RFD: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists moderated
adam brower
moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup
news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists. This is not a Call for Votes
(CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
Newsgroup line:
news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists Email blocklist issues. (Moderated)
RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
The increasing use of dns-based blocklists (DNSBL), right-hand side
blocklists (RHSBL), and other methods of propagating and querying a
list to block unwanted network traffic, often unsolicited bulk email,
commonly known as "spam," has given rise to the need for a group
specifically devoted to discussion of topics related to their use, and
to the results of their use. Current forums in which discussions of
these topics are held attract many contributors whose strong dislike of
spam and its perpetrators results in the drowning out of more
quietly-stated views with which they may be in disagreement.
news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists will exist as an alternative
forum where interested parties may exchange views and information in a
civil manner. It is anticipated that not only administrators with
comments, questions, and observations on the use of blocklists, but
also those affected by their use (e.g., those whose addresses are
listed in blocklists, and abuse personnel) will find such a forum
useful, and that the discussions in the group will yield benefits not
only to administrators, abuse personnel, and those who find their
addresses listed, but to the Internet community itself, by focusing
attention solely on blocklist issues, promoting calm, rational,
informed discussion of those issues, and in the end contributing to the
reduction of spam.
CHARTER: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is a newsgroup devoted to
discussion of subjects related to the use, administration, and effects
of blocklists in ameliorating the problem of unsolicited bulk email.
Any topic which is especially of interest to those maintaining, using,
or affected by blocklists is welcome in this group.
The nature of the topic is such that expressions of anger and
frustration are expected, but unwarranted generalisations and
non-productive displays of pique, however elegantly worded, will be
rejected at the discretion of the moderators.
Binary files will not be approved for posting in
news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists.
The following are sample topics which will be addressed in
news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists:
Blocklist creation and maintenance
Nomination and delisting procedures
Criteria used in listings
Discussions blocklist listings
Effects of blocklist use on spam volume
Other technologies for propagation and querying of a list
New uses for blocklists
Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is not
allowed.
Moderation will be performed using the Secure Team-based Usenet
Moderation Program (STUMP) or similar technology, which will be hosted
at a location to be determined. Where practicable, the following
procedures will be followed by the moderation team:
- The moderators will maintain the tone of discourse so as to
minimize the heated discussions to which the subject often leads.
- Although moderators themselves may have strong opinions on
the efficacy, application, or side-effects of one or another
blocklist or other method of reducing spam, they are expected to
refrain from allowing such opinions to influence their approval or
rejection of articles.
- The moderators may use the tools provided (now or in the future)
to aid in moderation of the group. These may include "white lists,"
"black lists," keywording of headers, and word-filtering.
- Moderators can be added to the team by a 2/3 majority vote,
and removed from the moderation team by unanimous consent of all
other moderators.
END CHARTER.
MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
Additional moderators are still being sought.
END MODERATOR INFO.
PROCEDURE:
This is a request for discussion, not a call for votes. In this phase
of the process, any potential problems with the proposed newsgroup
should be raised and resolved. The discussion period will continue for
a minimum of 21 days (starting from when the first RFD for this
proposal is posted to news.announce.newgroups), after which a Call For
Votes (CFV) may be posted by a neutral vote taker if the discussion
warrants it. Please do not attempt to vote until this happens.
All discussion of this proposal should be posted to news.groups.
This RFD attempts to comply fully with the Usenet newsgroup creation
guidelines outlined in "How to Create a New Usenet Newsgroup" and "How
to Format and Submit a New Group Proposal". Please refer to these
documents (available in news.announce.newgroups) if you have any
questions about the process.
DISTRIBUTION:
This RFD has been posted to the following newsgroups:
news.announce.newgroups
news.groups,
news.admin.net-abuse.email
Proponent: adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com>
Proponent: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> I don't want to repeat a complaint I've made about a lot of other groups, but
> I think I will anyway. Shouldn't the restriction on binary files exempt
> small binaries like PGP signatures?
That is a standard biorierplate, I would expect that to be added.
>
> (You might also want to allow crossposting to news.answers.)
Bad idea IMO, n.a is also moderated and posting discussions of abuse
does not belong there. n.a is basically for FAQs.
--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Jim Seymour
arro...@yellow.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> I don't want to repeat a complaint I've made about a lot of other groups, but
> I think I will anyway. Shouldn't the restriction on binary files exempt
> small binaries like PGP signatures?
Well, that would be a binary *attachment* to an otherwise text post,
would it not? So not technically a "binary file," per se? Aren't
ASCII-encoded signatures "better," in case there are non MIME-aware
readers? Educate me :).
>
> (You might also want to allow crossposting to news.answers.)
Oh, I don't think so. Visit news.admin.net-abuse.email and look for
posts with "SPEWS" in the subject to get an idea of the subject
matter. I don't think x-posting to news.answers would be
apppropriate in this case.
Regards,
Jim
--
Jim Seymour | PGP Public Key available at:
WARNING: The "From:" address | http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pks-commands.html
is a spam trap. DON'T USE IT! |
Use: jsey...@LinxNet.com | http://jimsun.LinxNet.com
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>In article <alb5i6$h0f$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
> arro...@yellow.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>> I don't want to repeat a complaint I've made about a lot of other groups, but
>> I think I will anyway. Shouldn't the restriction on binary files exempt
>> small binaries like PGP signatures?
>Well, that would be a binary *attachment* to an otherwise text post,
>would it not?
Not really. Many text only readers either don't bother with
separating attachments from text, or can be configured that
way. Regardless...
>So not technically a "binary file," per se?
Attachments are intended to be extracted as separate files, or
at least can be extracted as such almost by default in attachment
aware software. Regardless...
>Aren't
>ASCII-encoded signatures "better," in case there are non MIME-aware
>readers? Educate me :).
Most/all binaries for email and usenet are ASCII encoded, even as
mime attachments. Thus being ASCII has little bearing on the issue.
On usenet, anything not human readable is often considered a binary
(i.e. consider that a usnet definition of the term "binary"). So
anything from uuencoded images to PGP sigs to HTML to Postscript
(all of which are ASCII encoded) are often considered binaries,
regardless of whether they are attached, inline, or comprise the
whole posting. Hence, an exclusion for "PGP and similar small
binary signatures" is often called for in proposals, and it is
understood that the term "binary" includes/means ASCII encoded
binaries.
ru
--
My (updated) standard proposals rant:
Quality, usefulness, merit, or non-newsgroups popularity of a topic
is more or less irrelevant in creating a new Big-8 newsgroup.
Usenet popularity is the primary consideration.
George Crissman
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists. This is not a Call for Votes
>(CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
>
>Newsgroup line:
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists Email blocklist issues. (Moderated)
>
>RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
I like the idea, but would change the name to
news.admin.blocklist.email
to allow for likely future expansion such as
news.admin.blocklist.web
news.admin.blocklist.usenet
news.admin.blocklist.ftp
etc.
Plus it would allow for an umbrella group
news.admin.blocklist
which might become necessary at some
future time. Like it or not, the growth of
blocklists may require an expansion of the
category :-(.
In addition, each of the categories (email, web, ftp, etc.)
could have it's own .annouce and .discuss subgroups
if traffic justified their formation.
George Crissman
str...@tmisnet.com
Lumber Cartel, Diego: http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/tinlc/
Pandora Consolidated: http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/pandora.html
S.1618, Section.301: http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/murk.html
Your total spam cost: http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/costcalc.html
Jim Seymour
ru.ig...@usask.ca writes:
[cutting to the chase...]
>
> Most/all binaries for email and usenet are ASCII encoded, even as
> mime attachments.
Of course.
[snip]
> Hence, an exclusion for "PGP and similar small
> binary signatures" is often called for in proposals, and it is
> understood that the term "binary" includes/means ASCII encoded
> binaries.
I see. To be completely honest, I would've never considered a PGP
or other digital signature to be in violation of the "no binaries"
policy, myself.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>Newsgroup line:
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists Email blocklist issues. (Moderated)
>RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>The increasing use of dns-based blocklists (DNSBL), right-hand side
>blocklists (RHSBL), and other methods of propagating and querying a
>list to block unwanted network traffic, often unsolicited bulk email,
>commonly known as "spam," has given rise to the need for a group
>specifically devoted to discussion of topics related to their use, and
>to the results of their use.
Just a nitpick here: that's one long sentence (that can be split).
>Current forums in which discussions of
>these topics are held attract many contributors whose strong dislike of
>spam and its perpetrators results in the drowning out of more
>quietly-stated views with which they may be in disagreement.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. How does the "strong dislike"
matter to the topic at hand? Similarly, what do the "quietly-stated"
views about spam have to do with the topic at hand? State the
actual problem(s) that this proposal hopes to fix, and how the proposed
group fixes it. This rationale doesn't really say why this proposal
is necessary. I know n.a.n.email is darned busy, and I can imagine
that technical discussion on BL is difficult, so if that's one of
the problems, say so (and how it's difficult).
Is this perceived to be a problem by a large number of readers
(e.g. a lot of complaints)? If so, that should be stated, as
well as how you came to that conclusion.
Some readerships don't like newsgroup splits. Have you determined
if this split proposal is supported (e.g. by a survey)? How
aware is the readership of this proposal (sometimes an RFD slips
by, particularly in a busy newsgroup)? Ideally, you'd be getting
folks interested pre-RFD, but the RFD phase will do, too. Just
don't wait until the CFV to garner interest, or expect the CFV to
do it, because at that point it's too late.
Note, contrary to what some folks might say, discussion of a RFD
in groups outside of news.groups is not forbidden by this process,
but that discussion should be crossposted to news.groups. So if
the issue comes up, please instruct folks accordingly.
Just out of curiousity, do you think you have enough interested
readership to pass the vote (120 YES needed if you get the usual
10-20 NO votes, which generally translates to a few hundred to a
couple thousand interested readership).
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists will exist as an alternative
>forum where interested parties may exchange views and information in a
>civil manner. It is anticipated that not only administrators with
>comments, questions, and observations on the use of blocklists, but
>also those affected by their use (e.g., those whose addresses are
>listed in blocklists, and abuse personnel) will find such a forum
>useful,
In regard to my earlier comment, you could mention how this group
would be more useful than the current group?
>and that the discussions in the group will yield benefits not
>only to administrators, abuse personnel, and those who find their
>addresses listed, but to the Internet community itself, by focusing
>attention solely on blocklist issues, promoting calm, rational,
>informed discussion of those issues, and in the end contributing to the
>reduction of spam.
Again, you could mention how the proposed group would be better
suited for "focusing...".
