A Serious Dilemma for the Net
John F. Haugh II
greetings. a very large problem has emerged on the net. for several
weeks, the net has been beseiged with postings from many users at the
portal system in california. these postings are made from pseudo-
accounts with names such as "spartan", "hijacker", "publisher", and
so on without bound. it is my considered opinion that the site
administrator's decision to allow users to use these "c.b. handles"
(and to apparently change them on a moments notice) encourages them
to post irresponsibly. as an example, let us not forget the ta-do
with j...@cup.portal.com [ not to be confused with the real jj@alice ]
who posted a plea for money across most of the newsgroups on the
net.
this problem might be solved if the management at portal replaced the
portal-id field with the user's real name. the users might then
consider acting with more discretion prior to posting, knowing that
their name would be attached for all to see.
if the administrators at portal remain uncertain as to the need for
this action, perhaps we could help them out by compiling a compendium
of articles showing the content of the articles emanating from that
system.
perhaps neighboring sites could be persuaded to disassociate themselves
with portal until such time as portal ceases to be a negative factor
in the usenet community. to aid other site administrators in removing
portal system postings, i have created a shell script which will cancel
all postings coming from that system.
I thank you, and Usenet thanks you...
Sincerly,
John F. Haugh II
The Beach Bum
there is little need to speak harshly of a system and its users if
one is not willing to act in an equally harsh manner. to this end,
i have created a little shell script which seeks out portal postings
and cancels them.
i am posting it here to news.admin knowing that many of you will
be tempted to actually use it. it has been tested and it works
wonderfully. you should use it as well. just run this sucker
once a day, and your life will be relatively free of portal-people.
i suggest you run it in the morning. before you eat anything.
- john.
--------------------- cut here ---------------------
cd /usr/spool/news
if [ ! -f before ]
then
touch -am 0101000070 before
fi
touch now
find . -newer before -type f -print | \
gethead 'From: ' | grep -y portal | \
sed -e 's/:.*$//' | gethead 'Message-ID: ' | sed -e 's/.*-ID: //
s:^.*$:/usr/lib/news/inews -n control -c cancel & -d local:
s/[<>]/\\&/g' | sh
mv now before
--------------------- cut here as well ---------------
--
John F. Haugh II (j...@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US) HASA, "S" Division
"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong."
-- Norm Schryer
The Beach Bum
>i have created a little shell script which seeks out portal postings
>and cancels them.
which requires the C program below ... [ or a grep command, either way ]
-- gethead.c --
#include <stdio.h>
main (argc, argv)
int argc;
char **argv;
{
char filename[BUFSIZ];
char line[BUFSIZ];
int i;
FILE *fp;
if (argc < 2)
exit (1);
i = strlen (argv[1]);
while (gets (filename) != (char *) 0) {
if ((fp = fopen (filename, "r")) == (FILE *) 0)
continue;
while (fgets (line, BUFSIZ, fp) == line) {
if (strncmp (line, argv[1], i) == 0) {
fprintf (stdout, "%s: %s", filename, line);
break;
}
}
fclose (fp);
}
}
-- end of gethead.c --
R. W. F. Clark
[Program to cancel all portal files deleted]
This is a very bad idea. In doing this, one destroys Patrick_Townson's
insightful and well-written articles, and prevents the responsible
portal users from posting. I suggest that the problem be handled
on an individual basis. If an admin receives immense complaints
concerning a particular user, they should remove that user.
This is likely to be much more difficult than simply cancelling
all the articles from a node, which is why I can understand that
Mr. Haugh wishes to implement in this fashion. However, censoring
users such as Patrick_Townson, Isaac_K_Rabinovitch, and even
John_Wasser_Thomason because of the depredations of perhaps
under ten imbeciles is unforgivable.
I objected to the removal of Eric Mading last year, sparking
an extensive debate on this topic. Though I stated explicitly
in my article that my point had nothing to do with First
Amendment rights, but with the perpetuation of an ill
precedent, there were still those who accused me of defending
First Amendment rights on the net.
If people are free to remove such a relatively inoffensive
poster as Wasser, or even a valuable poster such as
Patrick_Townson, then not even a site admin is safe
from arbitrary removal.
I hope you will not run this program.
-------
BITNET: RWC...@psuvm.BITNET R W F Clark/GFC Gang/Port Atherton
Ray Dunn
In <68...@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> j...@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) and
In <66...@chinet.UUCP> ri...@chinet.UUCP (Patricia O Tuama) and
In <12...@cbnews.ATT.COM> w...@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker), backed by
a chorus of simpering toadies in alt.flame writes:
>To the members of Usenet:
>
>Hello. There has emerged, what we feel to be a huge problem. For
>a while now, the net has been plagued with postings from several
>"people" at the Portal System (tm) in California. The postings are
>made from ambiguous accounts such as "Spartan", "Hijacker", "Argent",
>"ANKH" etc, ad nauseum.
>.....
