Where is comp.org.cauce voting result???

si...@msh.xs4all.nl

unread,

Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97

to

[followups to news.groups]

In article <64aqdu$o...@news1.panix.com>,
Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

>Is the result to the vote that finished Nov 7th
>going to be posted this millenium?

I wouldn't hold my breath If I were you. Last I heard the results of
the vote on rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated hadn't been posted either.
That vote closed on... September 10. ;-)

>---guy

CU, Sico.

--
If you don't live on the edge, you're taking up too much space.

Tim Skirvin

unread,

Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97

to

*sneck*
Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

>*unsneck* news.groups is so obscure.

You deserve your final plonking for that, you know that.

>: >Is the result to the vote that finished Nov 7th

>: >going to be posted this millenium?
>: I wouldn't hold my breath If I were you. Last I heard the results of
>: the vote on rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated hadn't been posted either.
>: That vote closed on... September 10. ;-)

>I thought they were using software specifically for CFV handling.

Yes, but it has to be checked. And given that this was a
ridiculously large CFV (because of the campaigning on both sides, I might
add), it often takes a few days for anything to happen with it.

Wait at least two weeks after the voting end before starting to
complain, Guy.

>Posting it to Usenet is not enough,

Posting it to Usenet is enough.

>Can't Bostwick at least say how many people voted???
>Or how long he expects it to take?

Possibly. If he didn't killfile you long ago. He's certainly
under no obligation to do so.

- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a><*>
<a href="http://www.killfile.org/dungeon/">The Killfile Dungeon</a>

Information Security

unread,

Nov 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/12/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk si...@msh.xs4all.nl wrote:
: [followups to news.groups]

*unsneck* news.groups is so obscure.

: In article <64aqdu$o...@news1.panix.com>,
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: >Is the result to the vote that finished Nov 7th
: >going to be posted this millenium?

: I wouldn't hold my breath If I were you. Last I heard the results of
: the vote on rec.gambling.blackjack.moderated hadn't been posted either.
: That vote closed on... September 10. ;-)

I thought they were using software specifically for CFV handling.

What is so difficult about counting YES/NO/<other> votes?

How about the raw count?

Are they going to post the vote results at www.cauce.org so
that people whose votes were terminated by the UCENET II
Czars working in collusion with Bostwick can even tell
CAUCE fraudulently skewered the vote? ;-)

Well, Bostwick let them mumble the real-address requirement
in terms of robomoderation and tokens tech talk obfuscation,
so it's reasonable to assume...

Posting it to Usenet is not enough, that's how CAUCE avoided
debate on the munge controversy: only _their_ words on the
subject appeared at the WWW site. The UCENET II Czars that is,
not CAUCE members with reasonable objections. Members' words
bit the dust.

What is the process for sweeping through the votes to check
Dimitry Vulis didn't try to vote as famous dead Russians again?

Can't Bostwick at least say how many people voted???
Or how long he expects it to take?

----guy

walt moffett

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

On Wed, 12 Nov 1997 19:01:34 GMT, J Durbin <j...@poisson.com> wrote:
>Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>
>>Can't Bostwick at least say how many people voted???
>>Or how long he expects it to take?
>

>Through the magic of Usenet lag, it was posted to news.groups and
>news.admin.net-abuse. email an hour before you posted the above. Just
>hasn't hit your newsfeed yet.
>
>4 to 1?
>
>Looks like the agitprop didn't work.
>

Or maybe it worked in reverse fashion...

Information Security

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk walt moffett <wa...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Or maybe it is yet another indictment of CAUCE's leadership.

Yep.

Reminder: the controversy over the creation of the group comp.org.cauce
is that CAUCE's UCENET II leaders (Czars) insisted - like U2 Czars -
that people have to post with their real email address, thus guaranteeing
people who post even more email UCE.

Here is CAUCE's WWW's opening quote:

"Spamming is the scourge of electronic-mail and newsgroups on the
Internet. It can seriously interfere with the operation of public
services, to say nothing of the effect it may have on any individual's
e-mail mail system. ... Spammers are, in effect, taking resources away
from users and service suppliers without compensation and without
authorization."

-- Vint Cerf, Senior Vice President, MCI
and acknowleged "Father of the Internet"

Indictment: only one tenth of CAUCE's membership was roused to vote.

Actually, it is probably a bit less than that, since anyone can vote.

My, that's pathetic. (In generic terms of group votes, it was great tho)

****

# RESULT
# moderated group comp.org.cauce passes 488:120
#
# There were 488 YES votes and 120 NO votes, for a total of 608 valid votes.