(Another nitpick, that was another monstrously long sentence)
>CHARTER: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is a newsgroup devoted to
Insert "moderated" in front of "newsgroup"
>discussion of subjects related to the use, administration, and effects
>of blocklists in ameliorating the problem of unsolicited bulk email.
>Any topic which is especially of interest to those maintaining, using,
>or affected by blocklists is welcome in this group.
[snip]
>Binary files will not be approved for posting in
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists.
As indicated elsewhere in this thread, an exception for PGP and
similar small binary signatures should be stated here. I'd imagine
this is one group where such things would be used more than usual
elsewhere.
[snip]
Is there any need for, ahem, mentioning commercial postings or
similar advertisement postings (e.g. for block lists, or filter
software), either to say they are or are not allowed?
How do announcements (or pronouncements) figure in the hierarchy?
Is there a class of announcements that should appear only in one
or the other group even though it is related to BL (e.g. all
announcements in n.a.n.email and discusssion only in
n.a.n.email.blocklists, or all BL announcments in
n.a.n.e.blocklists)?
>Moderation will be performed using the Secure Team-based Usenet
>Moderation Program (STUMP) or similar technology, which will be hosted
>at a location to be determined.
The following isn't for inclusion in the CHARTER (if anything it
should be mentioned in the MODERATOR INFO section):
- You're sure you'll have a host before the RESULT comes out, right?
- Is someone already looking into how to set it up?
[snip]
>END CHARTER.
>MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
[snip list of moderators]
>Additional moderators are still being sought.
How much usenet moderation experience do the proposed moderators
have? Who will be maintaining the moderation software (I can't
remember if it was mentioned)?
>END MODERATOR INFO.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 19:05:44 UTC, adam brower wrote:
>> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
>> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>>
>>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>>world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup
>>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists. This is not a Call for Votes
>>(CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
>>
>>Newsgroup line:
>>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists Email blocklist issues. (Moderated)
>>
>>RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>I like the idea, but would change the name to
>news.admin.blocklist.email
>to allow for likely future expansion such as
>news.admin.blocklist.web
>news.admin.blocklist.usenet
>news.admin.blocklist.ftp
>etc.
Interesting point. I know that BL exist or can exist locally
for those already, though they probably aren't thought of
as such. I've never considered DNSBL sites for anything else,
but do folks make use of them for these other modes already?
I'm just wondering if BL are not really as easily separable along
these lines as one might think.
>Plus it would allow for an umbrella group
>news.admin.blocklist
>which might become necessary at some
>future time. Like it or not, the growth of
>blocklists may require an expansion of the
>category :-(.
If anything, these comments/observations argue that the the
proposal be just that, the general group first, not just an
e-mail specific group. However, I'd argue for making it
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklists, just so that it is clear that
this is a net topic.
Larry M. Smith
> George Crissman <str...@tmisnet.com> wrote:
>
>>I like the idea, but would change the name to
>>news.admin.blocklist.email
>
>
>>to allow for likely future expansion such as
>>news.admin.blocklist.web
>>news.admin.blocklist.usenet
>>news.admin.blocklist.ftp
>>etc.
>
>
> Interesting point. I know that BL exist or can exist locally
> for those already, though they probably aren't thought of
> as such. I've never considered DNSBL sites for anything else,
> but do folks make use of them for these other modes already?
> I'm just wondering if BL are not really as easily separable along
> these lines as one might think.
>
Currently a number IRC servers use blocklists to identify open proxies
that connect to them. Also there is an Apache module for using a DNSBL
to control access. See < http://www.blars.org/mod_access_rbl.html >
>
>>Plus it would allow for an umbrella group
>>news.admin.blocklist
>>which might become necessary at some
>>future time. Like it or not, the growth of
>>blocklists may require an expansion of the
>>category :-(.
>
>
> If anything, these comments/observations argue that the the
> proposal be just that, the general group first, not just an
> e-mail specific group. However, I'd argue for making it
> news.admin.net-abuse.blocklists, just so that it is clear that
> this is a net topic.
>
> ru
>
SgtChains
Andrew - Supernews
> I like the idea, but would change the name to
> news.admin.blocklist.email
news.admin.* is for topics related to Usenet administration - the fact that
news.admin.net-abuse.email is located under news.* at all is really a
historical accident, resulting from the fact that keeping related groups
together is arguably more important than precise categorisation.
Since the proposed group is very closely related to nanae, it should be
placed accordingly. The proposed name was my suggestion, but I could be
convinced that news.admin.net-abuse.blocklists would be appropriate. My
argument against it would be that DNSBLs are very much a response
specifically to email abuse (even if the lists are then used to deny
access to other services); for example, the IRC networks have been blocking
proxies for a long time, but have not (to my knowledge) until recently
taken to publishing the info in DNSBL form.
--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
Paul Jakma
> news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists will exist as an alternative
> forum where interested parties may exchange views and information in a
> civil manner. It is anticipated that not only administrators with
> comments, questions, and observations on the use of blocklists, but
> also those affected by their use (e.g., those whose addresses are
> listed in blocklists, and abuse personnel) will find such a forum
> useful, and that the discussions in the group will yield benefits not
> only to administrators, abuse personnel, and those who find their
> addresses listed, but to the Internet community itself, by focusing
> attention solely on blocklist issues, promoting calm, rational,
> informed discussion of those issues, and in the end contributing to the
> reduction of spam.
>
> CHARTER: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>
> news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is a newsgroup devoted to
> discussion of subjects related to the use, administration, and effects
> of blocklists in ameliorating the problem of unsolicited bulk email.
> Any topic which is especially of interest to those maintaining, using,
> or affected by blocklists is welcome in this group.
In relation to the above I wonder if it would be better to narrow the
scope of this newsgroup to one of subjects related to actual blocklist
entries (status, purpose, resolution of, seeking and giving of advice
pertaining to resolution of blocklist entries). As it this scope in
particular which would benefit from a moderated newsgroup.
I feel perhaps the broader issues relating to the use, administration
and generalised effects of blocklists would benefit more from
the more informal non-moderated style of newsgroup.
Where such discussion should take place, i do not know, but i agree
with sentiments expressed by other posters that a .*blocklists.*
hierarchy would be useful, be it under news.admin.net-abuse, or
perhaps a new comp.abuse.blocklists hierarchy (?).
regards,
--
Paul Jakma Sys Admin Alphyra
pa...@alphyra.ie
Warning: /never/ send email to sp...@dishone.st or tr...@dishone.st
Jim Seymour
>
>>Current forums in which discussions of
>>these topics are held attract many contributors whose strong dislike of
>>spam and its perpetrators results in the drowning out of more
>>quietly-stated views with which they may be in disagreement.
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying here. How does the "strong dislike"
> matter to the topic at hand? Similarly, what do the "quietly-stated"
> views about spam have to do with the topic at hand? State the
> actual problem(s) that this proposal hopes to fix, and how the proposed
> group fixes it. This rationale doesn't really say why this proposal
> is necessary. I know n.a.n.email is darned busy, and I can imagine
> that technical discussion on BL is difficult, so if that's one of
> the problems, say so (and how it's difficult).
Basically there are diverse "interested" parties to any particular
blocklisting issue. As you might well imagine, each of these parties
brings their own perspectives to the discussion. Usually wildly
divergent perspectives. The problem that arises is that tempers
flare rapidly. Some folks put things in ways that are not conducive
to calm, reasoned discussion of how the problem that led to the
blocklisting might be resolved. In other words: flame-fests ensue.
It might help to understand that blocklist discussions aren't so much
technical, as they are discussions of policy and philosophy.
The second problem is that NANAE has been over-run by discussions of
blocklists and blocklisting, drowning out almost all other
spam-related discussion. Including any technical ones.
>
> Is this perceived to be a problem by a large number of readers
> (e.g. a lot of complaints)? If so, that should be stated, as
> well as how you came to that conclusion.
The situation in NANAE has reached the point where many ISPs, abuse
desk personnel and folks finding themselves in blocklists simply will
not participate. The irony is that many of these people are the ones
best-positioned to contribute to dialog that may result in actually
settling a particular problem.
>
> Some readerships don't like newsgroup splits. Have you determined
> if this split proposal is supported (e.g. by a survey)?
There's been on-going discussions here-and-there for several weeks
now. Not all in news.admin.net-abuse.email, however.
> How
> aware is the readership of this proposal (sometimes an RFD slips
> by, particularly in a busy newsgroup)?
[snip]
Oh, knowing NANAE, I don't think we need worry about that too much
:).
> Note, contrary to what some folks might say, discussion of a RFD
> in groups outside of news.groups is not forbidden by this process,
> but that discussion should be crossposted to news.groups. So if
> the issue comes up, please instruct folks accordingly.
Will do. Thanks for clarifying that. (I wish the NAN moderators
had set the Followup-To to NANAE, as well, in the first place.)
>
> Just out of curiousity, do you think you have enough interested
> readership to pass the vote (120 YES needed if you get the usual
> 10-20 NO votes, which generally translates to a few hundred to a
> couple thousand interested readership).
As you noted: NANAE is a busy group. Yes, we think there'll be
enough interested readership.
>
[snip]
>
> In regard to my earlier comment, you could mention how this group
> would be more useful than the current group?
Answered, I believe.
>
[snip]
>
> Again, you could mention how the proposed group would be better
> suited for "focusing...".
Answered, I believe.
[snip]
>>CHARTER: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>
>>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is a newsgroup devoted to
>
> Insert "moderated" in front of "newsgroup"
So noted.
>
[snip]
>
>>Binary files will not be approved for posting in
>>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists.
>
> As indicated elsewhere in this thread, an exception for PGP and
> similar small binary signatures should be stated here. I'd imagine
> this is one group where such things would be used more than usual
> elsewhere.
So noted.
>
> [snip]
>
> Is there any need for, ahem, mentioning commercial postings or
> similar advertisement postings (e.g. for block lists, or filter
> software), either to say they are or are not allowed?
Will address. Thanks.
>
> How do announcements (or pronouncements) figure in the hierarchy?
> Is there a class of announcements that should appear only in one
> or the other group even though it is related to BL (e.g. all
> announcements in n.a.n.email and discusssion only in
> n.a.n.email.blocklists, or all BL announcments in
> n.a.n.e.blocklists)?
Hmmm... good question. There is a news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins
newsgroup. Hasn't been used in the email part of that general
category, to date.
>
>>Moderation will be performed using the Secure Team-based Usenet
>>Moderation Program (STUMP) or similar technology, which will be hosted
>>at a location to be determined.
>
> The following isn't for inclusion in the CHARTER (if anything it
> should be mentioned in the MODERATOR INFO section):
> - You're sure you'll have a host before the RESULT comes out, right?
> - Is someone already looking into how to set it up?
>
*I* cannot answer those. Good points.
>
>>END CHARTER.