This article, posted in news.admin separately by various frequent
"contributors" to alt.flame, is, I contend, of irresponsible, malicious,
intent.
Be warned. The posting is just another step in a deliberately fanned
"flame-war" which has been in progress between Kiselev and others, and the
users of Portal, for some time.
For those wise people who do not read alt.flame, the war mainly involves the
said clique concertedly foul-mouthing the Portal users in every way
possible, and for any violation they can dream up.
These "violations" have in the past weeks included admitting to being 14
years old, asking what "SO" meant (I think in alt.sex), and exhibiting the
other traditional manifestations of new users that we must expect.
Occasionally annoying, nothing "beyond the pale".
The cabal's immediate response has been of the "f*ck off little boy, and if
you don't like what I'm saying then watch out because we will have your
account pulled, and *we* are responsible USENET adults" variety. The very
act of posting from portal has triggered the chorus!
This of course has frequently provoked the portal users to retaliate in
kind. Many postings are clearly *designed* to make portal users respond
that way. Portal baiting has become a fine art on alt.flame!
Predicatably, they are not disappointed! This creates material which is at
their disposal to be manipulated at will to further fan the flames:
In article <53861RWC102@PSUVM> RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) writes:
>In article <91...@cup.portal.com>, john_f_...@cup.portal.com says:
>>
>> [many four-letter explicatives deleted]
>>
>Mr. Tamburo, I think that would be singularly ill-advised....
Clark posted this in news.admin (without the deletions), although
91...@cup.portal.com appears only in alt.flame, and Clark directs followups
back to alt.flame - a flagrant if clumsy attempt to make a portal user
appear to be posting foul language in news.admin. Mr Tamburo certainly has
a way with words (:-), but to no more excess than his opponents in
alt.flame.
Between the foul-mouthed rantings and vicious personality-assassinations,
this purile small-minded cabal portray themselves to their victims as
knights on white chargers and keepers of the net!
They pretend to represent you and I.
Don't take my word for it, they have, and continue to present themselves
daily in alt.flame.
Frankly, the spectacle is nauseating.
Why do we continue to propagate the alt sub-net and support the excesses of
these dregs of our USENET society?
While the verbiage remained in alt.flame it was marginally supportable. To
have it spill over into news.admin, and to now stomach this sanctimonious
"dilemma" clap-trap is going much too far.
I *do* dislike anonymous postings and I *do* have some problems with the
type of access sites like Portal enable, however this attempt to coerce
USENET administrators into taking sides in a flame-fest, in a bogus pretence
of seeing a "serious dilemma" is at the same level of irresponsible nonsense
as the jj postings, or some of the more outrageous threats of lawsuits etc.
I ask the administrators of the sites whose users have posted the "serious
dilemma" and associated articles to examine the evidence, closely question
the actions of those users, and perhaps report back their findings to the
net.
--
Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!philabs!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
Charles Daffinger
'Are you sure you really want to do this? [ny]'
I ought to really ansower `n', but what the hell.....
People are bitching and moaning about the lack of a real user name given
in the news postings from Portal.com, but, I seem to be confused here,
as most people (including those who have participated in the form-flame)
are using Unix, many even BSD unix or it's variants. Well, there is a
unix command called 'chfn' which changes the 'finger' entry for the user,
which is also the name which appears in article attributions. What difference
is there to Unix 'chfn' to the Portal whatever it is which allows arbitrary
name selection?
Confused,
-charles
--
Charles Daffinger >Take me to the river, Drop me in the water< (812) 339-7354
cd...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ihnp4}!iuvax!cdaf
Home of the Whitewater mailing list: whitewate...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
William B. Thacker
(in reference to postings by several people, including myself,
about problems with Portal)
[re: alleged violations of Portal users]
>These "violations" have in the past weeks included admitting to being 14
>years old, asking what "SO" meant (I think in alt.sex), and exhibiting the
>other traditional manifestations of new users that we must expect.
What makes these violations notable are not the gaffs themselves, but
the manner in which they were committed. Most of the net posters are
intelligent, educated adults, or, at the very least, college students.
Portal, on the other hand, gives access to many younger and less
experienced users. This is acceptable, but they apparently make
litte attempt to educate their users about editors or Usenet, and they
further encourage rash postings by allowing anonymity via "handles".
These two factors threaten to lower Usenet to the standards of a
hacker's bulletin board.
>They pretend to represent you and I.
Not true. We represent ourselves, and, we suspect, a fair number of
netters. I have no desire to represent *you*.
>I *do* dislike anonymous postings and I *do* have some problems with the
>type of access sites like Portal enable, however this attempt to coerce
>USENET administrators into taking sides in a flame-fest, in a bogus pretence
>of seeing a "serious dilemma" is at the same level of irresponsible nonsense
>as the jj postings, or some of the more outrageous threats of lawsuits etc.