I did an analysis at DejaNews for the "current database"
of 9/25/97 to 11/12/97.

I ran a TCL 'expect' script to retrieve the author's profile. (run-time
apparently dropped one of the 'YES' vote retrievals, it was not a
sophisticated "retry" script)

It's a bit fudgy, with a number of assumptions, not all of which
I'll think of to mention... some people used a different address
to vote with than their normal post address. Mainly mungers.
I don't know how many use X-No-Archive on all their posts...probably
not many.

****

The CFV result said 488 YES votes.

Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.

Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.

The CFV result said 120 NO votes.

Of all NO votes, 57 had zero posts in the last month and a half.

Of all NO votes, only 54 had more than five posts.

****

So, what have we learned?

*******************************************************************
* That CAUCE's one-mouth official explanation caused 211 people *
* who don't even post to Usenet (and thus aren't victims of *
* Usenet-based spam UCE) to vote YES. *
*******************************************************************

Note: a consistent munger would normally have zero articles
listed at DejaNews under their voting address.

Interestingly, my 'g...@panix.com' turned up 151 times, even
though I munge. 150 of those happened on 11/8/97 when a Canadian
forge-posted my Cryptography Manifesto to some group I've never heard
of 'flora.perc'. Oh yeah: DejaNews breaks posts into bite-sized
chunks, so even though it was only one forged post in my name,
it comes up looking like 150 of them.

The other one was done when a moderator posted an article I submitted.

Otherwise, 'g...@panix.com' would have had zero.

So, zero is bad for YES votes (I find it unlikely many mungers
were among them), and zero is good for NO votes, because it
indicates a munger, or someone not bushwacked by CAUCE's leadership's
slimy less-information campaign.

CAUCE's leadership should resign over this disgraceful result,
and their general bungling of the issue.

Data trailing. (There is a five-day period for fraud-checking,
so I'm showing the data in case anyone finds it useful)
---guy

How to duplicate: use URL http://dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
Search for ~a <author>, e.g. ~a a418...@cdf.toronto.edu

YES votes, and #of Usenet posts in the last month and a half:

NO votes, and #of Usenet posts in the last month and a half:

3s...@qlink.queensu.ca: 10
3umo...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de: 22
an...@neptune.chem.uga.edu: 7
andys...@cybermail.net: 125
archimedes...@dartmouth.edu: 399
at...@teleport.com: 241
az...@netcom.com: 1
ba...@fyi.net: 0
bilo...@toolworks.com: 21
blanc...@aol.com: 0
bmai...@hooked.net: 6
bmat...@comp-sol.com: 230
bo...@edmark.com: 4
bo...@datasync.com: 11
br...@wasteland.calbbs.com: 0
burc...@ix.netcom.com: 0
chu...@uts.cc.utexas.edu: 46
cip...@mindspring.com: 594
d...@idiom.com: 0
dans...@flash.net: 229
david....@template.com: 0
dev...@clubvb.com: 539
dian...@concentric.net: 49
dmc...@swcp.com: 40
dmes...@cslab.vt.edu: 15
dmu...@home.com: 0
donk...@computer.org: 5
don...@ripco.com: 30
donze...@inetone.net: 186
don_...@om.cv.hp.com: 0
dou...@ix.netcom.com: 10
drei...@teleport.com: 31
dsoh...@brown.edu: 60
evi...@bway.net: 0
ex...@alanine.ram.org: 0
fe...@hivnet.org: 0
flu...@wwdg.com: 0
ge...@onix.com: 0
geo...@dircon.co.uk: 0
ger...@hivnet.org: 0
g...@panix.com: 151
higg...@ftc-i.net: 0
hipc...@mobsters.com: 0
h...@wwa.com: 274
hugh...@flashemail.com: 0
i.o....@larc.nasa.gov: 0
ich...@algebra.com: 2
irsa...@hempseed.com: 0
jbur...@crl5.crl.com: 20
jeep...@mindspring.com: 0
jeffer...@ns.sympatico.ca: 164
je...@cimpal.com: 0
jim...@pipeline.com: 233
jim_...@transarc.com: 0
jona...@hivnet.org: 0
jr...@cornell.edu: 273
jsku...@physics.adelaide.edu.au: 58
karr...@nyx.net: 72
kjh...@imation.com: 0
kjpo...@cyberramp.net: 50
kope...@cs.purdue.edu: 28
kos...@spht.saclay.cea.fr: 0
lau...@magpage.com: 13
lei...@cybercomm.net: 7
lounge...@mypad.com: 0
maca...@aol.com: 0
man...@tech-center.com: 24
marc...@pobox.com: 0
ma...@brain.mics.net: 6
mb...@freemail.co.za: 0
med...@idir.net: 192
mic...@fdma.com: 0
mrob...@harris.com: 0
mwi...@nwlink.com: 0
no...@ibfs.demon.co.uk: 0
ol...@viking.mv.com: 0
open...@sirius.com: 18
p...@dim.com: 17
p...@syix.com: 146
pa...@cag.lcs.mit.edu: 0
penny...@altech.com: 0
pe...@msh.xs4all.nl: 0
p...@netcom.com: 110
pj...@leicester.ac.uk: 0
pol...@dynamite.com.au: 119
r...@rahul.net: 126
r...@visi.com: 3
roa...@pobox.com: 5
robe...@ix.netcom.com: 0
rpgt...@aol.com: 0
rwu...@att.com: 0
sa...@uni-duesseldorf.de: 34
saken+...@rmta.ml.org: 0
sau...@reply.to.addr.in.sig: 7
sg...@maitreya.demon.co.uk: 37
sham...@netcom.com: 0
shm...@acm.org: 55
si...@msh.xs4all.nl: 83
skar...@xivic.ruhr.de: 0
smi...@tiac.net: 0
spa...@larrrrrd.demon.co.uk: 0
s...@tiny.net: 0
spmac...@netvalue.net: 0
stai...@bga.com: 0
stei...@primenet.com: 244
stephen...@tel.gte.com: 4
steve_...@bigfoot.com: 33
str...@escher.sps.mot.com: 0
ther...@wco.com: 0
tju...@mail.phoenix.net: 0
tom....@ping.be: 0
to...@moon.jic.com: 0
usa...@mbay.net: 2
VirginTimmieSkir...@teenworld.poboxes.com: 5
wha...@mail.airmail.net: 8
wil...@ix.netcom.com: 583
wto...@aol.com: 8
ww...@ix.netcom.com: 0
za...@rabi.phys.columbia.edu: 7
zam...@nettaxi.com: 0