>
>>MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>
> [snip list of moderators]
>
>>Additional moderators are still being sought.
>
> How much usenet moderation experience do the proposed moderators
> have? Who will be maintaining the moderation software (I can't
> remember if it was mentioned)?
>
*I* cannot answer either of those, either. Except to address my own
moderation experience, which is none.
(An aside, perhaps better left to another thread in another place:
if one has no [Usenet] moderation experience, how is one to obtain it
without doing it?)
>>END MODERATOR INFO.
>
> ru
>
Thanks for your comments, ru.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>In article <albiae$6lt$1...@tribune.usask.ca>,
> ru.ig...@usask.ca writes:
>> State the
>> actual problem(s) that this proposal hopes to fix, and how the proposed
>> group fixes it.
>Basically there are diverse "interested" parties to any particular
>blocklisting issue. As you might well imagine, each of these parties
>brings their own perspectives to the discussion. Usually wildly
>divergent perspectives. The problem that arises is that tempers
>flare rapidly. Some folks put things in ways that are not conducive
>to calm, reasoned discussion of how the problem that led to the
>blocklisting might be resolved. In other words: flame-fests ensue.
>It might help to understand that blocklist discussions aren't so much
>technical, as they are discussions of policy and philosophy.
>The second problem is that NANAE has been over-run by discussions of
>blocklists and blocklisting, drowning out almost all other
>spam-related discussion. Including any technical ones.
Be sure to note these in the next version of the RFD.
>>
>> Is this perceived to be a problem by a large number of readers
>> (e.g. a lot of complaints)? If so, that should be stated, as
>> well as how you came to that conclusion.
>The situation in NANAE has reached the point where many ISPs, abuse
>desk personnel and folks finding themselves in blocklists simply will
>not participate. The irony is that many of these people are the ones
>best-positioned to contribute to dialog that may result in actually
>settling a particular problem.
Another point for the next version.
[snip]
>> How
>> aware is the readership of this proposal (sometimes an RFD slips
>> by, particularly in a busy newsgroup)?
>[snip]
>Oh, knowing NANAE, I don't think we need worry about that too much
>:).
You should worry about it. Such an assumption has sunk proposals
before, even in the past year. I'm not saying to go in their
beating a drum, but at least gauge the response to the RFD there.
In principle, everything there should be forwarded here, but if
folks countermand that, then it means one has to watch there and
here to gauge response. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised with the
(lack of) response so far.
>> Note, contrary to what some folks might say, discussion of a RFD
>> in groups outside of news.groups is not forbidden by this process,
>> but that discussion should be crossposted to news.groups. So if
>> the issue comes up, please instruct folks accordingly.
>Will do. Thanks for clarifying that. (I wish the NAN moderators
>had set the Followup-To to NANAE, as well, in the first place.)
Um, that's intentional. Not all "affected groups" want the
meta-discussion in their group. It has to be a voluntary
action on the readers' part.
[snip]
>> In regard to my earlier comment, you could mention how this group
>> would be more useful than the current group?
>Answered, I believe.
I meant including it in the statement you wrote.
[snip]
>> Again, you could mention how the proposed group would be better
>> suited for "focusing...".
>Answered, I believe.
Ditto my comment. The RATIONALE will probably be (should be)
rewritten a lot, so I'm not really that sure these last two
suggestions will even apply.
[snip]
>(An aside, perhaps better left to another thread in another place:
>if one has no [Usenet] moderation experience, how is one to obtain it
>without doing it?)
You ask for an experienced hand to consult with. There are folks
here that can help on that issue (finding an experienced hand).
It isn't necessary for everyone be experienced -just one will do-
but you should have someone around to fix/change something
quickly when something unexpected comes up. Some groups even
had/have a moderator the knows little about the subject but
know a lot about moderation and that works fine for them.
Right now, the concern should be to make sure you avoid,
fix, or learn the main idiosyncracies and pitfalls before the
crunch comes (in 4 weeks or so). If you have one such person
in that list, you are all set.
kelly
says...
>Basically there are diverse "interested" parties to any particular
>blocklisting issue. As you might well imagine, each of these parties
>brings their own perspectives to the discussion. Usually wildly
>divergent perspectives. The problem that arises is that tempers
>flare rapidly. Some folks put things in ways that are not conducive
>to calm, reasoned discussion of how the problem that led to the
>blocklisting might be resolved. In other words: flame-fests ensue.
>
>It might help to understand that blocklist discussions aren't so much
>technical, as they are discussions of policy and philosophy.
In addition to Jim's point, it's important to note that if one's
network resource is listed in some of the more popular blocklists, one
_cannot_ contact the maintainer. The FAQ directs the listee to post in
nanae. This causes some naive listees to post in nanae asking
questions and looking for constructive advice, and get a response not
unlike being set upon and dismembered by ravenous, scrufulous wolves.
This does nothing to enlighten the listee, and the listee has no other
place to turn for discussion. It's not *only* that there are flame
fests, but that people need assistance and advice and do not get them
in the absence of moderation.
It is hoped that a moderated group will facilitate a more reasonable
dialogue between listees and the antispam community.
--kelly
George Crissman
if it's a duplication.
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 19:05:44 UTC, adam brower wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>
>This is a formal Request For Discussion (RFD) for the creation of the
>world-wide moderated Usenet newsgroup
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists. This is not a Call for Votes
>(CFV); you cannot vote at this time. Procedural details are below.
>
>Newsgroup line:
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists Email blocklist issues. (Moderated)
>
>RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
I like the idea, but would change the name to
news.admin.blocklist.email
to allow for likely future expansion such as
news.admin.blocklist.web
news.admin.blocklist.usenet
news.admin.blocklist.ftp
etc.
Plus it would allow for an umbrella group
news.admin.blocklist
which might become necessary at some
future time. Like it or not, the growth of
blocklists may require an expansion of the
category :-(.
In addition, each of the categories (email, web, ftp, etc.)
Jim Riley
wrote:
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
The name suggests that it might contain lists rather than discussion
of listing. If it were found useful to distribute such lists via
Usenet, what would the group be called?
>RATIONALE: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>
>The increasing use of dns-based blocklists (DNSBL), right-hand side
>blocklists (RHSBL), and other methods of propagating and querying a
>list to block unwanted network traffic, often unsolicited bulk email,
This makes it sounds like blocklists have a variety of uses, even if
at present they are primarily used to curb email abuse. The topics
listed in the charter are not specific to email abuse. Why not name
the group news.admin.net-abuse.<blocklists>? Note that the traffic in
nana.sightings is mostly about email abuse, while that in
nana.bulletins and nana.policy is mainly about Usenet abuse, but this
does not preclude other discussion.
--
Jim Riley
Andrew - Supernews
> Reposted -- original apparently hasn't propagated. Sorry
> if it's a duplication.
it propagated just fine. Do notice that followups on the RFD were (as usual)
set to news.groups, and accordingly that's where your post went.
George Crissman
>In addition to Jim's point, it's important to note that if one's
>network resource is listed in some of the more popular blocklists, one
>_cannot_ contact the maintainer. The FAQ directs the listee to post in
>nanae. This causes some naive listees to post in nanae asking
>questions and looking for constructive advice, and get a response not
>unlike being set upon and dismembered by ravenous, scrufulous wolves.
>This does nothing to enlighten the listee, and the listee has no other
>place to turn for discussion. It's not *only* that there are flame
>fests, but that people need assistance and advice and do not get them
>in the absence of moderation.
>
>It is hoped that a moderated group will facilitate a more reasonable
>dialogue between listees and the antispam community.
This is, by far, the best reason for the new group. Unrelated service
providers who get placed in spam-soiled netblocks by their upstream
provider will sometimes find themselves blocked. It is confusing to
them, and requires a gentler touch than n.a.n-a.e provides to provide
the appropriate information and assistance.
George Crissman
wrote:
>The name suggests that it might contain lists rather than discussion
>of listing. If it were found useful to distribute such lists via
>Usenet, what would the group be called?
Generally, the lists are openly available from the list maintainer
and updated "frequently" (sometimes "constantly") which would
make distribution by Usenet unwise. Posted lists would always
be out-of-date.
>>The increasing use of dns-based blocklists (DNSBL), right-hand side
>>blocklists (RHSBL), and other methods of propagating and querying a
>>list to block unwanted network traffic, often unsolicited bulk email,
>
>This makes it sounds like blocklists have a variety of uses, even if
>at present they are primarily used to curb email abuse.
Just pondering out loud here -- and demonstrating my ignorance
at the same time -- but if ping storms become popular, it may
be necessary to create a blocklist to ignore ping requests from
a certain IP address or block.
Or a list to block bots that use http to dominate machine time
by relentlessly accessing all web pages on a site without
any timeouts.
If abusive techniques continue to proliferate -- and never
underestimate the cleverness of others -- having an expandable
hierarchy is going to be important.
>The topics
>listed in the charter are not specific to email abuse. Why not name
>the group news.admin.net-abuse.<blocklists>? Note that the traffic in
>nana.sightings is mostly about email abuse, while that in
>nana.bulletins and nana.policy is mainly about Usenet abuse, but this
>does not preclude other discussion.
One key part of my suggested category news.admin.blocklist.*
is that it omits the word "abuse" (which is implied in the need for
a blocklist). Admins with enforced, strong anti-abuse policies
who nevertheless find themselves blocked will be more likely to
look for help in a group about "blocklists" than a group about
"abuse".
It's a fine psychological point, I'll grant you, but one that will
encourage a resolution to the problem.
George Crissman
>In article <uveinuo10pguegc89...@4ax.com>, George Crissman wrote:
>> I like the idea, but would change the name to
>> news.admin.blocklist.email
>news.admin.* is for topics related to Usenet administration - the fact that
>news.admin.net-abuse.email is located under news.* at all is really a
>historical accident, resulting from the fact that keeping related groups
>together is arguably more important than precise categorisation.
Good point. If there was a net.admin.* hierarchy instead of a
news.admin.* hierarchy, I'd be more comfortable changing my
suggestion to something like:
net.admin.blocklist.email
However, I am not about to propose such a change without
knowing there would be any other net.* categories likely to
occur. Possible groups (I'm NOT proposing these!):
net.admin.routing # Issues related to connectivity
net.admin.reliability # Hardware uptime concerns
net.admin.security # Addressing unintentional and
premeditated attacks
net.admin.training # Educational issues for admins
net.admin.os.* # OS-specific admin issues
Are there other groups that duplicate these suggestions?
Either way, (news.admin.blocklist.email or
net.admin.blocklist.email) the suggestion avoids the
word "abuse" (which is implied in the concept of
"blocklist"), which will make it psychologically
easier for the confused admin to check in for
help and advice.
