled).
>
> Actually, as I recall, the discussion was following the Compuserve UDP.
> The UUNet UDP was discussed in private and implemented without any public
> notice at all. The Compuserve UDP was as well, and at that point, some
> people started saying "Hmm, let's talk about this."
>
There were other UDPs of smaller systems where maybe 24 hour notice
had been given. One of those was used to convince an ISP to install
Cleanfeed on outbound traffic if I remember correctly.
I think the idea after Compuserve was that some notice be given. Five
days was selected as a trial amount of time. I felt at the time that
some notice was good, but that five days was more like too likely to
turn nanau into a circus.
David Ritz talked about blocking VSNL at port 119s of its immediate
upstreams for quite some time -- getting this done was not a trivial
task, but certainly David didn't hide his intentions, though perhaps
the average poster here didn't quite understand the implications.
<Cough> HipCrime does need to be allowed to post under BI 20 to nanau
during this period, though I suspect Deja suits the security issues
better.
Rebecca Ore
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:56:26 GMT, Rebecca Ore
> <reb...@ogoense.net> wrote:
>
> You don't care about Usenet at large not being notified that a UDP
> against VSNL & SILNET has been in progress since Tuesday?
> Don't you think the admins where you work had a right to know
> that?
Henrietta, HipCrime is a matter for discussion among real admins in
highly unflattering ways.
> Don't you think other admins had a right to know? That's
> the purpose of the public notice -- to give the admins at all sites
> proper notice of a UDP so that they can decide whether they
> want to opt-in or opt-out. Notifying only the target admins is not
> acceptable. I thought this was settled a long time ago in the
> wake of the UDPs of UUnet and Compuserve.
Basically, I believe that the purpose of public notice is to bring the
other users of an ISP around to seeing why a UDP is being called for
and to encourge them to switch from hating the UDP'ers to working on
getting their ISP to behave more responsibly. I don't see how this
would have worked with in this case given cultural and language
differences, plus the very small volume of non-rogue cancel posts
coming from VSLN.
> The cancels don't bother me too much because I assumed
> HipCrime stuff was under autocancel anyway. What bothers
> me is what appears to be a rather callous attitude toward
> Usenet at large as if site admins throughout the world have
> no right to know when the spam cancellers have embarked
> on a UDP. This sets a very bad precedent, IMHO, and I'm
> not so sure it will never happen again.
I can assure you that even news admins who lurk here don't really
believe in worrying about UDP notices, and probably 90% of all news
admins don't read nanau on a regular basis. We've had five day
notices that I know administrators didn't know about until someone
mentioned it in casual conversation or in another post.
Very probably, though I can't prove it, most ISPs have already decided
whether to participate in active UDPs or not, globally, and have made
their own private adjustments. I can see philosophical reasons to be
opposed to UDPs in general; I have trouble imagining an admin who
generally accepted them who would baulk at this one.
Should such an admin want to speak up, then we do have a point of
discussion.
Rebecca Ore
---> HipCrime whinged:
(And snipped).
>
> The USENET CABAL tries to paint themselves as taking the
> moral high road: They may cancel posts because it is right, others
> may not because it is wrong.
>
> --- > This silent, "star chamber" UDP is just an example, albeit
> --- > a very visible one. Why not ask about how newsgroups are
> --- > being "poisoned", and how many non-HipCrime groups are also
> --- > poison (i.e. under direct & secret censorship)?
>
> It is nothing as sinister as that. It is merely yet another example
> of how rules should apply to anyone except themselves. A surprise
> UDP (against *their own* professed rules) is issued after several years
> of quiet stalking. This seems totally disingenuous to me.
Gunter/IRS, the reason some of us actually like you is that when you
want to, you can provide thoughtful criticism of what we're doing.
The rules are that anyone can cancel material over BI > 20 as long as
certain conventions are followed.
Is there a group of people who are in contact with each other trying
to figure out how to stop cancellers who don't follow those
conventions? Oh, yeah. But I'm not privy to what Dennis Furmanski is
doing; my circle of friends isn't The Cabal, but a circle of people I
listen to. Are you Cabal then because you have made me think about
certain issues?
> --- > Once again, my point is finally made: THERE IS A CABAL!
> --- >
> --- > ... HipCrime
> --- >
> --- >
> --- > ================================================================
> --- >
> --- > Rebecca & Günter admit there is NO TROJAN in NewsAgent:
> --- >
> --- > She stopped spreading that rumour after I did an extremely
> --- > controlled test with extensive firewalls in place. I used
> --- > multiple machines and ended up discovering that I had a Trojan
> --- > Horse (another program) on one machine.
>
> That is not to say that there is not a trojan in the program. It says that
> I was unable to detect one after extensive testing which included manual
> approvals for every single data transfer through every port while running
> the program on a non-propagating news server. No trojan or unusual
> port activity manifested itself.
This sort of thinking is your hallmark. As mine is my peculiar sense
of moral boundaries which you find both intriguing and appalling --
and I can actually appreciate why you find my morals appalling, to a
certain extent, and it has modified my behavior some.
(Snips again).
>
> That would be too PUBLIC. Secrecy was the environment
> which operations were being conducted. The only reason
> any announcement was made is that control messages
> would be seen and they would be exposed anyway.
David Ritz has always said what his immediate and distant goals were
in this. You, among others, surely knew that David was serious and
how effective he might be in getting this done.
As for his distant goals, he's stated those. To stop the abuse.
Secrecy? You certainly don't telegraph your own true moves (why I
figured the request for 2 days was a troll, actually, but I knew you'd
be amused by the reactions). And the most careless moves you've made,
the ones that cost you an account with newsread.com or netaxs.com,
were made in HipCrime's company.
>
> It makes no sense whatsoever. They have been stalking HC for 3 years
> now. Why the sudden urge to do an *immediate* UDP with no public
> discussion? Could it be that the furtive behaviour was for some
> other reason?
HipCrime ramped up. Also, two different observers of the scene
speculated that he could be working for VSNL or SILNET. I, early, was
one. Also, Doug died. The usual defense against a system-wide attack
was Lorena. Lorena hasn't been reactivated since to the best of my
knowledge. It did not take HipCrime long to take advantage of Doug's
death.
Plus, whoever was active against Doug when Doug died was sure to be
hated beyond what might have been normally the case. HipCrime has
that distinction.
(Snips -- HipCrime doesn't have much to contribute to the meat of this
dialogue, I don't think).
>
> These secretive attacks against persons and corporations
> certainly do nothing to dispel the notion of a CABAL.
Part of this was secretive -- and whether a UDP against VSNL will work
any quicker than a UDP against ACSI is yet to be determined. But the
intention to block India from Usenet was a publically stated goal.
<Blink> I believe an Other Guy began the business of blocking a whole
country from the Net. What we most resent in others is often
distortions of our own behavior -- this is why Steve's absolutist free
speech views cause anxiety in some. He's not entirely wrong about the
goals of some of those who post to nanau, but not, I don't think,
right about Howard, Doug, Andrew, or Rick. I don't believe that
absolute free speech is possible, but I have been influenced by
Steve's thinking on this -- and found much of the way he was treated
by others in nanau to be infamous (only those he had truly gone out of
bounds with had standing in the vitrol -- the others were just being
part of a mob).
> --- > >
> --- > > Despite the collateral damage being only around 15 messages per day,
>
> As measured by one of the antagonists with no independant verification.
Whose independent verification would you trust?
> And a five day warning would cause what damage?
>
This one is obvious. Had it been an insider, logs are easy to
destroy. Even with a user, not a person employed by the ISP in
question, logs can be destroyed, though not with as much ease.
> They really don't care. All of their clandestine activities
> are carried out on mailing lists. There are maybe 10 people
> with another 10-20 supporters who are acting in secret to
> have usenet conform to *their* vision and rules, with the
> exception of those rules not being applied to them.
Actually, I use the phone. And HipCrime discusses what he's going
to do where?
The people I had dinner with yesterday and I discuss whether or not
there is a Cabal -- and there are times when they tell me I don't see
it because I'm in it and there are times when I just agree with them
to keep from arguing. There are communication channels -- but none of
us are isolated from the rest of the world. You aren't. I'm not,
either.
Oddly enough, I know a news admin who also agree with you about the
"self-referential cancelling community," but he thinks the cancelling
community doesn't go far enough and approves of what Peter DaSilva
did. "Make it so nothing bad happens." You forget the sea in which
we're all tossed, the demands of people like Becky Kearns on one end
and the demands of people who believe that they do have a right to
flood out their enemies and competition on the other.
Pace Henrietta, Charles and others, dealing with Usenet will always be
a constant set of readjustments and resetting of moral balances. I've
broken the convenants against leaking email -- you and Henrietta are
appalled, but communication moves into new channels.