Information Security

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: > Indictment: only one tenth of CAUCE's membership was roused to vote.

: That's *still* irrelevant. It's self-serving to call it an indictment.

Irrelevant?

: (This is coming from someone who--I won't get into the semantics of why;
: it was my fault that my vote was late and improperly formatted--suffice it
: to say it was obvious I didn't even have enough time for properly
: following up on any discussion in news.groups...

: > My, that's pathetic. (In generic terms of group votes, it was great tho)

: I must admit I was surprised.

: > It's a bit fudgy, with a number of assumptions, <...>

: Indeed. It appauls me that you'd go forth with such data.

Say high to Paul for me.

The data came from the CFV and DejaNews.

: > So, what have we learned?

: >
: > *******************************************************************
: > * That CAUCE's one-mouth official explanation caused 211 people *
: > * who don't even post to Usenet (and thus aren't victims of *
: > * Usenet-based spam UCE) to vote YES. *
: > *******************************************************************

: Why do you assume that none of these people were capable of thinking
: themselves? How dare you speak on behalf of 211 people?

Hey, feel free to poll them to ask about their source of information
and understanding on what they were voting on.

: > So, zero is bad for YES votes <...>

: Once could argue it's potentially bad for NO votes, as well.

This is Usenet, one could argue _period_. ;-)

: > (I find it unlikely many mungers were among them), and zero is good for

: > NO votes, because it indicates a munger, or someone not bushwacked by
: > CAUCE's leadership's slimy less-information campaign.

: What? If CAUCE had provided *more* information, they could have been
: accused of trying to taint the vote.

Whooey!

: > CAUCE's leadership should resign over this disgraceful result, <...>

: *Your* results are *vague*. It is irresponsible on your part to call them
: an *indictment*. The arrogance you harbor in your belief you can guess
: the thought processes of 211 people is ridiculous.

I call for their resignation mainly because they were incompetent
enough to require a real email address at a time of heavy UCE and
while going against their filtering-is-not-a-solution stated principle,
and because of their failure to have an open debate on this issue
visible at their WWW or mailing list.

: > Data trailing. (There is a five-day period for fraud-checking,

: > so I'm showing the data in case anyone finds it useful)

: Basically, Guy, what you don't like is the group creation process. You
: have no evidence whatsoever to support your contention. Filing a protest
: unfairly delays the creation of a group that was fairly voted for by 438
: people.

I didn't mean to give the impression I was claiming vote fraud
or filing a protest of the vote results.