>Since the proposed group is very closely related to nanae, it should be
>placed accordingly.
With the success of blocklists for email and irc (as noted
elsewhere in this thread), usage is likely to grow and
include other services as well.
If the concept comes under fire, a group such as
news.admin.blocklist.legal.discuss or
net.admin.blocklist.legal.discuss
... would fit nicely into the hierarchy.
>The proposed name was my suggestion, but I could be
>convinced that news.admin.net-abuse.blocklists would be appropriate. My
>argument against it would be that DNSBLs are very much a response
>specifically to email abuse (even if the lists are then used to deny
>access to other services); for example, the IRC networks have been blocking
>proxies for a long time, but have not (to my knowledge) until recently
>taken to publishing the info in DNSBL form.
There is a possibility that blocklists may morph from a DNSBL
form to some other form, given the varying nature of each
service that may adopt the practice in the future. More to the
point, an increasing public awareness will concentrate more
on the blocking than on the service being blocked. As such,
the "blocklist" concept becomes much more important than
the service itself (email, irc, ftp, web), leading to:
news.admin.blocklist.email
news.admin.blocklist.irc
Kathy Morgan
> Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is not
> allowed.
I think an exception should be made for crossposts that include
news.announce.newgroups, in case there is someday an RFD that would
affect news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists.
In fact, having seen the inadvertent affects of a moderated newsgroup
not allowing any crossposts, I would much prefer to see wording
something like:
Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is
not generally allowed, but it may occasionally be permitted on a
case-by-case basis at the discretion of the moderators if
appropriate followups are set.
Like some of the other posters, I feel that PGP and other small binary
signatures should be specifically permitted.
> - Moderators can be added to the team by a 2/3 majority vote,
of sitting moderators ^^^
> and removed from the moderation team by unanimous consent of all
> other moderators.
You need to clarify who is allowed to vote on adding moderators; I
presume you intend that only the existing moderators can vote on adding
a member.
This is a group I would subscribe to. I'm interested in NANAE issues,
but I just don't have time to keep up with the traffic there; a
moderated subset would be much easier to handle.
--
Kathy
visit news:news.groups.reviews to read reviews of other newsgroups
help for new users of newsgroups at <http://www.aptalaska.net/~kmorgan/>
Good Net Keeping Seal of Approval at <http://www.gnksa.org/>
OE-quotefix can fix OE: <http://jump.to//oe-quotefix>
John David Galt
> The increasing use of dns-based blocklists (DNSBL), right-hand side
> blocklists (RHSBL), and other methods of propagating and querying a
> list to block unwanted network traffic, often unsolicited bulk email,
> commonly known as "spam," has given rise to the need for a group
> specifically devoted to discussion of topics related to their use, and
> to the results of their use. Current forums in which discussions of
> these topics are held attract many contributors whose strong dislike of
> spam and its perpetrators results in the drowning out of more
> quietly-stated views with which they may be in disagreement.
>
> news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists will exist as an alternative
> forum where interested parties may exchange views and information in a
> civil manner.
I'm all in favor. In fact, I would like to see all of n.a.n-a.* become
moderated or at least retromoderated, mostly to block the sporgery-flood
attacks and the assholes who insist that all moderation is censorship.
John David Galt
>> (You might also want to allow crossposting to news.answers.)
ba...@dmcom.net wrote:
> Bad idea IMO, n.a is also moderated and posting discussions of abuse
> does not belong there. n.a is basically for FAQs.
That's true, but you seem to be missing the point. The only effect of
allowing crossposting to n.a would be to make it possible for n.a.n-a.e.b
to have its own FAQ(s), posted to both itself and n.a.
ba...@dmcom.net
*nods* I forgot that asspect and that did not appear clear to me that
was the intent. If the group has an FAQ, I do wonder of the value of
posting that to n.a . From what I have seen it appears very few read
the FAQs even when posted to the group. I can only picture masocists
reading n.a's every post, though with faster connections scaning for
group name might serve a few users.
IAE the one sudjestion of the moderators allowing certain cross posts
does make sense, the FAQ to n.a an RFD to n.a.n, n.g , (etc.) and
perhaps other groups where the moderators would consider proper to
x-post to.
Sebastian Brocks
> Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is
> not generally allowed, but it may occasionally be permitted on a
> case-by-case basis at the discretion of the moderators if
> appropriate followups are set.
>
> Like some of the other posters, I feel that PGP and other small binary
> signatures should be specifically permitted.
>
I fully agree on both points.
--
How to Remove Linux and Install Windows 2000 or Windows NT:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q247/8/04.asp
Larry M. Smith
(snipage)
>
> There is a possibility that blocklists may morph from a DNSBL
> form to some other form, given the varying nature of each
> service that may adopt the practice in the future. More to the
> point, an increasing public awareness will concentrate more
> on the blocking than on the service being blocked. As such,
> the "blocklist" concept becomes much more important than
> the service itself (email, irc, ftp, web), leading to:
> news.admin.blocklist.email
> news.admin.blocklist.irc
>
I would tend to disagree. I believe that it is a more important issue
of the policy of listing, as opposed to the service that is using a list.
For instance, there are a number of open-proxy blocklists that are being
used to deny traffic to both email and IRC. One could also believe that
if abuse of web pages continues, they may start using them.
Hypothetically one could also wire an open-proxy DNSBL into a NNRP
server.
Also, blocklists do not have to be DNS based. MAPS RBL[sm] is available
as a BGP feed.
Personally I would rather see .blocklists under NANA and not NANAE
because of some of these issues that affect a much wider range of
network traffic.
SgtChains
Larry M. Smith
(snipage)
>
> If abusive techniques continue to proliferate -- and never
> underestimate the cleverness of others -- having an expandable
> hierarchy is going to be important.
>
Could not n.a.n-a.blocklists then be expanded? As long as it didn't
fall somewhere under n.a.n-a.email.
(snipage)
>
>
> One key part of my suggested category news.admin.blocklist.*
> is that it omits the word "abuse" (which is implied in the need for
> a blocklist). Admins with enforced, strong anti-abuse policies
> who nevertheless find themselves blocked will be more likely to
> look for help in a group about "blocklists" than a group about
> "abuse".
>
With some news site advertising that they carry 90,000+ news groups, its
amazing that anyone finds news.admin.* at all.
> It's a fine psychological point, I'll grant you, but one that will
> encourage a resolution to the problem.
>
Perhaps, perhaps not. My current thought is to group *.blocklists
somewhere close to the current discussion.
SgtChains
Larry M. Smith
(snipage)
>
> I'm all in favor. In fact, I would like to see all of n.a.n-a.* become
> moderated or at least retromoderated, mostly to block the sporgery-flood
> attacks and the assholes who insist that all moderation is censorship.
Personally, I feel that if someone was to issue NoCeM notices
specifically for sporgery-floods it would help more.
SgtChains
Jim Riley
<str...@tmisnet.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 13:59:05 -0500, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 19:05:44 UTC, adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com>
>>wrote:
>>> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>>The name suggests that it might contain lists rather than discussion
>>of listing. If it were found useful to distribute such lists via
>>Usenet, what would the group be called?
>Generally, the lists are openly available from the list maintainer
>and updated "frequently" (sometimes "constantly") which would
>make distribution by Usenet unwise. Posted lists would always
>be out-of-date.
The issue is the name of the group. Customary Usenet practice has
been to use "list" in the name of a group to indicate that the group
contains lists of data. For example, the largest volume Big 8 group,
news.lists.filters, contains constantly updated data used to curb
net-abuse.
--
Jim Riley
Brian Mailman
Retro-moderation doesn't work. Too many sites don't accept cancels any
longer.
B/
Erik Max Francis
> Retro-moderation doesn't work. Too many sites don't accept cancels
> any
> longer.
And even if they did, retromoderation would have to be very prompt to
prevent significant numbers of subscribers from reader the cancelled
messages. It's really an ineffective method, all things considered.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ There is _never_ no hope left. Remember.
\__/ Louis Wu
HardScience.info / http://www.hardscience.info/
The best hard science Web sites that the Web has to offer.
adam brower
Sebastian Brocks wrote:
>
> kmo...@spamcop.net (Kathy Morgan) wrote:
>
> > Cross-posting articles to news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists is
> > not generally allowed, but it may occasionally be permitted on a
> > case-by-case basis at the discretion of the moderators if
> > appropriate followups are set.
> >
> > Like some of the other posters, I feel that PGP and other small binary
> > signatures should be specifically permitted.
> >
>
> I fully agree on both points.
both of these make sense to me as well, and
i'll see about including them in a
revision.
by the way, i am adamAThermes-grp.com, using
my yahoo addy in what is probably a vain
attempt to foil the scrapers, since the
cat is already out of the bag.
adam
--
John David Galt
> *nods* I forgot that asspect and that did not appear clear to me that
> was the intent. If the group has an FAQ, I do wonder of the value of
> posting that to n.a . From what I have seen it appears very few read
> the FAQs even when posted to the group. I can only picture masocists
> reading n.a's every post, though with faster connections scaning for
> group name might serve a few users.
I don't think anyone reads news.answers or any of the other *.answers groups
like a regular newsgroup. I believe those groups exist in order to make it
possible to search for a FAQ on subject x. Of course, you could get that
feature just by getting your FAQ archived at ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/, if you
prefer.
Jon Bell
John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
>I don't think anyone reads news.answers or any of the other *.answers groups
>like a regular newsgroup. I believe those groups exist in order to make it
>possible to search for a FAQ on subject x.
For example, at <http://www.faqs.org/> which provides a Web-based front
end to an archive of *.answers.
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
Joe Jared
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>
Seems like a waste of time, if you ask me.
ba...@dmcom.net
>
> In article <3D7C262E...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>,
> John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> >I don't think anyone reads news.answers or any of the other *.answers groups
> >like a regular newsgroup. I believe those groups exist in order to make it
> >possible to search for a FAQ on subject x.
>
> For example, at <http://www.faqs.org/> which provides a Web-based front
> end to an archive of *.answers.
>
Well they could if they would reply to emails. I could place four with
them (two updated and two new ones)
Jay Denebeim
George Crissman <str...@tmisnet.com> wrote:
>net.admin.routing # Issues related to connectivity
net.* is already it's being used by 'usenet2'.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Either way, (news.admin.blocklist.email or
>net.admin.blocklist.email) the suggestion avoids the
>word "abuse" (which is implied in the concept of
>"blocklist"), which will make it psychologically
>easier for the confused admin to check in for
>help and advice.
I disagree with not including "abuse" in the name. Implication
in a name is often synonymous with unlocatable. "Blocklist" is
too specific a term. An admin looking for a group where he might
find out why his service is mysteriously not getting traffic
continuity is going to check for keywords like "abuse", and
particularly "net-abuse" if he is an experienced usenet admin,
before he thinks of checking for "blocklist". For all he knows,
the problem has nothing to do with blocklists, rather something
like a UDP.