Usenet needs a thoughtful opposition between the drives of those who
would create too much order and the drives of those who fight
restraints. I truly believe that. I've put pressure on those of are
nominally of my side to give hearing to those who I'd classify as
Other Guys. Often, I find you a more sympathetic person in many
ways than some of are nominally of the party of Order.
If anything bad comes of this, I would be unhappy and I would rethink
my own personal and fairly unique strategies.
>
> And millions of usenet users worldwide should kowtow
> to them. <snort>
>
> --- > Chuck Demas
> --- > Needham, Mass.
>
> We usually are not in agreement, Chuck, but I have to agree
> with you that this slippery slope keeps getting steeper
> and more slippery.
>
It's way more twisted than a slope. And there are many ways to slide.
sarah
subcontinent because of the color of the population, he's
pulling the plug on _spammers_. I don't care if they're
pink with purple & green polka dots, the number of spammers
in the country is comparable only to HONG KONG.
And the reference to _rape_ is called an _analogy_. Find a
dictionary. Look it up. It's a figure of speech. As a
woman, I appreciate the comparison _much_ more than you
_ever_ could (short of a vacation in Sing Sing, of course).
"Günter Bergmän" wrote:
>
> Milwaukee Resident David Ritz <dr...@primenet.com> professed:
>
> --- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> --- >
> --- >
> --- > I've been rather up front with my solution. While I haven't found
> --- > the need to say it five thousand (5000) times a day, I have stated
> --- > it publicly more than once.
> --- >
> --- > The only way to put an end to this problem appears to be the full
> --- > excommunication of India from Usenet. This can be accomplished by
> --- > having just two providers set up port 119 router blocks on a total of
> --- > two and a half B-blocks. If it can't connect to any NNTP server,
> --- > its all over.
>
> That will get rid of many dark skinned types. What about
> Pakistanis, Africans and Indonesians? Since Milwaukee
> doesn't have a substantial population of either, I'm sure you
> don't care.
>
> [discussing an Indian]
>
> --- > I don't think this sociopathic little sociopath will be happy with
> --- > anything less than getting the entire nation of India permanently
> --- > excommunicated from Usenet. This action, in itself, is long
> --- > overdue.
>
> I think that India, as the second most populous nation in the world, overrules
> you bratwurst chomping beer-swilling Milwaukee skinhead punks.
>
> --- > Stopping all NNTP traffic from India is actually much closer to
> --- > disarming a serial rapist.
>
> I'm sure that all women worldwide will feel safer now that
> you are on the case attacking the entire country
> of India in their name, David.
>
> --- > - --
> --- > David Ritz <dr...@primenet.com>
> --- > "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles a cockroach,
> --- > except that the cockroach is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
> --- > - Peter Olson, Delphi Information Engineer; 27-AUG-1998
> --- >
> --- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> --- > Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
> --- > Comment: Finger:dr...@primenet.com for public keys
> --- >
> --- > iQCVAwUBOFs2ANzLrWGabIhRAQHZTgP+JbKE22YrhWD9+UetWQFTJFd4wUNUszyj
> --- > gzxCeIiHxP+5kMvBWw0U3ltBQgLp4k56delTm0s/QJe8eujI3/xXuFYwb/uVEOc4
> --- > 2fUsw9xhFvsdwvWI1vA+LhA2FOayytb0b6lPLndyb3ObDv0i0xE4v2Mp8n75Hs6j
> --- > o4+cn3GSwC0=
> --- > =25ft
> --- > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
solitaire
http://members.tripod.com/~solitaire_2/index.html
Charles Demas
Rebecca Ore <reb...@ogoense.net> wrote:
>
[snippage, before and after]
>
>I can assure you that even news admins who lurk here don't really
>believe in worrying about UDP notices, and probably 90% of all news
>admins don't read nanau on a regular basis.
But NANAU isn't the only place that such notices were posted. The
other places were more likely to be read by news-admins.
That said, the !udpcancel pseudosite is probably installed by those
admins that might care about not participating in UDPs.
I personally think that the warning is intended for the target,
and that the target has the responsibility to inform its users
of the implications, and to discuss the situation with their peers.
In the case of a UDP, it's a case of one final warning for the
target with the chance to avoid the UDP. This has allowed many
proposed UDPs to be avoided.
The idea that the warning is for other sites to make preparations
is not really credible because the trend with the 5 day notice is that
the UDP is avoided. Thus preparations would in those cases have been
wasted effort.
That alone leads me to conclude that the warning is really only
important for the target. Indeed, a 5 day warning to the target, and
a 1 day warning to the rest of the world would accomplish very
much the same thing, with less worry by the innocent parties.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
de...@tiac.net | \___/ | http://www.tiac.net/users/demas
Ponty the singing WerePontiac
> Give it a rest, Punter. He's not suggesting RBLing the
> subcontinent because of the color of the population, he's
> pulling the plug on _spammers_.
I see. It's only _spammers_. Why stop at a UDP then? Why
not NUKE INDIA?
> I don't care if they're
> pink with purple & green polka dots, the number of spammers
> in the country is comparable only to HONG KONG.
I see you have a problem with Asians too.
> And the reference to _rape_ is called an _analogy_. Find a
> dictionary. Look it up. It's a figure of speech. As a
> woman,
I don't believe that you really are a woman. No woman
would condone such a flippant use of a reference to rape
as Ritz made in his sick racist post.
> I appreciate the comparison _much_ more than you
> _ever_ could (short of a vacation in Sing Sing, of course).
Your suggestion of anal violence towards Mr. Bergman
suggests a certain familiarity with what a vacation in
Ossining implies.
Where is Alderman Michael McGee when you need him?
Tim Thorne
>Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>>I can understand a certain degree of secrecy for preliminary
>>investigations, but once the decision was made to go ahead
>>and UDP, an announcement should have been posted before
>>commencement of hostilities.
>
>This is my view as well, there needs to be an announcement.
That's what you get for being non-cabal members.
--
--------========>>>>>>>Special Forces<<<<<<<========--------
The Dungeon now resides at http://pluto.spaceports.com/~skippy
BurnoreBusters! http://pluto.spaceports.com/~skippy/burnorebusters.htm
"Dog eat dog, every day, on our fellow men we prey" Offspring
Tim Thorne
>HipC...@Programmer.NET wrote:
>
>ISPs don't like you. You've put out a bot that get an instant reaction
>from any ISP if they catch a user with it.
Hey HipDude,
You know, all this fuss over a bot that isn't supposed to work very
well is hilarious, don't you think? Just imagine what you could do if
it did work? <g> There would be UDP's left, right and centre...
I R A Darth Aggie
<1999121814...@cotse.com> wrote:
+ First of all, you bet yer royal tootoo there is.
+ In article <slrn85n5if....@gurcragntba.pbz>,
+ sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
+ >and then he'll try even harder to cause problems.
+
+ PROBLEMS is a keyword.
+ What sucky "problems", sire?
Remember those cancels you bitched about? They came from HipCrime.
As for the rest of your [deletia], you're a smart guy, Bloxy's, look
around, read a bit, and pay attention. You should be able to figure
it out.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
Rebecca Ore
> After consultation with Karl Denninger,
> Rebecca Ore <reb...@ogoense.net> professed:
>
> --- > bergmän@solväng.edu (Günter Bergmän) writes:
> --- > Gunter, the reason some of us actually like you is that when you
> --- > want to, you can provide thoughtful criticism of what we're doing.
> --- > The rules are that anyone can cancel material over BI > 20 as long as
> --- > certain conventions are followed.
>
> The rules are that you can cancel your own posts. If you go beyond
> that, anyone can cancel anyone's posts.
If anyone can post as much as he wants, then the person with the
biggest pipe and fastest bot wins.
>
> --- > Is there a group of people who are in contact with each other trying
> --- > to figure out how to stop cancellers who don't follow those
> --- > conventions?
>
> That could very well be. I'm not involved and have no knowledge
> of such a group existing. The only group I'm aware of is the Cancel
> Cabal who restrict free speech.
I don't know of those people -- I know of Andrew Gierth who reports
cancellers who do content-based cancels to their providers.
>
> --- > Oh, yeah. But I'm not privy to what Dennis Furmanski is
> --- > doing; my circle of friends isn't The Cabal, but a circle of people I
> --- > listen to. Are you Cabal then because you have made me think about
> --- > certain issues?
>
> I'm not privy to the surreptitious conversations or other
> white robe and hood meetings that marks Cabal communications.
> Ontario members of the Knights of the Niagara such as Chris
> Lewis would be able to give you better insight to such matters.
Rhetoric on both sides is getting a bit rank, I suspect. On my better
days, this is what I try to fight among people I respect. You and Chris.
(Snips, re my morals).
>
> Yes, I find your morals appalling. You form judgments too quickly
> without basking in the luxury of facts.
Actually, if you are going to be a bit more honest here, I think you
will admit I have changed my mind about things. This last couple of
weeks was difficult enough that I probably did rant a bit, to everyone.