Let's see how well and useful comp.org.cauce becomes.

I'll just have to start using procmail and
post as 'guy+CAUCE_L...@panix.com'.

---guy

Spam this: pe...@baileynm.com

Stan Kalisch III

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

That's *still* irrelevant. It's self-serving to call it an indictment.

(This is coming from someone who--I won't get into the semantics of why;
it was my fault that my vote was late and improperly formatted--suffice it
to say it was obvious I didn't even have enough time for properly

following up on any discussion in news.groups--would have voted "NO" on
the group. (By the way, I'll post my responses to some of the criticism
of my proposed anonymous posting scheme if anyone still indeed is
interested))

<...>

> My, that's pathetic. (In generic terms of group votes, it was great tho)

I must admit I was surprised.

> It's a bit fudgy, with a number of assumptions, <...>

Indeed. It appauls me that you'd go forth with such data.

<...>

> So, what have we learned?
>
> *******************************************************************
> * That CAUCE's one-mouth official explanation caused 211 people *
> * who don't even post to Usenet (and thus aren't victims of *
> * Usenet-based spam UCE) to vote YES. *

Why do you assume that none of these people were capable of thinking

themselves? How dare you speak on behalf of 211 people?

> So, zero is bad for YES votes <...>

Once could argue it's potentially bad for NO votes, as well.

> (I find it unlikely many mungers were among them), and zero is good for

> NO votes, because it indicates a munger, or someone not bushwacked by
> CAUCE's leadership's slimy less-information campaign.

What? If CAUCE had provided *more* information, they could have been

accused of trying to taint the vote.

> CAUCE's leadership should resign over this disgraceful result, <...>

*Your* results are *vague*. It is irresponsible on your part to call them
an *indictment*. The arrogance you harbor in your belief you can guess
the thought processes of 211 people is ridiculous.

> Data trailing. (There is a five-day period for fraud-checking,

> so I'm showing the data in case anyone finds it useful)

Basically, Guy, what you don't like is the group creation process. You

have no evidence whatsoever to support your contention. Filing a protest
unfairly delays the creation of a group that was fairly voted for by 438
people.

Guy, unless you can *prove* an instance (Note I'm only calling for one out
of your two hundred eleven supposed examples) of vote fraud when it came
to YES votes for comp.org.cauce, I suggest you look into a companion
moderated alt.* group, instead.

Stan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key

iQCVAwUBNGrTP5yiGl9g1kgJAQH2cAQAw3f5HCL4IKE68lKrwjSPAaXSXgl/3PQL
fJycG66JoyJPUKwuCyGKncztaoanTu1gvRQWXa3wuQvDUykv1SixcbmOR4zN8cKD
P9rNugRb/yWCNIWqYKHFDEnHVXf8Ds8HPMAF3MtjxiHk4Ezx68AOcMoDFkqbn8zT
eRmiRPvAwao=
=3lq5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul Rubin

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl6.crl.com>,

Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

>> Data trailing. (There is a five-day period for fraud-checking,
>> so I'm showing the data in case anyone finds it useful)
>

>Basically, Guy, what you don't like is the group creation process. You
>have no evidence whatsoever to support your contention. Filing a protest
>unfairly delays the creation of a group that was fairly voted for by 438
>people.

I'm confused about one thing. Where I live, we have these state
referendums all the time, and both the supporting and the opposing
sides are allowed to make a ballot statement in their own words.

I've never looked carefully at the CFV process before. But it looks
like the comp.org.cauce CFV (and by extension, other CFV's?) was
written entirely by supporters, which because of a ruckus stirred up
by an earlier, even more one-sided version, included a distorted
and watered-down interpretation of the opponents' argument.

How can you say the group was fairly voted on, when the CFV didn't
have any PRO and CON statements with the CON statement in the opposer's
own words? Of course, there's the problem then of who gets to speak
for the opponents, but somehow California ballot propositions manage
to deal with that problem.

It is also ironic that everyone who voted, either way, got their
address posted to Usenet in the ballot results post (and re-posted in
several of the followups). These addresses will of course be
harvested by UCE bots in the usual manner and the voters (especially
those who normally munge) will get increased amounts of spam as a
consequence. I find this objectionable, and if I were a munger I'd
actually feel upset. Perhaps someone familiar with the process can
get a formal proposal moving that CFV results should not contain voter
addresses, except possibly in munged form.