Stating it another way, I think the jump in concepts from
"admin" to "blocklists" is too big, and that an intermediate
"abuse" node should be there.
>>Since the proposed group is very closely related to nanae, it should be
>>placed accordingly.
>With the success of blocklists for email and irc (as noted
>elsewhere in this thread), usage is likely to grow and
>include other services as well.
This I agree with. It's not clear to me right now if blocklists
haven't already expanded quite a ways beyond e-mail. "Blocklists"
should be considered a more general concept than as a subtopic
of email abuse. I just think it is an abuse subtopic and should
be placed accordingly.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 13:59:05 -0500, Jim Riley <jim...@pipeline.com>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 19:05:44 UTC, adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com>
>>wrote:
>>> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>>The name suggests that it might contain lists rather than discussion
>>of listing. If it were found useful to distribute such lists via
>>Usenet, what would the group be called?
>Generally, the lists are openly available from the list maintainer
>and updated "frequently" (sometimes "constantly") which would
>make distribution by Usenet unwise. Posted lists would always
>be out-of-date.
I think you missed his point. The name suggests that the group
is for posting blocklists and thus people will go there thinking
that and asking "where are the lists?" and regulars will say
"that's not what this group is for" and on and on. Perhaps
the last node should be something like "blocklisting" rather
than "blocklists".
>>>The increasing use of dns-based blocklists (DNSBL), right-hand side
>>>blocklists (RHSBL), and other methods of propagating and querying a
>>>list to block unwanted network traffic, often unsolicited bulk email,
>>
>>This makes it sounds like blocklists have a variety of uses, even if
>>at present they are primarily used to curb email abuse.
>Just pondering out loud here -- and demonstrating my ignorance
>at the same time -- but if ping storms become popular, it may
>be necessary to create a blocklist to ignore ping requests from
>a certain IP address or block.
[snip other non-email examples]
I'm pretty sure you missed his point here. It reads to me
that he's also suggesting that this group NOT be under the
e-mail group. His suggestion, though, was that it be a peer
of the e-mail abuse group.
George Crissman
wrote:
>adam brower <ad...@hermes-grp.com> wrote in message news:<10313391...@isc.org>...
>
>>
>> The nature of the topic is such that expressions of anger and
>> frustration are expected, but unwarranted generalisations and
>> non-productive displays of pique, however elegantly worded, will be
>> rejected at the discretion of the moderators.
>>
>
>Too vague. Looks like a license for arbitrary censorship. Any
>objection may be deemed "non-productive" since advocates of
>blocklisting are, well, advocates. It is non-productive to try to
>persuade advocates to changge their behhavior- objections may be
>censored on that basis.
>
>If the goal is to create a group in which only orthodox views are
>permitted, only the faithful may post, OK. Just say so.
I think this is an effort to provide a postive, supporting environment
for people who find themselves blocked, and don't know why, and
can't quite seem to understand the FAQ at the blocklist or the wording
of the bounce message.
People who want to blow steam, invoke godwin, and generally carry
on will still be able to get torqued here in nanae.
John David Galt
> I think you missed his point. The name suggests that the group
> is for posting blocklists and thus people will go there thinking
> that and asking "where are the lists?" and regulars will say
> "that's not what this group is for" and on and on. Perhaps
> the last node should be something like "blocklisting" rather
> than "blocklists".
I had the impression that both types of posts would be acceptable. If
this is not true, maybe news.admin.policy.blocklisting would be a better
name for the group.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
Yeah, I think you're right, both lists and discussions should be
acceptable. I was a bit extreme there.
Jim Seymour
George Crissman <str...@tmisnet.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> I think this is an effort to provide a postive, supporting environment
> for people who find themselves blocked, and don't know why, and
> can't quite seem to understand the FAQ at the blocklist or the wording
> of the bounce message.
Precisely. Couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> People who want to blow steam, invoke godwin, and generally carry
> on will still be able to get torqued here in nanae.
Indeed.
Regards,
Jim
--
Jim Seymour | "Some of the lies are so strange it
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | makes you wonder about the spammer's
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | sanity."
2...@cluestick.org | - Ed Foster, "The Gripe Line" 6/24/02
Mr. Uh Clem
> be able to freely discuss the flaws of SPEWS and trying to fix that
> flaw.
>
> Hawkeye-X
Yes, why?? The moderated aspect or the concept of moving the
all the "why am I blocked??", same cascade happens every time,
threads out of nanae. Just an unmoderated .spews would be a great
help, but of course should be generic, not spews specific.
Someone in nanae commented that they wouldn't be able to read
all the spews threads, etc. if it was split off. Of course they
can, just read the new group and nanae. But that does let those
of us who DON'T want to read all these threads a way to more finely
pick the content we do want to read. Nanae is too much to keep
up with as it stands and getting the spews-like post out seems like
the most straightforward thing to do, moderated or not.
--
Clem
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
- Fudd's first law of opposition
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote, in news.groups:
>On 7 Sep 2002 05:15:45 GMT, ke...@uppitychick.net (kelly) wrote:
>>In addition to Jim's point, it's important to note that if one's
>>network resource is listed in some of the more popular blocklists, one
>>_cannot_ contact the maintainer. The FAQ directs the listee to post in
>>nanae. This causes some naive listees to post in nanae asking
>>questions and looking for constructive advice, and get a response not
>>unlike being set upon and dismembered by ravenous, scrufulous wolves.
>>This does nothing to enlighten the listee, and the listee has no other
>>place to turn for discussion. It's not *only* that there are flame
>>fests, but that people need assistance and advice and do not get them
>>in the absence of moderation.
>>
>>It is hoped that a moderated group will facilitate a more reasonable
>>dialogue between listees and the antispam community.
>
>This is, by far, the best reason for the new group. Unrelated service
>providers who get placed in spam-soiled netblocks by their upstream
>provider will sometimes find themselves blocked. It is confusing to
>them, and requires a gentler touch than n.a.n-a.e provides to provide
>the appropriate information and assistance.
In that case, why not just call it news.admin.blocklisting. after
the example set by news.admin.nocem?
Henrietta K. Thomas
hk...@earthlink.net
George Crissman
>George Crissman <str...@tmisnet.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 13:59:05 -0500, Jim Riley wrote:
>>>On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 19:05:44 UTC, adam brower wrote:
>>>> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>>>The name suggests that it might contain lists rather than discussion
>>>of listing. If it were found useful to distribute such lists via
>>>Usenet, what would the group be called?
>>Generally, the lists are openly available from the list maintainer
>>and updated "frequently" (sometimes "constantly") which would
>>make distribution by Usenet unwise. Posted lists would always
>>be out-of-date.
>I think you missed his point.
Yes, I believe I did.
> The name suggests that the group
>is for posting blocklists and thus people will go there thinking
>that and asking "where are the lists?" and regulars will say
>"that's not what this group is for" and on and on. Perhaps
>the last node should be something like "blocklisting" rather
>than "blocklists".
I'm for simpler and shorter ... would you be interested in
news.admin.block.email or
net.admin.block email ?
>>>>The increasing use of dns-based blocklists (DNSBL), right-hand side
>>>>blocklists (RHSBL), and other methods of propagating and querying a
>>>>list to block unwanted network traffic, often unsolicited bulk email,
>>>
>>>This makes it sounds like blocklists have a variety of uses, even if
>>>at present they are primarily used to curb email abuse.
>
>>Just pondering out loud here -- and demonstrating my ignorance
>>at the same time -- but if ping storms become popular, it may
>>be necessary to create a blocklist to ignore ping requests from
>>a certain IP address or block.
>[snip other non-email examples]
>
>I'm pretty sure you missed his point here. It reads to me
>that he's also suggesting that this group NOT be under the
>e-mail group. His suggestion, though, was that it be a peer
>of the e-mail abuse group.
In this case, I believe I am expanding on his point
"blocklists have a variety of uses" by offering additional
examples. This would justify having the service (email, irc,
web, ftp, etc.) /after/ the "block" in the newsgroup name.
I am not happy with
news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists because
a) it is unnecessarily long,
b) it is shown as a subset of email, yet the blocking concept
spans many services,
c) blocking, by itself, is not net-abuse but is a response to
net-abuse. Discussion in the newsgroup will center on
abuse of the service.
George Crissman
>References set to <10313391...@isc.org>
>Followups set to news.groups
>
>Just in case you missed the first post, because of the sporgeries,
>cancel storms, or just didn't have time to read all of nanae the day it
>was originally posted.
>
>Discussion is still on going in news.groups, about the RFD for
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists as a moderated newsgroup.
>
>Digest of some of the topics to date.
>
>* Should news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists be a differant name?
>* Current uses of blocklists, not just for email.
>* Should the charter's restriction on binary files exempt pgp signatures?
>* Some formating issues of the RFD.
>* Possible changes to the cross-posting policy of the groups charter.
The discussions are occuring at a high level with respectful
participation by all involved. This is a chance to make life
a bit easier for us in nanae as well as for newly-involved
admins who find themselves blocked and need a helping-hand
to "get up to speed" on their particular problems.
Please take a few moments to visit news.groups to read the
>Subject: RFD: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists moderated
thread, if only to say "I'd vote (yes/no) on this proposal
because...". A wide range of input will ensure the resulting new
group will best meet the needs of all concerned.
Morely I was SPEWS last week Dotes
>
>I don't want to repeat a complaint I've made about a lot of other groups, but
>I think I will anyway. Shouldn't the restriction on binary files exempt
>small binaries like PGP signatures?
Yes.
>(You might also want to allow crossposting to news.answers.)
With a FUP set, yes.
--
Want SPEWS-filtered and SBL-filtered email?
http://www.spamblocked.com/index.html
Fight spam! Help Joey McNichol!
http://t3-v-mcnicol.ilaw.com.au/
Morely I was SPEWS last week Dotes
>
>George Crissman <str...@tmisnet.com> wrote:
>
>>news.admin.blocklist.email
>
>>to allow for likely future expansion such as
>>news.admin.blocklist.web
>>news.admin.blocklist.usenet
>>news.admin.blocklist.ftp
>>etc.
>
>Interesting point. I know that BL exist or can exist locally
>for those already, though they probably aren't thought of
>as such. I've never considered DNSBL sites for anything else,
>but do folks make use of them for these other modes already?
No good reason one couldn't set up an ACL using a (or several) DNSbl(s).
Other than the work involved, of course.