You are most incorrect. This is NOT an attempt to generate flames; our goal
was to generate RESULTS. If you'd read (once more) our postings, you'll
note that all we asked was for Portal administration to include the
poster's real name with the posting. We were sincere about the "serious
dilemma". Your opinion is obviously different, but don't assume that we're
being "irresponsible" just because we disagree with you.
>I ask the administrators of the sites whose users have posted the "serious
>dilemma" and associated articles to examine the evidence, closely question
>the actions of those users, and perhaps report back their findings to the
>net.
This is exactly the point. When *I* post to the net, I put my reputation
and my job on the line. If I embarrass my employer, I can expect various
retributions which could go so far as to affect my career.
Posters from Portal, on the other hand, risk nothing but their last month's
$10 fee. Anonymity gives them courage to post things that *accountable*
members of the Usenet community would never put their names to.
I felt the problem was serious enough that I was willing to subject myself
to the sort of scrutiny you suggest. I'd like to see Portal users
similarly accountable.
------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker cbosgd!cbema!wbt
"C" combines the power of assembly language with the
flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------
Oleg Kiselev
In article <12...@micomvax.UUCP> r...@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
>These "violations" have in the past weeks included admitting to being 14
>years old, asking what "SO" meant (I think in alt.sex), and exhibiting the
>other traditional manifestations of new users that we must expect.
>Occasionally annoying, nothing "beyond the pale".
>
>The cabal's immediate response has been of the "f*ck off little boy, and if
>you don't like what I'm saying then watch out because we will have your
>account pulled, and *we* are responsible USENET adults" variety. The very
>act of posting from portal has triggered the chorus!
The above is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
>Don't take my word for it, they have, and continue to present themselves
>daily in alt.flame.
Please do. At least you will be able to form your own opinion instead of
relying the kinds of vicious disinformation Mr. Dunn is passing here as
"truth".
>Frankly, the spectacle is nauseating.
I fully agree. Mr. Dunn's contribution to the slime flow is most
disheartening. I am not sure what poilitical goals or hostilities Mr. Dunn
is entertaining.
>Why do we continue to propagate the alt sub-net and support the excesses of
>these dregs of our USENET society?
It should be pointed out that NO SITE is required to carry or propagate ALT
subnet and there is no "backbone" support for it. Should Mr. Dunn's or any
other site not wish to receive/propagate ALT groups, they are at liberty to
do so. ALT groups like alt.sex and alt.flame or, for that matter, ALT et al
are not carried by a large number of sites and by majority of "backbones".
Fanning up the outrage about ALT is a smoke screen. I am at loss to explain
why Mr. Dunn chooses to do that.
>I ask the administrators of the sites whose users have posted the "serious
>dilemma" and associated articles to examine the evidence, closely question
>the actions of those users, and perhaps report back their findings to the
>net.
This is the only paragraph in Mr. Dunn's posting that has any merit. He does
fail to realize, however, that a number of people who posted the "dilemma"
article ARE system administrators.
--
Oleg Kiselev "No regrets, no apologies" -- Ronald Reagan
(213)337-5230 ARPA: lcc....@seas.ucla.edu, ol...@gryphon.cts.com
UUCP:...!ucla-cs!lcc!oleg
Copyright 1988 by Oleg Kiselev. All rights reserved.
Quoting is allowed only if attributed.
richard welty
>these dregs of our USENET society?
It is not for you or anyone else to tell the administrator of site which
propagates alt whether or not they may continue to propagate alt (other
than the site management or owners, of course.) Unless of course you
propose that drastic action be taken against sites carrying alt. I
suspect that this would be ineffective and possibly backfire in a rather
serious fashion.
>I ask the administrators of the sites whose users have posted the "serious
>dilemma" and associated articles to examine the evidence, closely question
>the actions of those users, and perhaps report back their findings to the
>net.
Me thinks that some of the postings were from site administrators.
richard w
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
we...@ge-crd.ARPA uunet!steinmetz!welty
``Then Jurgen sighed, and entered his snug home.
Thus it was in the old days.'' -- James Branch Cabell
The Cat in the Hat
-
-Why do we continue to propagate the alt sub-net and support the excesses of
-these dregs of our USENET society?
-
Because those administrators who support the alt sub-net wish to. If a
person doesn't like the content of a newsgroup, they are often invited
to unsubscribe. The alt groups work in a similar manner on a news site
admin level. If your site is recieving no benefit from the alt groups,
then there is no reason to recieve them.
Or, in simpler words...
The alt sub-net is propogated becuase people want it.
And nobody is forcing them to do so.
I resent the phrase "dregs of our USENET society". Indeed, your entire
article could be considered an inappropriate flame (posted to an inappropriate
newsgroup) of certain individuals that you do not like. See alt.flame for
a flame of your entire article.
(Follow-ups not redirected, because Ray's question is appropriate for this
newsgroup. My flame of this article will never be seen here, because it is
not (as) appropriate. )
--
"They used to say that pot leads to heroin. Now we know it just leads to TV."