Robert A. Allen

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

>So, zero is bad for YES votes (I find it unlikely many mungers
>were among them), and zero is good for NO votes, because it
>indicates a munger, or someone not bushwacked by CAUCE's leadership's
>slimy less-information campaign.

I munge and I voted YES. I disagree with CAUCE on munging, but that
doesn't stop me from thinking that the newsgroup is a good idea.

Robert A. Allen | The Kook.Kabal called me Net.Scum
librarian at pobox.com | and all I got was this lousy .sig

Kathy Pascoe

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

Paul Rubin wrote:
>
> How can you say the group was fairly voted on, when the CFV didn't
> have any PRO and CON statements with the CON statement in the
> opposer's own words? Of course, there's the problem then of who gets
> to speak for the opponents, but somehow California ballot propositions
> manage to deal with that problem.

RFDs and CFVs are worded by their proponents, so of course that language
will be in favor of the proposal. This is why folks are encouraged (at
least in the way I understand the process) to follow a good percentage
of the discussion in news.groups, either in real time or retroactively
using DejaNews. This way you've seen the arguments, pro and con, and
draw your own conclusion.

> It is also ironic that everyone who voted, either way, got their
> address posted to Usenet in the ballot results post (and re-posted in
> several of the followups).

(snip)

Standard voting practice includes posting addresses and names supplied
by voters. Nothing specific to do with the comp.org.cauce vote. I
believe at least one votetaker chimed in when this came up and noted
that if the supplied address was munged, he would try to leave it that way in
the vote results. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.
--
Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@ford.com (work) ~ kpa...@sprintmail.com (home)

WD Baseley

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

*minor surgery on newsgroups list*

In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
<T...@NSA.sucks> articulated:

>Indictment: only one tenth of CAUCE's membership was roused to vote.

I highly doubt that you are either the CAUCE database keeper, or a
representative serving in a US government seat in the House or Senate,
and so are not privy to the CAUCE member list. Therefore, I think you
have no way of proving your statement, which makes it just so much
smoke.

>****
>The CFV result said 488 YES votes.
>
>Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
>
>Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.
>
>The CFV result said 120 NO votes.
>
>Of all NO votes, 57 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
>
>Of all NO votes, only 54 had more than five posts.
>
>****
>
>So, what have we learned?

What, indeed. Let's take a look at your numbers, to see what can be
objectively and empirically derived from them, shall 'we'?

First the voting rules:

[from the RESULT post]
>For group passage, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO)
>votes. There also must be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes.

Now, let's play with your figures. First set: the "no posts" group.
488 total YES, minus 211 with no posts, leaves 277. 120 NO votes,
minus 57, leaves 63. YES votes would make up a bit over 80% of all
votes, which would still be a passing margin.

Next set: 173 YES, 54 NO. YES = 76%.

>Data trailing. (There is a five-day period for fraud-checking,
>so I'm showing the data in case anyone finds it useful)

30821 posts by YES voters
6132 posts by NO voters

I'll leave that final bit of math for the reader as homework - my
Pilot's batteries are fading under the strain ;->

All of these numbers are meaningless, except to show that you have
spent a lot of time proving nothing.

And I've spent too much proving that,
--
WD Baseley - one of the "angry wasps"
The Email Abuse FAQ is at
<http://members.aol.com/emailfaq>
Fight back! Check out CAUCE
<http://www.cauce.org>

Chris Lewis

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>,
Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

>Or maybe it is yet another indictment of CAUCE's leadership.

>Yep.

Yeah sure. Your statistical analysis is bogus (notice how the percentage
of lurker YES votes is almost identical to the percentage of lurker NO
votes, yet the entirely one-sided conclusion), your assumptions, logic
and conclusions are flawed, and your smear campaign entirely made up.

Frankly, I have no doubt where your allegiances truly are - and it's not
anti-UCE.
--
The rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated.

Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join at http://www.cauce.org/
Anti-spam resources: http://spam.abuse.net

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

In news.groups on Thu, 13 Nov 1997 15:19:22 GMT, rda...@BeltronicsInspection.com
(Richard Damon) wrote:

>I am one of those 211 people reported as not posting to usenet. While I do not
>post often, I would be surprised (but it's not impossible) if its been six weeks
>since I lasted posted. The reason my name may show up without posts is that I
>use a different account for posting then I do for my primary E-mail.

Then how did you get the CFV? There were only two ways of getting it -- in
the newsgroups to which it was posted, in which case your Usenet posting
address would have been listed, or by email from the votetaker, in which
case your email address would show up. May I assume that, upon reading
the message you received from CAUCE, you immediately sent to David
Bostwick for a ballot? Or did you obtain your ballot elsewhere?