Morely I was SPEWS last week Dotes
>
>In article <dllknu052145vsvj5...@4ax.com>,
>George Crissman <str...@tmisnet.com> wrote:
>
>>net.admin.routing # Issues related to connectivity
>
>net.* is already it's being used by 'usenet2'.
Which 2 guys are using that? ];-)
Morely I was SPEWS last week Dotes
>
>I'm all in favor. In fact, I would like to see all of n.a.n-a.* become
>moderated or at least retromoderated, mostly to block the sporgery-flood
>attacks and the assholes who insist that all moderation is censorship.
It would be more effective to de-peer all news servers owned by Wanadoo and
Interbusiness, along with most of Roadrunner.
Now we're OT, where does this belong? NANAU - FUP set.
Morely I was SPEWS last week Dotes
>
>Like some of the other posters, I feel that PGP and other small binary
>signatures should be specifically permitted.
PGP, GPG, and other verification-type sigs, yes. .VCFs, definitely not.
Morely I was SPEWS last week Dotes
>
>The name suggests that it might contain lists rather than discussion
>of listing. If it were found useful to distribute such lists via
>Usenet, what would the group be called?
alt.binaries.dnsbls.zonefiles
Jagnj
>References set to <10313391...@isc.org>
>Followups set to news.groups
>
>Just in case you missed the first post, because of the sporgeries,
>cancel storms, or just didn't have time to read all of nanae the day it
>was originally posted.
>
>Discussion is still on going in news.groups, about the RFD for
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists as a moderated newsgroup.
>
>Digest of some of the topics to date.
>
>* Should news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists be a differant name?
Blacklist has too many bad connotations, imho, and overstates the
purpose of the lists. Blocklist is too easy to misquote as blacklist.
So for both accuracy & public relations reasons a better name seems
necessary.
Of sending, receiving, and relaying, these lists are only used for
rejecting mail from the listees. The point needs to be made that a
listing is not even comparable to an E-Mail Death Penalty, much MUCH
less an Internet Death Penalty. This would also help open the way
to smaller increments of escalation of blocking sending to, and refusing
to relay email for, a listed IPA.
A name like news.admin.abuse.email.refuse-lists would help bring
this out. It would also leave open the possibility of using the lists
for refusing to send mail to listed IPAs, as well as refusing to
relay e-mail to or from listed IPAs.
Jagnj
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:00:15 -0500, "Larry M. Smith" <SgtC...@chickenboner.com> wrote:
>>* Should news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists be a differant name?
> Blacklist has too many bad connotations, imho, and overstates the
>purpose of the lists. Blocklist is too easy to misquote as blacklist.
>So for both accuracy & public relations reasons a better name seems
>necessary.
However, "blocklist" seems to me to be the defacto technical
term for the subject in question, and pretty succinctly
describes it. I think trying to steer away from it for the
sake of being PC is going too far. On the otherhand, if
someone comes up with a more general term (see discussion
below) that describes the topic, I wouldn't necessarily
object to it.
Looking at it another way, I don't think the term "blacklist"
overstates the purpose of the lists at all. The listed sources
are basically on folks' list of "places we want nothing to do with",
and that pretty much defines "blacklist". Blacklist, blocklist,
shitlist, it all comes back to that.
> Of sending, receiving, and relaying, these lists are only used for
>rejecting mail from the listees.
I don't think that's this is the "only" way it's used. But more
to the point, it is conceivable that BL can be used in a wider
scope, or that discussions of similar mechanisms would fall
within the scope of this topic. It is a mistake to narrow the
view to e-mail-only.
>The point needs to be made that a
>listing is not even comparable to an E-Mail Death Penalty, much MUCH
>less an Internet Death Penalty. This would also help open the way
>to smaller increments of escalation of blocking sending to, and refusing
>to relay email for, a listed IPA.
> A name like news.admin.abuse.email.refuse-lists would help bring
>this out. It would also leave open the possibility of using the lists
>for refusing to send mail to listed IPAs, as well as refusing to
>relay e-mail to or from listed IPAs.
I think "refuse" is even less applicable than "block", and both
are actually quite inaccurate with respect to the use of these
lists. Typically, a refusal involves a response, and it is
not clear to me a blocked message gets bounced right back or
that some sort of refusal message gets sent back. It can be,
but it doesn't always (almost never does). The message probably
either gets dropped on the floor (blocked) or gets passed on,
maybe tagged as spam, maybe not. For the latter, the term
"blocked" is inaccurate, but it is probably more accurate in
use than "refused". Perhaps we will start seeing more refusal
responses, and thus "refuse" would be more accurate, but even
the previous description describes blocking actions, limited
or not, rather than refusal actions.
And really, the intention of these lists is to give the user a
means of identifying possibly bad sources mostly for the purpose
of dropping messages from them into a bit bucket. Regardless of
intent, the purpose of the lists is to try to identify sources
of "network service abusers". If someone can come up with a
commonly used term that indicates this, toss it in here.
On a more humorous note, I point out that in some parts of the
world, the noun "refuse" commonly means "trash" or "garbage".
That's ok in this case because it's refuse we're trying to get
rid of anyways.
Kelly Molloy
>
>Jagnj <invalid@invalid> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:00:15 -0500, "Larry M. Smith"
<SgtC...@chickenboner.com> wrote:
>
>>>* Should news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists be a differant name?
>
>> Blacklist has too many bad connotations, imho, and overstates the
>>purpose of the lists. Blocklist is too easy to misquote as blacklist.
>>So for both accuracy & public relations reasons a better name seems
>>necessary.
>
>However, "blocklist" seems to me to be the defacto technical
>term for the subject in question, and pretty succinctly
>describes it. I think trying to steer away from it for the
>sake of being PC is going too far. On the otherhand, if
>someone comes up with a more general term (see discussion
>below) that describes the topic, I wouldn't necessarily
>object to it.
Sometimes blocklists are called advisory lists. See the SBL
<http://www.spamhaus.org> for an example.
--
Kelly Molloy (Thompson) Anti-spam consulting, inquire within
ke...@uppitychick.net
Toni Lassila
wrote:
>Why? Maybe some input from you could be useful. I just need .spews to
>be able to freely discuss the flaws of SPEWS and trying to fix that
>flaw.
No, you don't need a group for that. You can freely discuss SPEWS in
nanae or spam-l or other forums where it's on-topic, but you will have
to live with the flames you get.
The idea was not to create a moderated nanae, but rather a specific
place for sorting out blocklist based confusion (i.e. "Why am I on
blocklist x?"). The moderation should only serve the purpose of limiting
the amount of times the same things are repeated in each thread and the
pointless flaming back and forth, as well as to protect against the
constant Hipcrime floods.
--
Whenever you got business trouble the best thing to do is to get a lawyer.
Then you got more trouble, but at least you got a lawyer.
Toni Lassila
wrote:
>adam brower wrote:
I sort of agree. Most of the SPEWS related threads are easy to filter
out, and they are relevant to nanae. I might not like all topics that
frequently emerge in the groups I follow, but I still don't demand a
newgroup for all such topics.
But more disturbing is the notion that a bunch of moderators unrelated
to SPEWS are dictating what views and notions about a certain SPEWS
listing are acceptable. For example, what happens if the only the
non-critical (towards the listee, that is) posts about SPEWS listings
are accepted, but SPEWS decides not to remove the listing for one reason
or another. What is the listee supposed to think when all he hears is
"looks like you're clean" but the listing stays? By having a moderated
group for pleading your way out of anonymous blocklists like SPEWS gives
out a false message of authority by the group moderators. What happens
when a SPEWS listee sends a flaming, scathing post in all-caps which
still points a genuine error in the listing, and the moderators reject
it?
How long until someone will attempt to sue the group moderators for
restraint of trade or some such? What if SPEWS doesn't direct the
complainers to the new group in the first place?
George Crissman
>References set to <10313391...@isc.org>
>Followups set to news.groups
>
>Just in case you missed the first post, because of the sporgeries,
>cancel storms, or just didn't have time to read all of nanae the day it
>was originally posted.
>
>Discussion is still on going in news.groups, about the RFD for
>news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists as a moderated newsgroup.
>
>Digest of some of the topics to date.
>
>* Should the charter's restriction on binary files exempt pgp signatures?
>* Some formating issues of the RFD.
>* Possible changes to the cross-posting policy of the groups charter.
The discussions are occuring at a high level with respectful
participation by all involved. This is a chance to make life
a bit easier for us in nanae as well as for newly-involved
admins who find themselves blocked and need a helping-hand
to "get up to speed" on their particular problems.
Please take a few moments to visit news.groups to read the
>Subject: RFD: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists moderated
thread, if only to say "I'd vote (yes/no) on this proposal
because...". A wide range of input will ensure the resulting new
group will best meet the needs of all concerned.
George Crissman
str...@tmisnet.com
Lumber Cartel, Diego: http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/tinlc/
Pandora Consolidated: http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/pandora.html
S.1618, Section.301: http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/murk.html
Your total spam cost: http://www.tmisnet.com/~strads/spam/costcalc.html
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: nntp.cts.com!galanthis.cts.com!newspeer.cts.com!sfo2-feed1.news.algx.net!allegiance!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!giga-nspixp2!nntp-egw.ocn.ad.jp!nn1.news.ocn.ad.jp!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: George Crissman <str...@tmisnet.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Cancel "Re: Reminder RFD is still on going for new moderated group dealing with blocklists."
Control: cancel <dtmsnukimc4pchiuu...@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 07:46:22 GMT
Organization: NTT Communications Co.(OCN)
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <bxoqunzkua8cbbdni...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ns.daizen.ne.jp
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: nn-tk104.ocn.ad.jp 1031744069 27521 218.44.150.178 (11 Sep 2002 11:34:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@ocn.ad.jp
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Sep 2002 11:34:29 GMT
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0b11 (PPC)
Article <dtmsnukimc4pchiuu...@4ax.com> cancelled from tin [UNIX (Linux/2.4.0-test11 (i486))]
Tim Skirvin
>Since the proposed group is very closely related to nanae, it should be
>placed accordingly. The proposed name was my suggestion, but I could be
>convinced that news.admin.net-abuse.blocklists would be appropriate.
I would agree with this name. Or 'blacklists'.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/resume.html Skirv's Resume
ba...@dmcom.net
>
>
> MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>
> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
> Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
group?
Taki Kogoma
to news.groups decree...
>The idea was not to create a moderated nanae, but rather a specific
>place for sorting out blocklist based confusion (i.e. "Why am I on
>blocklist x?"). The moderation should only serve the purpose of limiting
>the amount of times the same things are repeated in each thread and the
>pointless flaming back and forth, as well as to protect against the
>constant Hipcrime floods.
Since Dippy's been known to bypass moderation in the past, it won't
necessarily help against his tantrums.