> --- > (Snips again).
> --- >
> --- > >
> --- > > That would be too PUBLIC. Secrecy was the environment
> --- > > which operations were being conducted. The only reason
> --- > > any announcement was made is that control messages
> --- > > would be seen and they would be exposed anyway.
> --- >
> --- > David Ritz has always said what his immediate and distant goals were
> --- > in this. You, among others, surely knew that David was serious and
> --- > how effective he might be in getting this done.
> --- >
> --- > As for his distant goals, he's stated those.
>
> Yes. He wants to UDP India and the billion people
> living there. I find this reprehensible.
No, he wants to stop HipCrime. What solutions do you suggest?
> --- > Secrecy? You certainly don't telegraph your own true moves (why I
> --- > figured the request for 2 days was a troll, actually, but I knew you'd
> --- > be amused by the reactions). And the most careless moves you've made,
> --- > the ones that cost you an account with newsread.com or netaxs.com,
> --- > were made in HipCrime's company.
>
> I never applied for for an account with either. I have no idea
> what you are talking about. The first is overpriced and the second
> is outside of local dialing. Besides, netaxs employed that bisexual
> AIDS spreading advocate, Michael Handler.
Before my time. Greg and I made the approach on your behalf -- didn't
know you weren't in the loop, sorry.
> --- > > It makes no sense whatsoever. They have been stalking HC for 3 years
> --- > > now. Why the sudden urge to do an *immediate* UDP with no public
> --- > > discussion? Could it be that the furtive behaviour was for some
> --- > > other reason?
> --- >
> --- > HipCrime ramped up. Also, two different observers of the scene
> --- > speculated that he could be working for VSNL or SILNET. I, early, was
> --- > one. Also, Doug died. The usual defense against a system-wide attack
> --- > was Lorena. Lorena hasn't been reactivated since to the best of my
> --- > knowledge. It did not take HipCrime long to take advantage of Doug's
> --- > death.
>
> OTOH, several people refrained from combating USENET CABAL
> ABUSES because they knew that Doug was ailing. I know of some
> who curtailed criticism in order to not cause what eventually was
> his demise. I respected Doug and mourn his passing. Now that
> there are mostly only fuckheads left on that side of the fence and
> I do not have to worry about causing injury to someone I respect:
And I do what I do because I believe we should stop demonizing each
other, not that I haven't been guilty of doing this to HipCrime (but I
just don't like him -- and that has little to do with the levels of
demonization I've witnessed on both sides in the past, it's basically
a personal thing).
> THE USENET CABAL IS CAUSING THE DEMISE OF USENET
> BY THEIR OWN DOUBLE STANDARDS.
>
> Doug was guilty of this, the rest are much more guilty. Doug
> at least had honor enough to not doublespeak.
Doug also defended the right of people to speak. I know something of
his arguments in favor of letting Steve have an account with 'zilla.
I passed that letter, at Doug's request, on to Steve.
(Snips)
> --- >
> --- > Part of this was secretive -- and whether a UDP against VSNL will work
> --- > any quicker than a UDP against ACSI is yet to be determined. But the
> --- > intention to block India from Usenet was a publically stated goal.
>
> I have nothing against Hindus, Buddists or Moslims. Why David Ritz and
> the rest of the CABAL bear such grudges is pure bigotry.
Trolling? Okay. Honestly, this is not against Hindus, Buddists,
Moslim, or Sikhs -- it's a fairly desperate attempt to end on-going
abuse. I don't want a world where the biggest bot wins.
> --- >
> --- > > --- > >
> --- > > --- > > Despite the collateral damage being only around 15 messages per day,
> --- > >
> --- > > As measured by one of the antagonists with no independant verification.
> --- >
> --- > Whose independent verification would you trust?
>
> An unbiased observer who lives in India.
Reasonable enough request, actually.
>
> --- > > And a five day warning would cause what damage?
> --- > >
> --- >
> --- > This one is obvious. Had it been an insider, logs are easy to
> --- > destroy. Even with a user, not a person employed by the ISP in
> --- > question, logs can be destroyed, though not with as much ease.
>
> That is bullshit, and you know it. The furtive insider stuff that
> cabalistas employed were before the 5 day period.
I really don't know when all that was done. Some people think I'm too
sympathetic to you and Steve. Chris sometimes seems to feel that.
> --- > > They really don't care. All of their clandestine activities
> --- > > are carried out on mailing lists. There are maybe 10 people
> --- > > with another 10-20 supporters who are acting in secret to
> --- > > have usenet conform to *their* vision and rules, with the
> --- > > exception of those rules not being applied to them.
>
> --- > Actually, I use the phone.
>
> I guess that means nanau should be rmgrouped. Yet another time.
Imperfect world -- and I've pushed for some changes *on* this group that
I think were worth doing. Henrietta still accused us of working in
secret.
> --- > And HipCrime discusses what he's going to do where?
>
> BTFOOM.
>
I'm a bit too tired to puzzle that one out. Whatever. I'll be up all
night when I'm not sleeping on the job.
Henrietta K. Thomas
<reb...@ogoense.net> wrote:
>h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) writes:
>
>> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:56:26 GMT, Rebecca Ore
>> <reb...@ogoense.net> wrote:
>>
>> You don't care about Usenet at large not being notified that a UDP
>> against VSNL & SILNET has been in progress since Tuesday?
>> Don't you think the admins where you work had a right to know
>> that?
>
>Henrietta, HipCrime is a matter for discussion among real admins in
>highly unflattering ways.
Irrelevant. Answer the question, yes or no. Do admins have the right
to know there's a UDP going on?
>> Don't you think other admins had a right to know? That's
>> the purpose of the public notice -- to give the admins at all sites
>> proper notice of a UDP so that they can decide whether they
>> want to opt-in or opt-out. Notifying only the target admins is not
>> acceptable. I thought this was settled a long time ago in the
>> wake of the UDPs of UUnet and Compuserve.
>
>Basically, I believe that the purpose of public notice is to bring the
>other users of an ISP around to seeing why a UDP is being called for
>and to encourge them to switch from hating the UDP'ers to working on
>getting their ISP to behave more responsibly. I don't see how this
>would have worked with in this case given cultural and language
>differences, plus the very small volume of non-rogue cancel posts
>coming from VSLN.
Cultural and language differences could have been dealt with by
locating someone in soc.culture.indian to advise and act as
interpreter for the Americans.
The purposes of notice, as I understand it, are as follows:
1. To give the offending site time to clean up its act to avoid the UDP.
2. To give users at the offending site notice of the pending action in
the hope that they will put pressure on their ISP to deal with the
situation, and/or to allow time for those who wish to change ISPs.
3. To give Usenet admins notice of the pending action so that they
can decide whether or not they want to participate.
It has been my own practice, as coordinator for the us.* hierarchy,
to check the us.* groups for people posting from an ISP under notice.
If I find any, I write to the ISP and ask them to deal with the problem
so their users won't get cancelled. This has been helpful at least
a couple of times. I would like to continue doing this, but I can't if
everything's going to be done in secret and there is no time to
contact anyone.
Another prime purpose of notice is to avoid the UDP. It has worked
beautifully up to now.
>> The cancels don't bother me too much because I assumed
>> HipCrime stuff was under autocancel anyway. What bothers
>> me is what appears to be a rather callous attitude toward
>> Usenet at large as if site admins throughout the world have
>> no right to know when the spam cancellers have embarked
>> on a UDP. This sets a very bad precedent, IMHO, and I'm
>> not so sure it will never happen again.
>
>I can assure you that even news admins who lurk here don't really
>believe in worrying about UDP notices, and probably 90% of all news
>admins don't read nanau on a regular basis. We've had five day
>notices that I know administrators didn't know about until someone
>mentioned it in casual conversation or in another post.
That is not my problem. The notice should be there for anyone
who happens to be interested.
>Very probably, though I can't prove it, most ISPs have already decided
>whether to participate in active UDPs or not, globally, and have made
>their own private adjustments. I can see philosophical reasons to be
>opposed to UDPs in general; I have trouble imagining an admin who
>generally accepted them who would baulk at this one.
Again, that is not the point. The option should always be there.
We have no right to assume we know what other people might think.
>Should such an admin want to speak up, then we do have a point of
>discussion.
Unfortunately, most of the admins have been scared off by all the noise
in this group. :-(
Henrietta
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>h...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) writes:
[...]
>> Notifying only the target admins is not
>> acceptable. I thought this was settled a long time ago in the
>> wake of the UDPs of UUnet and Compuserve.
>
>Basically, I believe that the purpose of public notice is to bring the
>other users of an ISP around to seeing why a UDP is being called for
>and to encourge them to switch from hating the UDP'ers to working on
>getting their ISP to behave more responsibly.