I realize the implications of my thinking. David -- did you keep a record
of the ballots you sent out?

Henrietta Thomas
Chicago, Illinois
h...@wwa.com

Message has been deleted

Ron Newman

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
<T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

> The CFV result said 488 YES votes.
>
> Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
>
> Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.

Did I miss the part of the newsgroup creation standard that says
you must post to Usenet a certain number of times in the
six weeks preceding the casting of a vote for or against
a newsgroup?

--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/

Bill Mattocks

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

I voted "no."
I am a member of CAUCE.
I do not munge my address.
I was not influenced in my vote by the trolls for or against the
creation of the proposed NG.
I was not influenced by the address-munging issue.
I do not care to be used as a statistic for or against CAUCE or
address-munging.
My reason for my "no" vote was and is personal, private, and no one's
business but mine.

Please remove me from your statistics.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks, CIIU

There has been in recent years excessive emphasis on
a citizen's rights and inadequate stress put upon his
duties and responsibilities. -- Paxton Blair

Taylor Netscum

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

On 13 Nov 1997 08:59:38 GMT, what could only be written by Information
Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

When I joined CAUCE I used my valid email address that hasn't been
posted to USENET. I munged with fake addresses and now used a valid
address. Sending email to this listed address will get through.

I voted no for my own reasons, I had the right and I am under no
obligation to explain why. What I don't care for is how my address
*WAS* posted by you. Thanks to you it's now out there for Spambots to
get at any time. I don't care what your personal problem is with
CAUCE, what I do care is that you all by yourself exposed my address
without any consideration at all. I the work I put into keeping my
address to myself was exposed by you.

Taylor Netscum (RIP 10-16-97) Extraordinaire
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tired of UCE/UBE? JOIN
www.cauce.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All the Info you never wanted to know
about Jeffery D. Hunt....

http://members.aol.com/macabrus/jefferydhuntfaq.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Information Security

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

It ain't easy being green.

Or guy. ;-)

In comp.org.eff.talk Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> wrote:

: Did I miss the part of the newsgroup creation standard that says

: you must post to Usenet a certain number of times in the
: six weeks preceding the casting of a vote for or against
: a newsgroup?

No, it is a perfectly valid vote.

Any objections to not being happy that hundreds of people who
don't *post* to Usenet (or have multiple addresses to handle
spam) voted for a group _perfect_ for harvesting addresses?

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Chris Ebenezer <chr...@nortel.ca> wrote:

: And how exactly did you gather this information ? Did you perchance use
: Dejanews ? Are you not aware that people 'x-no-archive' their posts ?

Your reading comprehension leaves little doubt
you are one of the wisest people on Usenet.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Robert A. Allen <librarian@no_agis.pobox.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: >So, zero is bad for YES votes (I find it unlikely many mungers

: >were among them), and zero is good for NO votes, because it
: >indicates a munger, or someone not bushwacked by CAUCE's leadership's
: >slimy less-information campaign.

: I munge and I voted YES. I disagree with CAUCE on munging, but that

: doesn't stop me from thinking that the newsgroup is a good idea.

Good for you.

----

Hey, sparky, is your vote "personal, private, and no one's
business but mine"?

In comp.org.eff.talk Bill Mattocks <bmat...@comp-sol.com> wrote:
: My reason for my "no" vote was and is personal, private, and no one's
: business but mine.

Yep.

Care to tell us your personal private details on this vote?

In comp.org.eff.talk Bill Mattocks <bmat...@comp-sol.com> wrote:
: I voted "no."

: I am a member of CAUCE.
: I do not munge my address.
: I was not influenced in my vote by the trolls for or against the
: creation of the proposed NG.
: I was not influenced by the address-munging issue.

Thank you for playing.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: On 13 Nov 1997 08:59:38 GMT, what could only be written by Information
: Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: When I joined CAUCE I used my valid email address that hasn't been
: posted to USENET. I munged with fake addresses and now used a valid
: address. Sending email to this listed address will get through.

So, you're saying you went from munging to filtering.
Filtering is against CAUCE's stated position for dealing with spam:

# CAUCE's official position on filtering:
#
# Filters create a tremendous drag on server resources,
# making email delivery slower and sometimes causing the
# loss of legitimate email.
#
# And: http://www.cauce.org/faq.html
#
# By the time Spam messages reach the filter and are
# possibly thrown away, they have already clogged the email
# pipeline (remember that they are sent by the million) so
# that they do indeed cost money to all the ISP's and
# relaying companies, who must increase their capabilities
# to be able to continue operations.
#
# http://www.cauce.org/nonsolutions.html
#
# No matter what filtering mechanism is built,
# spammers will find a way around it.