Gym "And his pet open proxy farms won't give damn about bypassed
moderation anyway." Quirk
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Jay Denebeim
>adam brower wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>>
>> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
>> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
>> Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
>> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
>> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
>> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
>> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
>> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
>
>
>No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
>and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
>group?
Uh yeah. I know most of them, and given that list I'm surprised I
wasn't asked to be on it. They're all sane, stable, anti-spammers,
very well known ones in fact.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Graham Drabble
> adam brower wrote:
>> MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>>
>> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
>> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
>> Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
>> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
>> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
>> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
>> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
>> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
>
>
> No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
> and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
> group?
I recognise Scott as one of the moderators of sci.space.*. Don't know
about how much experience anyone else has.
--
Graham Drabble
If you're interested in what goes on in other groups or want to find
an interesting group to read then check news.groups.reviews for what
others have to say or contribute a review for others to read.
Russ Allbery
> adam brower wrote:
>> MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
>> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
>> Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
>> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
>> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
>> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
>> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
>> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
> No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
> and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
> group?
Yes, you can't get much better than that in the net-abuse space. I
personaly recognize all of:
Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
and can vouch for their abililty to conduct themselves well as moderators,
and Scott has more moderation experience than the vast majority of
newsgroup moderators.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Morely I was SPEWS last week Dotes
>>
>>No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
>>and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
>>group?
>
>Uh yeah. I know most of them, and given that list I'm surprised I
>wasn't asked to be on it. They're all sane, stable,
Aha! There's the answer!
[GDR]
Morely I was SPEWS last week Dotes
>>
>> MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>>
>> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
>> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
>> Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
>> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
>> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
>> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
>> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
>> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
>
>
>No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
>and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
>group?
I don't know Matt, but I'd trust any of the rest of them with my credit card,
wife, cats, car, and network. Possibly even my girlfriends. Actually, I might
know Matt under another nom de plume, for that matter.
Tim Skirvin
>> MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
>> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
>> Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
>> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
>> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
>> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
>> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
>> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
>No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
>and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
>group?
I've been out of the loop for a while, but I still recognize and
greatly respect several of the people on the list. If it's moderated,
it'll be in good hands.
I'm not sure moderation is the best idea, though, at least not at
this stage. I'd make a whole .bl[oa]acklists hierarchy eventually, and
have most of it unmoderated, just like the nana.* hierarchy. But that's
just me.
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
--
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/ Skirv's Homepage <FISH>< <*>
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/history/ Skirv's History
adam brower
Tim Skirvin wrote:
>
> ba...@dmcom.net writes:
>
> >> MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
> >> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
> >> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
> >> Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
> >> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
> >> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
> >> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
> >> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
> >> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
> >No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
> >and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
> >group?
>
> I've been out of the loop for a while, but I still recognize and
> greatly respect several of the people on the list. If it's moderated,
> it'll be in good hands.
>
> I'm not sure moderation is the best idea, though, at least not at
> this stage. I'd make a whole .bl[oa]acklists hierarchy eventually, and
> have most of it unmoderated, just like the nana.* hierarchy. But that's
> just me.
>
thanks for the kind words wrt the proposed
moderation team.
it's proposed as a moderated group for reasons
which will be clearer in the *new, improved*
rationale now in process. i hope you'll find
a minute to read it and possibly update your
opinion of moderation in this instance.
(obviously the moderation issue is a very
sensitive one.)
consideration is being given to
news.admin.net-abuse.blocklist.email
or something along those lines, to allow for later exapansion
of the heirarchy into other applications of blocklisting,
as suggested also by some other correspondents.
adam
--
adam brower
Toni Lassila wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:14:40 -0700, Joe Jared <joej...@osirusoft.com>
> wrote:
>
> >adam brower wrote:
> >>
> >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> >> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
> >
> >Seems like a waste of time, if you ask me.
>
> I sort of agree. Most of the SPEWS related threads are easy to filter
> out, and they are relevant to nanae. I might not like all topics that
> frequently emerge in the groups I follow, but I still don't demand a
> newgroup for all such topics.
>
they are relevant to nanae, it's true, but the objective
(which will be clearer in the new rfd) is to create a
forum in which newly-listed parties, abuse personnel,
and list maintainers may share and acquire information wrt
listings in bl's without having to separate out the useful bits
from expressions of pique, pasted boilerplate, and flames;
remember that many new posters are unfamiliar with usenet
in general and nanae specifically, which often leads to
bewilderment, arm-waving, and gnashing of teeth, to the
detriment of the cause, which is reducing spam.
> But more disturbing is the notion that a bunch of moderators unrelated
> to SPEWS are dictating what views and notions about a certain SPEWS
> listing are acceptable.
note that there's a clause in the charter in which
moderators are enjoined against permitting their
opinions to influence their approval of articles.
(this will be reinforced in the next revision.)
the moderators' duty is only to preserve a civil
tone, not to "censor" on content.
> For example, what happens if the only the
> non-critical (towards the listee, that is) posts about SPEWS listings
> are accepted, but SPEWS decides not to remove the listing for one reason
> or another. What is the listee supposed to think when all he hears is
> "looks like you're clean" but the listing stays? By having a moderated
> group for pleading your way out of anonymous blocklists like SPEWS gives
> out a false message of authority by the group moderators.
these points will be specifically addressed in the
revised rfd. language making clear that the forum is
not "authoritative" for any listing is being considered.
> What happens
> when a SPEWS listee sends a flaming, scathing post in all-caps which
> still points a genuine error in the listing, and the moderators reject
> it?
that's an interesting hypo. all-caps alone might
not be sufficient cause to deny a post, nor might
a lack of capitalization. :)
i suppose an abusive poster might be requested to rephrase
his article; but your question will be discussed and addressed.
>
> How long until someone will attempt to sue the group moderators for
> restraint of trade or some such? What if SPEWS doesn't direct the
> complainers to the new group in the first place?
>
i'm not certain of this, but i'd be willing to bet
that every moderated group has been accused of
"censorship." it comes with the territory.
wrt to spews suggesting the group as an alternative
to nanae, we can only hope that the charter is
well-composed enough to influence them in that
direction. failing that, posters to nanae might
be directed to the new group by correspondents
there.
thanks for your input.
adam
--
adamb...@yahoo.com is the alternative
address of a proponent of the new group.
ru.ig...@usask.ca
>Toni Lassila wrote:
>> What happens
>> when a SPEWS listee sends a flaming, scathing post in all-caps which
>> still points a genuine error in the listing, and the moderators reject
>> it?
>that's an interesting hypo. all-caps alone might
>not be sufficient cause to deny a post, nor might
>a lack of capitalization. :)
>i suppose an abusive poster might be requested to rephrase
>his article; but your question will be discussed and addressed.
I was under the impression that it is SOP to send a rejection
notice back, with the reason it was rejected. The idea usually
is so that the poster can correct the errant parts and retry
posting. It's not like rejection in newsgroup moderation has
to be final. Certainly, the rejection policy should be outlined
in the proposal.
George Crissman
<hk...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 13:06:34 -0700, George Crissman <str...@tmisnet.com>
>wrote, in news.groups:
>
>>On 7 Sep 2002 05:15:45 GMT, ke...@uppitychick.net (kelly) wrote:
>>>In addition to Jim's point, it's important to note that if one's
>>>network resource is listed in some of the more popular blocklists, one
>>>_cannot_ contact the maintainer. The FAQ directs the listee to post in
>>>nanae. This causes some naive listees to post in nanae asking
>>>questions and looking for constructive advice, and get a response not
>>>unlike being set upon and dismembered by ravenous, scrufulous wolves.
>>>This does nothing to enlighten the listee, and the listee has no other
>>>place to turn for discussion. It's not *only* that there are flame
>>>fests, but that people need assistance and advice and do not get them
>>>in the absence of moderation.
>>>
>>>It is hoped that a moderated group will facilitate a more reasonable
>>>dialogue between listees and the antispam community.
>>
>>This is, by far, the best reason for the new group. Unrelated service
>>providers who get placed in spam-soiled netblocks by their upstream
>>provider will sometimes find themselves blocked. It is confusing to
>>them, and requires a gentler touch than n.a.n-a.e provides to provide
>>the appropriate information and assistance.
>
>In that case, why not just call it news.admin.blocklisting. after
>the example set by news.admin.nocem?
>
>Henrietta K. Thomas
>hk...@earthlink.net
I'd vote for that.
Mr. Uh Clem
...
>
> I'm not sure moderation is the best idea, though, at least not at
> this stage. I'd make a whole .bl[oa]acklists hierarchy eventually, and
> have most of it unmoderated, just like the nana.* hierarchy. But that's
> just me.
>
> - Tim Skirvin (tski...@killfile.org)
I don't care if it is moderated or not, I'd just like to see the
spews & other blocklist traffic cut out of NANAE so I don't have
to see it. Those that want it all can subscribe to both groups.
--
Clem
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
- Fudd's first law of opposition
George Crissman
wrote:
>In article <3D7F66...@dmcom.net>, <ba...@dmcom.net> wrote:
>>adam brower wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> MODERATOR INFO: news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
>>>
>>> Moderator: Kelly Molloy <ke...@uppitychick.net>
>>> Moderator: David Romerstein <mode...@romerstein.dynodns.net>
>>> Moderator: Jim Seymour <nanae...@LinxNet.com>
>>> Moderator: Matt Tway <b...@rscubed.com>
>>> Moderator: Larry M. Smith <SgtC...@fahq2.org>
>>> Moderator: Scott Hazen Mueller <sc...@zorch.sf-bay.org>
>>> Moderator: Dave Lugo <dl...@etherboy.com>
>>> Moderator: WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com>
>>
>>
>>No dispespect intended. Does anybody know these proposed moderators
>>and/or have an opinion on how well they would moderate the proposed
>>group?
>
>Uh yeah. I know most of them, and given that list I'm surprised I
>wasn't asked to be on it. They're all sane, stable, anti-spammers,
>very well known ones in fact.
>
>Jay
Well, maybe with one exception, but I'm pretty sure that
would be my opinion only. I recognize four names on the
list from frequent postings in nanae that are level-headed
and civil.
brad.madison
- I am not a participant.
adam brower wrote:
>
> Toni Lassila wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 08 Sep 2002 22:14:40 -0700, Joe Jared <joej...@osirusoft.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >adam brower wrote:
> > >>
> > >> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> > >> moderated group news.admin.net-abuse.email.blocklists
> > >
> > >Seems like a waste of time, if you ask me.
> >
> > I sort of agree. Most of the SPEWS related threads are easy to filter
> > out, and they are relevant to nanae. I might not like all topics that
> > frequently emerge in the groups I follow, but I still don't demand a
> > newgroup for all such topics.