To me the problem is this, we where told that UDP's would happen after
a five day announcement. In effect this was a promus by the UDPers to
the usenet community. We trusted the UDPers to behahave within the
guidlines they had set for them selfs. What they have done is
breached there promus and voilated our trust.
How can we trust them to behave within the bounds that we have set if
they are prepaired to breach them?
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Chris Lewis
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 14:48:27 GMT,
> ra...@adsl-151-203-22-73.bellatlantic.net () wrote:
> >The only thing I can think of is actually getting our friends to actually
> >*READ* their damn logs and nail down evidence of who HipSlime is
> Yeah, this is what I am taking away from this too. One hopes if he
> was "rm -r"-ing things *every* time to hide cracking that someone
> would have noticed by now. I gather the intent is to make them keep
> them long enough and more importantly then make use of them...
From what I've been able to gather, the logs aren't disappearing, they
were just not interested or technically competent enough to bother doing
anything with them. VSNL is also a rats-nest of email spammers, mail
bombers and open relays. There are other concurrent efforts underway
(not by us) to deal with those too, and things are beginning to move on
a number of separate issues.
--
Chris Lewis, 8M50-I
For more information on spam, see http://spam.abuse.net/spam
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
Chris Lewis
> another, more formal, announcement to the appropriate groups,
> explaining the situation and including information as to how
> sites can participate or not. I hope you and Chris will do that
> as soon as possible. It shouldn't be too difficult.
One's being prepared.
Charles Demas
Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>According to Jeffery J. Leader <JeffL...@MindSpring.com>:
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 14:48:27 GMT,
>> ra...@adsl-151-203-22-73.bellatlantic.net () wrote:
>> >The only thing I can think of is actually getting our friends to actually
>> >*READ* their damn logs and nail down evidence of who HipSlime is
>
>> Yeah, this is what I am taking away from this too. One hopes if he
>> was "rm -r"-ing things *every* time to hide cracking that someone
>> would have noticed by now. I gather the intent is to make them keep
>> them long enough and more importantly then make use of them...
>
>From what I've been able to gather, the logs aren't disappearing, they
>were just not interested or technically competent enough to bother doing
>anything with them.
There may also be a cultural thing going on here. Some jobs are
considered to be beneath the level of a person, and as such the
person will not do it.
This has been my experience with some Indian engineers, who consider
technician type jobs to be beneath them, and as such will not even
consider replacing a failed component in a piece of equipment by
themself. It's a technician's job, and beneath them. Urgency is
not sufficient to overcome that.
A U.S. born engineer would have no problem doing the task, just to get
it done.
I suppose it's something like saving face, or preserving self image,
but there might be some of this involved in getting the admins to
pull and examine the logs. Just a thought.
I am no expert on this, but it is a major cultural difference, and
it might be contributing to the problem. I may not have expressed
accurately what the cultural difference is, so please do not take
what I've said as gospel, it is only what I've noticed or been told,
and I could be in error or misinformed.
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
>VSNL is also a rats-nest of email spammers, mail
>bombers and open relays. There are other concurrent efforts underway
>(not by us) to deal with those too, and things are beginning to move
>on a number of separate issues.
--
Rebecca Ore
>
>
> Irrelevant. Answer the question, yes or no. Do admins have the right
> to know there's a UDP going on?
>
Henrietta, I don't second guess situations that are as complex as this
one during the first day of the operation. I was surprised by the UDP
cancels on top of the depeering, but people know now and I suspect that
alert admins knew before the official announcement.
(snips)
> Cultural and language differences could have been dealt with by
> locating someone in soc.culture.indian to advise and act as
> interpreter for the Americans.
Basically, the additional posts by non-spammers has to be non-trivial
before this becomes critical. If we're talking about three guys in
Bombay who post five articles each, they're not going to have much
leverage with VSNL or SILNET. What made the TIAC UDP countdown so
powerful was that Hiawatha Bray, a Boston Globe technology reporter,
would have been one of the ones UDP'ed.
Absent a parallel in the current situation, then we're more on footing
with the ACSI UDP, where there was maybe 24 hours notice and months of a
UDP that was not any different than spam cancelling with some minor
exceptions.
(snips)
Chris Lewis
> >From what I've been able to gather, the logs aren't disappearing, they
> >were just not interested or technically competent enough to bother doing
> >anything with them.
> There may also be a cultural thing going on here. Some jobs are
> considered to be beneath the level of a person, and as such the
> person will not do it.
> This has been my experience with some Indian engineers, who consider
> technician type jobs to be beneath them, and as such will not even
> consider replacing a failed component in a piece of equipment by
> themself. It's a technician's job, and beneath them. Urgency is
> not sufficient to overcome that.
The caste system still has many echoes. On the other hand, the Indian
educational system is truly excellent in many areas, and I believe tends
to obliterate much of this the levels you'd expect for engineers and
other professionals.
Any such effect simply means that you have to wave a bigger stick, despite
how much we hate to do it. UDPs are ugly and unpleasant messes, but if it's
the only way to get a response, so be it.
I got the impression that the contacts we were reaching previously were
operator-level, and knew very little about the technology they were running.
It appears that at least in VSNL's case, they're having to resort to outside
consultants to deal with their email open-relay problems.
We are getting encouraging noises from upper levels, and indications
that they're at least beginning to identify the abuse sources. There are
no concrete results as yet. Hopefully something will show up soon.
[I'm being vague, because they're still not really directly corresponding.
Much of what I've seen has been forwarded to me from an Indian resident
(and VSNL user) who has taken it upon himself to use his circle of
acquaintances and colleagues to personally contact upper-level people
to get things moving.]
Jeremy
Günter Bergmän <bergmän@solväng.edu> wrote:
> That could very well be. I'm not involved and have no knowledge
> of such a group existing. The only group I'm aware of is the Cancel
> Cabal who restrict free speech.
Yes, that would be HipCrime and his little friends.
> I have nothing against Hindus, Buddists or Moslims. Why David Ritz and
> the rest of the CABAL bear such grudges is pure bigotry.
Your absurd trolls such as this simply point out that you have absolutely
nothing of value to say, and there is therefore no reason to bother
listening.
Sergi
goes like:
>On 19 Dec 1999 01:02:35 GMT, arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote, in
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
>
>}In article <FMyDy...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>,
>}Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>}>Secret trials are only secret trials if they remain secret - and we
>}>just publicized it, right?
>}
>}Publicizing a secret trial after the trial circumvents much of the reason why
>}they should be publicized in the first place. It's much harder to object to
>}a procedure that's already a done deal.
>
>Everybody opposed to a UDP of VSNL and SILNET, raise your hands.
The UDP seems reasonable to me.
--
Sergi, KotAGoR XXX
"I know you can read my thoughts, boy. MEOW meow meow meow MEOW meow
meow meow MEOW meow meow meow MEOW meow meow meow."
-Homer Simpson
Chris Lewis
> >continuing for so long because the problem was an employee, and being
> >protected or even sitting at the account that received the reports,
> >without testing whether or not a notice sent only to the admins caused a
> >change in behavior. It was not paranoia, it was a calculated decision.
> What did you expect might happen?
> Did you expect Hipcrime to stop if he had "inside contact/connections?"
It wasn't a matter of what reaction we "expected", but, simply whether there
was _any_ identifiable reaction at all. We wanted, in short, to find out when
HC found out about the UDP. Was it before anyone was told (then we'd really
have a problem!)? After VSNL was told? After SILNET was told? After the
UDP was actually in place? After the announcement?
While there was a general ramp-up in HC activity during this interval,
the only unquestionable reaction (when he started forging udpcancels of
his own) was after the cancels started being issued.
Which suggests that he monitors cancels (hard, especially since the
number was quite small), or that he posts from VSNL/SILNET as an ordinary
user and got an emailed notification (I notify [*]), or was very cagy.
I tend towards the second, though, his forged udpcancels clearly show
that he eventually found a copy or two. HC isn't bright enough for the
third.
Mind you, the path preloads didn't do what he thought they would. He he.
My final conclusion is that he really is a VSNL user of some sort, but
probably not an employee or close to one, and that when the VSNL or SILNET
IPs do show, they are not faked. That last item is _extremely_ useful.
> Surely in the discussions the secrecy of the warning and the start of
> the canceling must have been discussed WRT how others in NANAU would
> respond, and how it would look and what precidents would be set.
> It must have been considered how others would react, not just myself,
> but others that are also anti-spam and anti-abuse. The reaction of
> others that see canceling as an act of the devil was also considered.
They were. It's not as if we've not done this before. And the general
consensus was that it would be a useful experiment that could extract
useful intel and be worth the downside. It was and it did and I still
think so.
[*] There have been only two responses from VSNL or SILNET users to the
notifications - the number of postings hit is quite small. Both of them,
surprisingly enough, expressed grudging acceptance of the UDP and had
their own gripes about VSNL. Both were going to start lobbying their ISP
as well. One of them said that they'd move to SILNET until I told him
the bad news...