A PRIMARY PROBLEM with filtering: in order not to lose
"false positives", one must send the filtered email to
a capture file, and look through it anyway!

If anyone has forgotten already why mungers like me are upset:

# http://www.cauce.org/newsletter/extra2.html
#
# Q: Isn't there some way I can post with my spamblocked address?
#
# A: Bluntly, no. Help is available to CAUCE members and others who
# would like help installing filtering systems

# http://www.cauce.org/newsletter/extra2.html
#
# If you would like assistance setting up a filtering system that
# does not create bounced messages, please contact John Mozena
# <m...@cauce.org> for details. You do not have to plan to post
# to comp.org.cauce to receive this assistance.

It is because Usenet II Czar John Mozena, and Usenet II Czar J.D. Falk,
and Usenet II Czar wannabe Corey Snow, all top CAUCE people, insisted
on real email addresses during a time of heavy UCE, exactly like
Usenet II demands. The Usenet II Cabal would have kicked them out
had they allowing munging to defeat spam.

So, despite EXTENSIVELY saying at the CAUCE site that filtering
is a losing proposition, they DEMAND posters use it if they
don't want to see spam resulting from their comp.org.cauce posts.

This is the nexus of the crisis.

How did Woody Allen say it? A mockery of a sham of a...

In comp.org.eff.talk Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:

: What I don't care for is how my address *WAS* posted by you.

:
: Thanks to you it's now out there for Spambots to get at any time.
:
: I don't care what your personal problem is with CAUCE, what I do
: care is that you all by yourself exposed my address without any

: consideration at all. All the work I put into keeping my

: address to myself was exposed by you.

Nope.

I simply *reposted* information that was posted to Usenet:
the CFV vote results. I guess you didn't know that would
happen: yet another thing they didn't tell you in the CFV.

And, my oh my, it looks like you too are upset about spam
that results from using your real email address in Usenet.

CAUCE's allegiance to the Usenet II philosophy of requiring
your real email address to post is astonishing, given that
its members are trying to eliminate UCE.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk RPG Tools <rpgt...@aol-salebra.com> wrote:
: : I did an analysis at DejaNews for the "current database"
: : of 9/25/97 to 11/12/97.

: Does that database include "X-no-archive" posts?

What did I say already?

: : Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.

: : Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.

: : Of all NO votes, 57 had zero posts in the last month and a half.

: : Of all NO votes, only 54 had more than five posts.

: : So, what have we learned?

: Those are interesting statistics. Almost half of the YES *and* NO voters
: had no record of posting, despite there likely being more mungers among
: the NO voters.
:
: Indeed likely the result of the CAUCE solicitation.
:
: But the result would have been the same even if none of
: those 211 unknown YES voters had voted.

: We lost. Stop complaining. Let them have their sandbox.

My position is that most of the 211 people do _not_ post to Usenet,
yet were persuaded to vote for a group GUARANTEEING SPAM to the
people who post there.

Ever heard of UCE?

Is there anybody who contests my claim that the real-email-address
requirement of the group will guarantee they are spammed, pre-filter?

I don't think so.

To persuade hundreds of people who won't be spammed to vote for
a group that will guarantee spam, indicates to me that CAUCE
was incompetent in discussion of the issues to its membership.

If they were incompetent in doing so, that would also have
affected an unknown number of the people who do post and voted YES too.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Chris Lewis <cle...@ferret.ocunix.on.ca> wrote:
: In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>,
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: >Or maybe it is yet another indictment of CAUCE's leadership.

: >Yep.

: Yeah sure. Your statistical analysis is bogus (notice how the percentage

: of lurker YES votes is almost identical to the percentage of lurker NO
: votes, yet the entirely one-sided conclusion), your assumptions, logic
: and conclusions are flawed, and your smear campaign entirely made up.

: Frankly, I have no doubt where your allegiances truly are - and it's not
: anti-UCE.

You need a raise and a vacation...you're starting to see conspiracy
theories where there aren't any. ;-)

Chris, I'm upset about CAUCE's completely conflicting positions
on filtering..."it is not a solution...it is the only defense
we will allow you against spam from comp.org.cauce posts".

~"Do as I say, not as I do".

---guy, who wrote:

(Reuters) New York City, Jacob Javits Center, Wed Dec 10 1997
- Sanford Wallace, President, CyberPromotions, Inc. could not have
been expecting to make many friends in his defense of "spam", as
unsolicited commercial email (UCE) and Excessive Multiposting (EMP)
are called. But his reception here in NYC - a city not known anyway
for its manners - was a shock.