> >
>
> they are relevant to nanae, it's true, but the objective
> (which will be clearer in the new rfd) is to create a
> forum in which newly-listed parties, abuse personnel,
> and list maintainers may share and acquire information wrt
> listings in bl's without having to separate out the useful bits
> from expressions of pique, pasted boilerplate, and flames;
> remember that many new posters are unfamiliar with usenet
> in general and nanae specifically, which often leads to
> bewilderment, arm-waving, and gnashing of teeth, to the
> detriment of the cause, which is reducing spam.
Well, sure, sounds great. I find many of the current assertions made in
this context to be untrue. Is the group and the moderation intended to
bolster these untruths? For example: "You aren't being blocked, your
ISP is being blocked." "All other methods have been tried and were
found not to work." "Your ISP failed to respond to a notice and the
listing has been expanded." (Implied) "A private party has the right to
block anyone in order to force action."
Whether it's truth or only appearance it looks like most who post about
SPEWS blocking are non-spammers, non-ISPs. Not in any way the guilty
parties. Ten thousand moderated newsgroups won't change that, if it's
true, nor will one. Is the effort going toward some problem or is the
effort going toward either masking a problem or perpetuating a problem?
In government they set up a "study" on an issue when they wish to duck
doing the proper thing. Is a "moderated newsgroup" a manifestation of
the same attitude?
I think Mr. Uh Clem has the right idea: get those discussions out of
NANAE. If the moderators serve as protectors of the dogma then the
discussions can't move, and Mr. Uh Clem will be disappointed.
> > But more disturbing is the notion that a bunch of moderators unrelated
> > to SPEWS are dictating what views and notions about a certain SPEWS
> > listing are acceptable.
>
> note that there's a clause in the charter in which
> moderators are enjoined against permitting their
> opinions to influence their approval of articles.
Ah, well then that clause will work, won't it? Of course there's also a
clause that says N-1 moderators can throw out 1 moderator, so the
moderators had better not step too far out of line or they are history.
What happens when it gets down to 2 moderators, though? Probably it
will never happen, but I love the comedic possibilities. It's like
Calvin & Hobbes and their club, then.
> (this will be reinforced in the next revision.)
> the moderators' duty is only to preserve a civil
> tone, not to "censor" on content.
You can't help feeling that "Spammers are flaming assholes" is more
civil than "SPEWS are flaming assholes," can you?
>
> > For example, what happens if the only the
> > non-critical (towards the listee, that is) posts about SPEWS listings
> > are accepted, but SPEWS decides not to remove the listing for one reason
> > or another. What is the listee supposed to think when all he hears is
> > "looks like you're clean" but the listing stays? By having a moderated
> > group for pleading your way out of anonymous blocklists like SPEWS gives
> > out a false message of authority by the group moderators.
>
> these points will be specifically addressed in the
> revised rfd. language making clear that the forum is
> not "authoritative" for any listing is being considered.
>
> > What happens
> > when a SPEWS listee sends a flaming, scathing post in all-caps which
> > still points a genuine error in the listing, and the moderators reject
> > it?
>
> that's an interesting hypo. all-caps alone might
> not be sufficient cause to deny a post, nor might
> a lack of capitalization. :)
The moderator's job is a thankless task. I envy none of the proposed
moderators.
> i suppose an abusive poster might be requested to rephrase
> his article; but your question will be discussed and addressed.
>
> >
> > How long until someone will attempt to sue the group moderators for
> > restraint of trade or some such? What if SPEWS doesn't direct the
> > complainers to the new group in the first place?
> >
>
> i'm not certain of this, but i'd be willing to bet
> that every moderated group has been accused of
> "censorship." it comes with the territory.
>
> wrt to spews suggesting the group as an alternative
> to nanae, we can only hope that the charter is
> well-composed enough to influence them in that
> direction. failing that, posters to nanae might
> be directed to the new group by correspondents
> there.
>
> thanks for your input.
>
> adam
>
> --
> adamb...@yahoo.com is the alternative
> address of a proponent of the new group.
--
Relay spam can be stopped at the relay by concerted action. It is well
worth doing.
Larry M. Smith
(snipage)
>
> Well, sure, sounds great. I find many of the current assertions made in
> this context to be untrue. Is the group and the moderation intended to
> bolster these untruths? For example: "You aren't being blocked, your
> ISP is being blocked." "All other methods have been tried and were
> found not to work." "Your ISP failed to respond to a notice and the
> listing has been expanded." (Implied) "A private party has the right to
> block anyone in order to force action."
>
> Whether it's truth or only appearance it looks like most who post about
> SPEWS blocking are non-spammers, non-ISPs. Not in any way the guilty
> parties. Ten thousand moderated newsgroups won't change that, if it's
> true, nor will one. Is the effort going toward some problem or is the
> effort going toward either masking a problem or perpetuating a problem?
> In government they set up a "study" on an issue when they wish to duck
> doing the proper thing. Is a "moderated newsgroup" a manifestation of
> the same attitude?
>
> I think Mr. Uh Clem has the right idea: get those discussions out of
> NANAE. If the moderators serve as protectors of the dogma then the
> discussions can't move, and Mr. Uh Clem will be disappointed.
>
Moderation of the proposed group is only to conduct conversation in a
civil tone... Not to protect dogma, censor, or even attempt to sort
truth from untruth.
>
>>>But more disturbing is the notion that a bunch of moderators unrelated
>>>to SPEWS are dictating what views and notions about a certain SPEWS
>>>listing are acceptable.
>>
>>note that there's a clause in the charter in which
>>moderators are enjoined against permitting their
>>opinions to influence their approval of articles.
>
>
> Ah, well then that clause will work, won't it? Of course there's also a
> clause that says N-1 moderators can throw out 1 moderator, so the
> moderators had better not step too far out of line or they are history.
> What happens when it gets down to 2 moderators, though? Probably it
> will never happen, but I love the comedic possibilities. It's like
> Calvin & Hobbes and their club, then.
>
>
>>(this will be reinforced in the next revision.)
>>the moderators' duty is only to preserve a civil
>>tone, not to "censor" on content.
>
>
> You can't help feeling that "Spammers are flaming assholes" is more
> civil than "SPEWS are flaming assholes," can you?
>
Both may very well be rejected.
Believe it or not, a number of anti-spammers do exchange conversations
often with spammers. Even more so, is the conversations between the
anti-spammer and the less than clueful admin. These conversations
happen in an attempt to educate and to change opinion... Something that
is best done with a bit of tact.
SgtChains
brad.madison
Thanks. I've self-censored my response. I appreciate the time you took
to reply.
Kelly Molloy
says...
>
>Believe it or not, a number of anti-spammers do exchange conversations
>often with spammers. Even more so, is the conversations between the
>anti-spammer and the less than clueful admin. These conversations
>happen in an attempt to educate and to change opinion... Something that
>is best done with a bit of tact.
And whether you agree with the goals or methods of SPEWS, or not,
converting a spammer by means of rational persuasion is a good thing, and
one that the world could use more of.
Fred the Red Shirt
>
> One key part of my suggested category news.admin.blocklist.*
> is that it omits the word "abuse" (which is implied in the need for
> a blocklist). Admins with enforced, strong anti-abuse policies
> who nevertheless find themselves blocked will be more likely to
> look for help in a group about "blocklists" than a group about
> "abuse".
>
> It's a fine psychological point, I'll grant you, but one that will
> encourage a resolution to the problem.
>
That's a good point. A number of persons looking for the newgroup
may deny abuse, but most will be acutely aware of the block.
Including 'abuse' in the name is judgemental. It suggests a predjudice
against those who are blocked.
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt
> On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 13:07:07 -0700, George Crissman
> The issue is the name of the group. Customary Usenet practice has
> been to use "list" in the name of a group to indicate that the group
> contains lists of data. For example, the largest volume Big 8 group,
> news.lists.filters, contains constantly updated data used to curb
> net-abuse.
That name contains '.lists' as opposed to 'foolists.' Is that a
sufficient difference to avoid confusion?
--
FF
Fred the Red Shirt
> >
> But more disturbing is the notion that a bunch of moderators unrelated
> to SPEWS are dictating what views and notions about a certain SPEWS
> listing are acceptable.
With all due repsect to yourself, that's too bad. Spews is not
in charge of Usenet. IIUC as a matter of policy the SPEWS folks don't
even post to Usenet in their unofficial noncapacity as nonSPEWS folks.
Since they aren't participating in the discussion, the choice of
newsgroup is none of their business.
> For example, what happens if the only the
> non-critical (towards the listee, that is) posts about SPEWS listings
> are accepted, but SPEWS decides not to remove the listing for one reason
> or another. What is the listee supposed to think when all he hears is
> "looks like you're clean" but the listing stays? > By having a moderated
> group for pleading your way out of anonymous blocklists like SPEWS gives
> out a false message of authority by the group moderators. What happens
> when a SPEWS listee sends a flaming, scathing post in all-caps which
> still points a genuine error in the listing, and the moderators reject
> it?
AFAICT, the newsgroup will not exist for the purpose of pleading one's
way out of SPEWS. Listees have never been directed to NANAE for that
purpose, though often they write as though that was their impression.
Listees are directed to NANAE to be educated about what the listee
needs to do to get out of SPEWS.
If a moderator rejects submissions with useful information then either
1) we have a rotten or incompetent moderator
or
2) the would-be poster insists on violating the charter in addition
whatever useful information they incidently provide.
I do not think that either of these are likely.
>
> How long until someone will attempt to sue the group moderators for
> restraint of trade or some such?
That is a troubling thought.
> What if SPEWS doesn't direct the
> complainers to the new group in the first place?
If SPEWS doesn't revise their FAQ to direct the complainers to the
new group in the first place then their FAQ will be seriously in
error and they will loose much credibility. Also, some folks
in NANAE, or wherever SPEWS does misdirect the complaintants,
will redirect them to the proper newsgroup.
However, I think that is unlikely. The Internet exists through the
voluntary cooperation of it's participants. I expect that SPEWS
will cooperate.
--
FF
Patricia A. Shaffer
wrote:
Substitued "s" for the "ing", and so would I ... short and sweet, and
less likely to be plagued by typos.
--
Patricia
ra...@swva.net ra...@pandora.orbl.org
Proud Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia
"Anti-spammers are the immune system of the Internet." CDR M. Dobson
"The issue is consent, not content." Crosscut
Help Outlaw spam! <http://www.cauce.org>
John David Galt
> against those who are blocked.
It certainly suggests the view that those who are targeted for blocking
have committed abuse of the net. I do not agree with labeling this view
as prejudice, nor do I believe that its believers assume the same of all
the untargeted people who may find themselves blocked (usually because
their ISP, its bank of dialups, or its upstream provider was targeted
for blocking).