Charles Demas
Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>According to Charles Demas <de...@sunspot.tiac.net>:
>> >were just not interested or technically competent enough to bother doing
>> >anything with them.
>
>> There may also be a cultural thing going on here. Some jobs are
>> considered to be beneath the level of a person, and as such the
>> person will not do it.
>
>> This has been my experience with some Indian engineers, who consider
>> technician type jobs to be beneath them, and as such will not even
>> consider replacing a failed component in a piece of equipment by
>> themself. It's a technician's job, and beneath them. Urgency is
>> not sufficient to overcome that.
>
>The caste system still has many echoes. On the other hand, the Indian
>educational system is truly excellent in many areas, and I believe tends
>to obliterate much of this the levels you'd expect for engineers and
>other professionals.
The experiences I spoke of were noticed of very young engineers that
were co-op students working in industry, and of some recent
grads, so I don't think that it has gone away as much as you might
think.
I have another friend that builds nuclear power plants. He is over
in India working for Stone and Webster. He is very careful not
to mention the fact that he enjoys woodworking, because it would
cast him in an unfavorable light and lose him the respect of those
he must interface with. Woodworking is manual labor, and beneath
a man of respect. They would not understand it as a "hobby."
>
>Any such effect simply means that you have to wave a bigger stick, despite
>how much we hate to do it. UDPs are ugly and unpleasant messes, but if it's
>the only way to get a response, so be it.
You see, that's just it, you're not talking to the right people.
The people that you are talking to are not likely to raise the
problem up to a superior, because it will make them look bad.
Idependant action is not rewarded in their culture, and initiative
is not something that starts from the ground up.
>
>I got the impression that the contacts we were reaching previously were
>operator-level, and knew very little about the technology they were running.
>It appears that at least in VSNL's case, they're having to resort to outside
>consultants to deal with their email open-relay problems.
>
>We are getting encouraging noises from upper levels, and indications
>that they're at least beginning to identify the abuse sources. There are
>no concrete results as yet. Hopefully something will show up soon.
>
>[I'm being vague, because they're still not really directly corresponding.
>Much of what I've seen has been forwarded to me from an Indian resident
>(and VSNL user) who has taken it upon himself to use his circle of
>acquaintances and colleagues to personally contact upper-level people
>to get things moving.]
Yes, that might have some chance of working.
Another thought is to get someone from the government to broach the
problem on a political level. I'd be reticent to do this because
politicians and diplomacy is unlikely to work efficiently unless
someone has some "back channel" to the Indian government or Indian
Telco. Also politicians might try to stop or control the UDP in place
as an expediency rather than trying to solve the problem.
It does lead to a different thought though. Hipcrime might be the
cause of an international incident. I really wouldn't want to
be in Hipcrime's place if governments decided he had caused an
incident with international political ramifications. As the old curse
said, " ... and may you draw the attention of important people."
Chuck Demas
Needham, Mass.
Chris Lewis
> Cultural and language differences could have been dealt with by
> locating someone in soc.culture.indian to advise and act as
> interpreter for the Americans.
One had been already located (tho not from s.c.i.), and was assisting from
the very beginning. He's using his circle of colleagues and friends to
reach middle-upper management at VSNL and SILNET to try to get things
started. And this appears to be making progress.
Despite all of the attempts we've been making with VSNL and SILNET, the only
useful responses so far appear to be arising out of what he's instigated
rather than what we've managed to accomplish on our own.
I'm not going to identify him unless he himself does so - there are a lot
of other non-Usenet problems at VSNL which he's also going after and is
getting list-bombed and other niceties as a reward...
It's more as if we're assisting him (by applying additional pressure he
can use in his efforts) than the other way around. Which is fine by me.
Chris Lewis
> Yeah, well, this one didn't require very much thought. VSNL has, or at
> least had, a sufficient number of problems that they may be better off
> just yanking the plug on their network until they rebuild the entire
> thing.
It sure sounds like it from some of the tales I've been hearing.
Freely accessible password files, insecure systems, wholesale breakins,
largescale spamming (especially originating ON VSNL aimed AT VSNL users),
unchecked list and mail bombing by one VSNL user of another that takes
down their own mail servers, totally incompetent techs etc. etc. etc.
I've been sending some suggestions their way, but it really looks like
an unbelievable and unrecoverable mess. I scarcely know where to start -
I've never heard of anything this bad before...
They'd have to do something drastic like force-changing everyone's
passwords, switching to shadow passwords with quality checks, and spending
a lot on security consultants to reengineer everything else from the ground
up.
It may well come to unplugging them completely until they get it back under
control.
Chris Lewis
| The experiences I spoke of were noticed of very young engineers that
| were co-op students working in industry, and of some recent
| grads, so I don't think that it has gone away as much as you might
| think.
| I have another friend that builds nuclear power plants. He is over
| in India working for Stone and Webster. He is very careful not
| to mention the fact that he enjoys woodworking, because it would
| cast him in an unfavorable light and lose him the respect of those
| he must interface with. Woodworking is manual labor, and beneath
| a man of respect. They would not understand it as a "hobby."
My (former) manager does understand woodworking as a hobby, in fact, she's
doing some herself after I've shown her how, and she's an engineer from
India ;-)
[Though, she's not a fair comparison - her background is highly atypical.
Her husband is somewhat more like what you suggest.]
| >Any such effect simply means that you have to wave a bigger stick, despite
| >how much we hate to do it. UDPs are ugly and unpleasant messes, but if it's
| >the only way to get a response, so be it.
| You see, that's just it, you're not talking to the right people.
| The people that you are talking to are not likely to raise the
| problem up to a superior, because it will make them look bad.
As I mentioned elsewhere, we enlisted (or were enlisted by...;-) someone
with contacts in high places. _That_ seems to be getting us somewhere.
| Another thought is to get someone from the government to broach the
| problem on a political level. I'd be reticent to do this because
| politicians and diplomacy is unlikely to work efficiently unless
| someone has some "back channel" to the Indian government or Indian
| Telco. Also politicians might try to stop or control the UDP in place
| as an expediency rather than trying to solve the problem.
| It does lead to a different thought though. Hipcrime might be the
| cause of an international incident. I really wouldn't want to
| be in Hipcrime's place if governments decided he had caused an
| incident with international political ramifications. As the old curse
| said, " ... and may you draw the attention of important people."
Much as we'd hate to do this, there are some plans waiting in the wings
being held off to avoid interfering with the responses we're getting now.
Rebecca Ore
(Snips)
> [*] There have been only two responses from VSNL or SILNET users to the
> notifications - the number of postings hit is quite small. Both of them,
> surprisingly enough, expressed grudging acceptance of the UDP and had
> their own gripes about VSNL. Both were going to start lobbying their ISP
> as well. One of them said that they'd move to SILNET until I told him
> the bad news...
But not really *that* surprising. :)
(rebec...@cynet.com, August 1, 1997).
Ponty the singing WerePontiac
>
> On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 20:40:10 -0600 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
> Ponty the singing WerePontiac <ponti...@phil.tolken.com> said
> about, "Re: Dimwitted TG wannabe on Usenet",
>
> >I see. It's only _spammers_. Why stop at a UDP then? Why
> >not NUKE INDIA?
>
>
> Cluemeter [E....../F] Thought so.
>
> Plonk!
Afraid?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>On 19 Dec 1999 03:27:21 GMT, dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ?
>the Platypus)) wrote, in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
[...]
>}How can we trust them to behave within the bounds that we have set if
>}they are prepaired to breach them?
>
>By examining the reasons for which it was done.
How can we trust that they will not find good reasons in the future to
do content based cancels or personal UDP's?
> We needed to test a
>point which would have been impossible if it had been public.
Did you realy need to test this point? Was it worth braking
your(collective) promus to us? Could it have been done a diffrent way?
> Without being able to test it, the abuse and the UDP both would
>likely last longer.
I'm sorry but I'm uncovenced.
> The reasons have been explained. We're they good enough? Would
>more abuse for a longer time be better? This is the question it became
>in my mind. I sided with the good of the net.
We both are siding with that we consider the good of the net to be.
Even hipcrime in his own sick way argues what he is doing is for the
good of the net.
Charles Demas
Unit 4 <un...@sputum.com> wrote:
>On 19 Dec 1999 01:02:35 GMT, arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote, in
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
>
>}Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>}>Secret trials are only secret trials if they remain secret - and we
>}>just publicized it, right?
>}
>}Publicizing a secret trial after the trial circumvents much of the reason why
>}they should be publicized in the first place. It's much harder to object to
>}a procedure that's already a done deal.
>
>Everybody opposed to a UDP of VSNL and SILNET, raise your hands.
>
While I've heard of lots of abuse through VSNL, I don't remember
any concerning SILNET. Of course, I wasn't paying that much attention
to the whole hipcrime stuff other than altering my killfiles
occasionally.
Was much posted in the past two years about SILNET?
I usually have a good memory for such things, but I'm getting older. :-)
Jason Crowell
>It sure sounds like it from some of the tales I've been hearing.
>
>Freely accessible password files, insecure systems, wholesale breakins,
>largescale spamming (especially originating ON VSNL aimed AT VSNL users),
>unchecked list and mail bombing by one VSNL user of another that takes
>down their own mail servers, totally incompetent techs etc. etc. etc.
:::boggle::: How did, how *could* something like this get this bad, and stay
that bad for this long? I'm no sysadmin, or a network expert, just an
occasional netcop, but it seems to me that any network that's this bad, no
matter how big, would have collapsed under the weight of it's own garbage long
before now.
Andrew Gierth
>> Freely accessible password files, insecure systems, wholesale
>> breakins, largescale spamming (especially originating ON VSNL
>> aimed AT VSNL users), unchecked list and mail bombing by one VSNL
>> user of another that takes down their own mail servers, totally
>> incompetent techs etc. etc. etc.
Ken> Some of the items on this list seem to be internal problems.
Ken> Why should anyone else on Usenet care if a site is spamming
Ken> their own users or allowing mailbombing of their own users?
We don't care.
The internal problems within VSNL are simply a reflection of their
apparent inability to operate their systems in a secure manner - and
this in turn is what allows HipCrime to operate from there unchecked.
--
Andrew.
- Mr Bill
--
--
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. On the road to
tyranny, we've gone so far that polite political action is about
as useless as a miniskirt in a convent."
- Claire Wolfe, _101 Things To Do 'Til The Revolution_
Unit 4 wrote in message ...
The Model Poster
Nile Evil Bastard
Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
:It sure sounds like it from some of the tales I've been hearing.
:Freely accessible password files, insecure systems, wholesale breakins,
:largescale spamming (especially originating ON VSNL aimed AT VSNL users),
:unchecked list and mail bombing by one VSNL user of another that takes
:down their own mail servers, totally incompetent techs etc. etc. etc.
:I've been sending some suggestions their way, but it really looks like
:an unbelievable and unrecoverable mess. I scarcely know where to start -
:I've never heard of anything this bad before...
:They'd have to do something drastic like force-changing everyone's
:passwords, switching to shadow passwords with quality checks, and spending
:a lot on security consultants to reengineer everything else from the ground
:up.
I wonder how Lionel would react if they sent him to India next after HK ;-)
--
http://netizen.com.au/ http://www.caube.org.au/
"friends of mine are solving the heroin problem by scattering small packets of
best quality powder bleach in the area." (richgoth)
Anonymous
Oh, my humble friend HipCrime.
Finally.
=====================================================
Posted by Bloxy's, the hunted man, the first dissident
in the history of usenet, who rose against the
corrupt structure of usenet power elite and Cabal
and have done NOTHING illegal, never harmed any group,
never generated spam, never cancelled a single article,
and never used ANY tricks to harm the usenet.
That is why Bloxy's is a REAL dissident and not some
frustrated individual, insulted and abused by the
usenet power structure of corruption, who finally
went mad, destroying things, which is simply a setup
for him/her, meant to anihilate him and discredit him
in EVERY conceivable way.
Nope, even the attempts by the "moderator" of comp.ai,
David Kinny, who took over that group with the most
corrupt tricks and perversion, who conducted the most
extensive study on Bloxy's as far back, as records go,
did not produce ANY evidence of wrongdoing by Bloxy's
and simply discredited this virtual fascist, David
Kinny, as he violated every single principle of
netiquette, and furthermore, is believed to have done
something WELL beyond that.
On December 16, 1999 the first anonymous
usenet server removed the field, where the poster
puts his usenet name. Thus, all the posts now come
from the Anonymous, no matter who posts.
Now, the question becomes:
Who pushed cotse.com into this and why?
Is cotse.com a part of the same equasion?
On one hand they are for privacy on newsnet,
and on the other hand, they engage in censorship
and selective treatment of specific groups of
general interest on the issues of newsnet as such,
which simply does not reconcile.
Is cotse.com a front or a cover up operation to
identify the unsuspecting posters, who are seeking
to post in anonymity?
---------------------------------------------------
In article
<Said.the.Nazi...@Jeremy.supports.censorship.from.
exit109.com>, HipC...@RubyRidge.COM wrote:
>Hi Jeremy ...
You already suck, dude, from the first statement.
What sucking HI to someone, who was willing to
UDP the whole country of India because of you?
>You must really be ignoring history, when you wrote:
Guilt?
Man, you suck dude.
>>> HipC...@DavidRitz.NET wrote:
>>> There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
>> If there's a cabal, you created it.
>> And you have absolutely
Huh? What is this ABSOLUTISM, the language
of fascism?
Yes, YOU ABSOLUTELY corrupt and suck as good,
as a good ole black hole.
>> no right
NO RIGHT?
>> to complain about censorship.
What?
Are you a plain idiot or a bio-robot,
brainwashed into oblivion?
What "right" are you talking about here, oh master
of delusion, perversion, fabrication, lies,
manipulation, violence, control, oppression and
domination?
Do you give a FUCK about "rights", you lil parasite?
Does the country of India has the same "rights",
as big multinational corporation from the USA?
Do YOU have a "right" to UDP the continents?
Man, don't get me going, you lil parasite,
abusing the very notion of the public good,
you MUST be manipulating to extract the perverted
pleasures even from destruction, you pathological
sadist.
>Surely you realize that the phrase TINC predates
>HipCrime.
And WHO gives a fuck?
That is the LOWEST card you can find to play, dude.
You just look rediculous here.
Are you the REAL dissident, or just a guilt manipulator,
just like those, who were willing to conduct a war
in the virtual domain, just to get YOUR ass?
Sure, you did give them some hard time.
They did look like BIG funken asses,
sitting here and saying "hey, looks like this
HipCrime dude is WINNING, and we are just looking
like a bunch of big red asses".
And that is EXACTLY how you stuffed their asses,
as they are SO drunk with power, that they could
not afford the "loss of their image" as the
ULTIMATE sucking authority in the whole werld.
Zo...
THEY went WAY too funken far this time,
and nuked the whole funken country, and that
is the international scandal now.
Sure, you may not hear a lot of huffing and puffing,
but it CERTAINLY does not help the global nuclear
escalation game.
It is such as disgraceful slap on their face,
that they will simply be FORCED to hurry up
to come up to speed on the nuclear end of the
story.
They, most likely, will be conducting some
negotiations with Russia and China, who was
one of their "enemies" of sorts.
You can bet on that now.
And these little virtual terrorists, engaging
in MASS terror, deserve their own asses to be
served on a silver plate by the Devil himself.
If you could have imagined what happened,
you'd just forget this big red ass, aka pathological
liar, Jeremy, and just enjoyed your new found
fame.
And what have you done?
Just cleaned up this "garbage dump in
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet?
Hey, they should have paid you for doing that.
{-----:
This place REALLY sucks. Never seen ANYTHING
like it in my life. The worst garbage dump
you can find ANY place.
Zo...
All you did is unscheduled cleaning,
and...
And they REALLY showed their REAL face
of UTTER disgrace, and now they are ALL on
record and are referenced by the Pythagoras
Archives.
Zo...
There'll be zome hissing sound for a LONG time
to come, i bet.
The next subject?
>People had been complaining about a "Usenet
>Censorship Cabal"
It is NOT even a censorship, you dummy.
You just look COMPLETELY clueless.
Censorship is just peanuts compared to what
it REALLY is, dude.
>since long before my site went online (02-Jul-1996).
Oh, oh, oh, oh.
And what does THAT signify?
WHO gives a fuck you think?
Jeremy?
Hahahahahaha.
He'll prolly sell you his own mothers tootoo,
given enough paper with the pictures of evil.
>How could my actions have created something that
>preexisted me?
That was just a hook for a dummy of your grade.
UTTER and COMPLETE horseshit, using the same
trick of shiting the argument into domain of
oblivion, and YOU were caught in it.
Zo....
You are disqualified as a dissident.
>Besides, JoWazzoo contends that complaining is
>a basic inalienable right.
I give a fuck about that JoWazzoo.
WHO is he? God?
Is HIS word written in the library?
>He's said so many times.
And the kwestion is not what OTHERS have said,
but what YOU have to say, and what YOU have to say
is just hiding behind the backs of others.
Therefore, you are just a bio-robot and a coward,
just as i told you before.
You never came to speak to me directly.
You just trailed me and destroyed every single
thread of significance.
Zo...
You ARE a coward, at least to this point,
and the REAL dissidents can not afford to be
cowards, else they are dead upon arrival.
Fear is the WORST thing you can EVER imagine
in this game.
Either you go play with a rubber ducky,
or you follow my previous post and do the
excersize on fear.
You are not ready for ANYTHING, but a
ding-dong-willy-da-puppet show, dude.
>So have others in the complaint newsgroups known
as N.A.N-A.Usenet/Email. What's the matter?
The matter is that YOU are caught right now
in his trap. He makes you feel guilty and lays
out the "complaint" argument, which he does not
give a fuck about himself.
And you forgot about your own position, and are
now drawn to DEFEND yourself.
Once you are caught like this, they can play you
like a rubber ball.
Hey, does this dude bounce?
{-----:
You see your WEAKEST point here?
YOU are cought in HIS shit, and caught up to your
ears, and he is on top of your, playing a "good"
father trip, and he is but a smut, you seee,
and a dirty one at that.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT, right?
Well, you sub-bio-robot, Jeremaya, do YOU have
the "right" to nuke the whole free sucking werld,
you dummy with no brains?
> Is it OK for you to complain privately to my ISP,
SURE. He can justify ANYTHING.
He can even justify the global mutual anihilation,
just to prove HE is "right" about this rubber ducky
dude, HipCrime.
His language is of a fascist and a totalitarian
dictator. They simply ASSUME THEY have ALL the
"rights" because THEY are a "superior" Aryan race,
you see, dummy, mummy?
>but not OK for me to complain about YOU in public?
You funken complain ALL you want.
Who CARES, dummy?
What does it MATTER?
What does it CHANGE, you see?
You think your "complains" are going to get you
a cup of coffee?
hahahahhahaha.
>Double Standards.
First of all, you suck.
The "double standard" argument is an argument
of oblivion.
The "standards" are for dummies and bio-robots
with no brain. Go review my definition of bio-robot.
You know how to find it?
The giants walk where no "standars" exist.
Once they walk, the dummies create "standards"
and make a fat living on THEIR work.
Those, who operate in the domain of intelligence,
know no standards. The standards are but a hindrance
on that path.
Zo...
The "standards" argument simply sux,
and so you do, peddling this lowest grade
horseshit.
> Gotta love 'em.
Lying again?
Programmed into oblivion?
Your lil game of guilt is SO weak,
that you won't even be able to make a dead
cock roach move with it.
> ... HipCrime
>
>P.S. just for the record, how many non-HipCrime
>newsgroups have you "poisoned"?
You mean DESTROYED?
Ok, post a reference in news.groups and here.
I'll look into it.
>Like this StarChamber UDP, that's another example
>of secret, behind-the-scenes censorship.
Ok, SPECIFIC REFERENCES.
Group, subject, date, from field will do.
Or url, ftp, etc.
Get the drift?
>There's NEVER been any public discussion of newgroup
>poisoning, has there?
Why did you cancel my posts, dummy?
Can you figure out which posts to cancel?
You DON'T want to cancel my posts.
It is NOT to YOUR advantage, you see.
Ok, fuck that attachment.
Why do you even need to include it here?
------------------ end of input ---------------------
>===========================================================
=============
>
>
>From: Jeremy <bo...@netscum.dk>
>Newsgroups:
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,free.hipcrime,news.admin.censors
hip
>Subject: Re: THERE REALLY IS A CABAL! (was: UDPs In
Progress: VSNL and SILNET)
>Date: 18 Dec 1999 07:36:22 GMT
>Organization: There Is No Organization
>Lines: 9
>Message-ID: <83fdhm$a1l$1...@s00perNooZ.com>
>References: <83eqvv$7...@news-central.tiac.net>
<There.is...@ab.USE.net>
>X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test72 (19 April 1999)
>X-Meow: Meow
>Xref: gail.ripco.com news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:274446
> news.admin.censorship:86295
>
> <HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
>
>> There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
>
>If there's a cabal, you created it. And you have
absolutely no right
>to complain about censorship.
>
ra...@adsl-151-203-22-73.bellatlantic.net
>In article <83hueg$c7k$1...@bcarh8ab.ca.nortel.com>,
>Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>>> Yeah, well, this one didn't require very much thought. VSNL has, or at
>>> least had, a sufficient number of problems that they may be better off
>>> just yanking the plug on their network until they rebuild the entire
>>> thing.
>>
>>Freely accessible password files, insecure systems, wholesale breakins,
>>largescale spamming (especially originating ON VSNL aimed AT VSNL users),
>>unchecked list and mail bombing by one VSNL user of another that takes
>>down their own mail servers, totally incompetent techs etc. etc. etc.
>
>anyone else on Usenet care if a site is spamming their own users or allowing
>mailbombing of their own users?
For the same reason we care if an oil tanker spills: the stuff *will* leak.
--
Nico Kadel-Garcia
nka...@bellatlantic.net
Anonymous
Posted by Bloxy's, the hunted man, the first dissident
---------------------------------------------------
Redirected from:
Group: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: Re: THERE REALLY IS A CABAL! (was: UDPs In
Progress: VSNL and SILNET)
Distribution: Take one copy and pass the rest along
Which is VERY interesting thread, worth following
to:
Group: news.groups
Subject: Re: Usenet Power Elite - how many mouse clicks to
global anihilation?
In article <FMyDK...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>,
cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:
>In article <There.is...@ab.use.net>,
<HipC...@DavidRitz.NET> wrote:
>>You said it! And that is what my demonstration has
>>been trying to prove. Now it's out in the OPEN.
You bet your tootoo it is NOW.
>>There is a cabal and it's secretly censoring (ab)Usenet.
Thats just peanuts.
>Precisely.
Uhu. Tell me about it.
>It's a secretive attention-seeking little baby
>named hipcrime and his fellow vandals.
And YOU, mr. wannabe?
>Thee Bluelist/Brownlist/Reddlist harassment - check
>Bluelist reverse bombs - check
>sendsys bombs - check
>version reply bombs - check
>*.test response bombs - check
>*.answer bombs - check
>attacks on FAQs - check
>Forged newgroup/rmgroup/checkgroup floods - check
>Forged cancel attacks across all Usenet - check
But you are already mated, dummies.
>But we already knew that.
Wee again?
Another wee wee man?
Ok, WHO are you, sire?
WHO do you represent?
And whose interests do you serve?
Behind whose backs do you hide?
Public good by any humble chance?
Or some sucking enterprises unlimited?
Anonymous
---------------------------------------------------
Redirected from:
to:
In article <83hre6$fau$1...@s00perNooZ.com>, Jeremy
<bo...@netscum.dk> wrote:
>*sneck*
>Günter Bergmän <bergmän@solväng.edu> wrote:
>> That could very well be. I'm not involved and
>> have no knowledge of such a group existing.
>> The only group I'm aware of is the Cancel
>> Cabal who restrict free speech.
And not only that, but seems to be engaged
in MUCH more exciting ventures indeed.
>Yes, that would be HipCrime and his little friends.
Nope, you pathological liar.
That would be the Aryan race of rulers of YOUR kind,
you see, who are so drunk with power, that they
are even willing to turn of the entire continents
just to prove that you can't even beat the dude
of a HipCrime grade.
It is about YOU, suckers, TOTALLY controlling
newsnet on ALL possible levels and are suspected
in engaging in operations WAY beyond that, you see.
>> I have nothing against Hindus, Buddists or Moslims.
>> Why David Ritz and the rest of the CABAL bear such
>> grudges is pure bigotry.
Nope, it is not even a bigotry. It is a DELIBERATE
disinformation and argument shift into oblivion
trick, as sophisticated, as it is, still sucking
full time.
>Your absurd trolls such as this
And YOUR pathological lies, such as the PUBLIC
record is FULL of, simply indicate your most
perverted essense.
> simply point out that you have absolutely
Zig bite, mine fuhrer.
ABSOLUTELY!
>nothing of value to say,
Hey, dummy, you sang the same EXACT song
to Bloxy's also. Will you get off the track
number sucking one?
> and there is therefore no reason to bother
>listening.
Bullshit. You ARE listening, and listening
REAL good, you see, cause your ass is on fire.
Now, can you dig it, suckazoid?
Anonymous
---------------------------------------------------
In article <slrn85o98r....@gurcragntba.pbz>,
sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Dec 1999 09:54:16 -0500 (EST), Anonymous
<anon...@cotse.com>, in
><1999121814...@cotse.com> wrote:
>
>+ First of all, you bet yer royal tootoo there is.
And you say what?
- Silence.
Ok, and the next subject?
>+ In article <slrn85n5if....@gurcragntba.pbz>,
>+ sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
>+ >and then he'll try even harder to cause problems.
>+ PROBLEMS is a keyword.
>+ What sucky "problems", sire?
>Remember those cancels you bitched about? They came
>from HipCrime.
You mean that chicken shit, cleaning up that dump?
What kind of a "problem" that is?
You should pay him for cleaning up that dump.
>As for the rest of your [deletia], you're a smart
>guy, Bloxy's, look around, read a bit,
>and pay attention. You should be able to figure
>it out.
Uhu. And why don't you just lay it out on the table?
You wanna give me a run around?
Hey, thanks.
>James
Henrietta K. Thomas
cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) wrote:
>According to Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com>:
>
>> Cultural and language differences could have been dealt with by
>> locating someone in soc.culture.indian to advise and act as
>> interpreter for the Americans.
>
>One had been already located (tho not from s.c.i.), and was assisting from
>the very beginning. He's using his circle of colleagues and friends to
>reach middle-upper management at VSNL and SILNET to try to get things
>started. And this appears to be making progress.
>
>Despite all of the attempts we've been making with VSNL and SILNET, the only
>useful responses so far appear to be arising out of what he's instigated
>rather than what we've managed to accomplish on our own.
Good. I wish him well.
>I'm not going to identify him unless he himself does so - there are a lot
>of other non-Usenet problems at VSNL which he's also going after and is
>getting list-bombed and other niceties as a reward...
I am not surprised. I hope someone has helped him set up filters
to avoid some of this stuff.
>It's more as if we're assisting him (by applying additional pressure he
>can use in his efforts) than the other way around. Which is fine by me.
Fine by me as well. Nothing like having someone working on
the ground.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
<bo...@netscum.dk> wrote:
>*sneck*
>
>Günter Bergmän <bergmän@solväng.edu> wrote:
>
>> That could very well be. I'm not involved and have no knowledge
>> of such a group existing. The only group I'm aware of is the Cancel
>> Cabal who restrict free speech.
>
>Yes, that would be HipCrime and his little friends.
He didn't mean that, and you know it.
>> I have nothing against Hindus, Buddists or Moslims. Why David Ritz and
>> the rest of the CABAL bear such grudges is pure bigotry.
>
>Your absurd trolls such as this simply point out that you have absolutely
>nothing of value to say, and there is therefore no reason to bother
>listening.
Well, I've been reading Gunter Bergman with great interest, for the
very first time. He is a bit emotional yes, and I don't agree with
everything he says, but he has made some excellent points here,
and he's *not* playing hypocrite. You've been saying you want
some opposition to keep the cabalistas honest; what's wrong
with Gunter Bergman expressing his point of view? And why
aren't you willing to listen?
Henrietta
--
Just because something is allowed doesn't mean it is okay,
or a good idea. --Jeremy Nixon
Henrietta K. Thomas
<Uni...@SPUTUM.com> wrote:
>On 19 Dec 1999 01:02:35 GMT, arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote, in
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet:
>
>}In article <FMyDy...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>,
>}Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
>}>Secret trials are only secret trials if they remain secret - and we
>}>just publicized it, right?
>}
>}Publicizing a secret trial after the trial circumvents much of the reason why
>}they should be publicized in the first place. It's much harder to object to
>}a procedure that's already a done deal.
>
>Everybody opposed to a UDP of VSNL and SILNET, raise your hands.
Hand raised.
Opposed to secret UDPs implemented without discussion or
notification to Usenet at large.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
<reb...@ogoense.net> wrote:
>Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant. Answer the question, yes or no. Do admins have the right
>> to know there's a UDP going on?
>>
>
>Henrietta, I don't second guess situations that are as complex as this
>one during the first day of the operation. I was surprised by the UDP
>cancels on top of the depeering, but people know now and I suspect that
>alert admins knew before the official announcement.
The official announcement was just made today. And you still haven't
answered my question.
>
>(snips)
>
>> Cultural and language differences could have been dealt with by
>> locating someone in soc.culture.indian to advise and act as
>> interpreter for the Americans.
>
>Basically, the additional posts by non-spammers has to be non-trivial
>before this becomes critical. If we're talking about three guys in
>Bombay who post five articles each, they're not going to have much
>leverage with VSNL or SILNET. What made the TIAC UDP countdown so
>powerful was that Hiawatha Bray, a Boston Globe technology reporter,
>would have been one of the ones UDP'ed.
What does this have to do with cultural and language differences
between Indians in India and the Americans?
>Absent a parallel in the current situation, then we're more on footing
>with the ACSI UDP, where there was maybe 24 hours notice and months of a
>UDP that was not any different than spam cancelling with some minor
>exceptions.
At least there was notice prior to the commencement of hostilities.
See Message-ID: <63jv3m$ld4$1...@feedme.news.iswest.net>.
But even so, that was two years ago, and should not be used to justify
any actions today. A lot has changed in the last two years in the way
UDPs are handled.
Henrietta
Rebecca Ore
> In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on Sun, 19 Dec 1999 05:10:25 GMT, Rebecca Ore
> <reb...@ogoense.net> wrote:
>
> The official announcement was just made today. And you still haven't
> answered my question.
>
Why should I? You're not providing me with a server, or a news feed,
or paying my wages. I owe you no answers at all, especially not to
bad-tempered hectoring questions.
> >(snips)
> >
> >> Cultural and language differences could have been dealt with by
> >> locating someone in soc.culture.indian to advise and act as
> >> interpreter for the Americans.
You have obviously never looked at soc.culture.indian. It makes nanau
look polite and civil.
> >Basically, the additional posts by non-spammers has to be non-trivial
> >before this becomes critical. If we're talking about three guys in
> >Bombay who post five articles each, they're not going to have much
> >leverage with VSNL or SILNET. What made the TIAC UDP countdown so
> >powerful was that Hiawatha Bray, a Boston Globe technology reporter,
> >would have been one of the ones UDP'ed.
>
> What does this have to do with cultural and language differences
> between Indians in India and the Americans?
That wasn't the topic under discussion as I saw it. Turns out that
Chris's report of a cancel went to someone who is helping -- so this
UDP has found its Hiawatha Bray.
> >Absent a parallel in the current situation, then we're more on footing
> >with the ACSI UDP, where there was maybe 24 hours notice and months of a
> >UDP that was not any different than spam cancelling with some minor
> >exceptions.
>
> At least there was notice prior to the commencement of hostilities.
> See Message-ID: <63jv3m$ld4$1...@feedme.news.iswest.net>.
> But even so, that was two years ago, and should not be used to justify
> any actions today. A lot has changed in the last two years in the way
> UDPs are handled.
Henrietta, so you have been saying for two years.
--
Rebecca Ore
http://www.nfilter.org
Charles Demas
Henrietta K. Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, on 19 Dec 1999 05:45:42 GMT, Jeremy
><bo...@netscum.dk> wrote:
>
>>*sneck*
>>
>>Günter Bergmän <bergmän@solväng.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> That could very well be. I'm not involved and have no knowledge
>>> of such a group existing. The only group I'm aware of is the Cancel
>>> Cabal who restrict free speech.
>>
>>Yes, that would be HipCrime and his little friends.
>
>He didn't mean that, and you know it.
You think he meant that despammers are trying to restrict free speech?
Do you agree? I don't, which is why I don't read his posts, though
I may read what he's said when others followup.
>>> I have nothing against Hindus, Buddists or Moslims. Why David Ritz and
>>> the rest of the CABAL bear such grudges is pure bigotry.
>>
>>Your absurd trolls such as this simply point out that you have absolutely
>>nothing of value to say, and there is therefore no reason to bother
>>listening.
>
>Well, I've been reading Gunter Bergman with great interest, for the
>very first time. He is a bit emotional yes, and I don't agree with
>everything he says, but he has made some excellent points here,
>and he's *not* playing hypocrite. You've been saying you want
>some opposition to keep the cabalistas honest; what's wrong
>with Gunter Bergman expressing his point of view? And why
>aren't you willing to listen?
Come on Henrietta, do you actually believe that David Ritz or any of
the group that decided to UDP VNSL is bigoted against Hindus, Buddists,
or Moslems? I don't, which is another reason I don't read his posts.
You are free to waste your time however you wish, and IMO, reading
Gunter Bergman is a waste of my time.
I could be convinced otherwise, can you point to one post by him
in which he has espoused something without going "over the top?"
I have better things to do than sort through a spew of garbage
looking for one bit of insight. If he does say something worthwhile,
then it will be up to you to find it and bring it out. I can't
be bothered.
Jeffery J. Leader
? the Platypus)) wrote:
>Was it worth braking
>your(collective) promus to us?
(I'm not sure what "us" you mean, but it needs to be larger than
nanau--it's the admins, users, etc.) Howard and the late Doug have
been *very* pedantic about doing it by the nanau consensus the past
few years. (I mention them as they've been so visible here about it.)
This isn't gradually slip-sliding away due to laziness; it was a
considered action. Given the care that's been taken in previous cases
I think it's premature to complain about this one. In fact, even if
in the after-analysis I disagree with the course of action they took I
nonethless think that I won't have a problem with it, unless it
becomes a pattern of some sort--which I rather doubt.
I'm OK with the use of discretion (for want of a better word) here.
If it becomes an excuse to surprise the next Saylor-infested ISP next
month, I'll feel differently. (I don't expect this.) Special
circumstances, special approach.