The moderator from a media company had to repeatedly deal with
jeers and various, well, juvenile antics of the Internet World '97
Conference attendees.

Mr. Wallace was unable to talk for more than a few seconds before
a chant - one that starts softly like a bolero then balloons - would
begin. "Spam, spam, spam, spam..." The refrain from the Monty Python
sketch. You couldn't really tell where it was coming from; at times
it seemed everyone was in on the joke.

When the president of CyberPromotions claimed the removal list they
set up meant people wouldn't be spammed by CyberPromo and their
customers, a group of twelve people from the NYC ISP Panix picked
up and hurled Seth Briedbart twenty feet onto the stage and directly
onto Sanford Wallace.

Mr. Wallace had a couple cracked ribs, and the wind knocked out of him.
Mr. Breidbart was unhurt and heard to joke about hitting Mr. Wallace
with the "original formula for the Breidbart Index".

Before an ambulance could arrive, the crowd threw a still stunned Sanford
Wallace into the Hudson River. He was last seen floating out into the
Atlantic Ocean during a lovely sunset. Various offerings of thanks were
given in joyful pagen rituals.

Taylor Netscum

unread,

Nov 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/13/97

to

On 13 Nov 1997 21:46:42 GMT, what could only be written by Information
Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

>In comp.org.eff.talk Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>: What I don't care for is how my address *WAS* posted by you.
>:
>: Thanks to you it's now out there for Spambots to get at any time.
>:
>: I don't care what your personal problem is with CAUCE, what I do
>: care is that you all by yourself exposed my address without any
>: consideration at all. All the work I put into keeping my
>: address to myself was exposed by you.
>
>Nope.
>
>I simply *reposted* information that was posted to Usenet:
>the CFV vote results. I guess you didn't know that would
>happen: yet another thing they didn't tell you in the CFV.
>
>And, my oh my, it looks like you too are upset about spam
>that results from using your real email address in Usenet.
>
>CAUCE's allegiance to the Usenet II philosophy of requiring
>your real email address to post is astonishing, given that
>its members are trying to eliminate UCE.

Gee, there goes Dejanews with their lies again. I did a search for
j e e p b a j a AT m i n d s p r i n g DOT c o m and the *ONE* and
only time it turned up had "Information Security" all over it.
Thanks, saying you're against UCE/UBE is like saying Jeffery D. Hunt
won't try to sell you a extra large french fries.

In the past I would read your information, now it appears you're
heading to kookland like the best of them. Thanks to *YOU* my hidden
spam free email address is now available to spambots.

Paul Rubin

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

In article <346b904e...@news.mindspring.com>,

Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Gee, there goes Dejanews with their lies again. I did a search for
>j e e p b a j a AT m i n d s p r i n g DOT c o m and the *ONE* and
>only time it turned up had "Information Security" all over it.
>Thanks, saying you're against UCE/UBE is like saying Jeffery D. Hunt
>won't try to sell you a extra large french fries.

Nope, it's in the CFV result announcement (at signs removed by me)

From: David Bostwick <bost...@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>
Subject: RESULT: comp.org.cauce moderated passes 488:120
Message-ID: <8793559...@isc.org>
Supersedes: <8780666...@isc.org>
Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
...
jburrell (at) crl5.crl.com Jason Burrell
jeepbaja (at) mindspring.com Taylor
...

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:

: On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 00:39:29 GMT, what could only be written by
: p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) wrote:

: >In article <346b904e...@news.mindspring.com>,

: >Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: >>Gee, there goes Dejanews with their lies again. I did a search for
: >>j e e p b a j a AT m i n d s p r i n g DOT c o m and the *ONE* and
: >>only time it turned up had "Information Security" all over it.

: >
: >Nope, it's in the CFV result announcement (at signs removed by me)

: >
: >From: David Bostwick <bost...@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>
: >Subject: RESULT: comp.org.cauce moderated passes 488:120
: >Message-ID: <8793559...@isc.org>
: >Supersedes: <8780666...@isc.org>
: >Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
: >...
: >jburrell (at) crl5.crl.com Jason Burrell
: >jeepbaja (at) mindspring.com Taylor
: >...

In comp.org.eff.talk Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:

: I'm going by what Dejanews comes up with, so far Dejanews reports that
: name only once under Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks>, nobody else.

You are absolutely right: the post has not (yet if at all) registered
at DejaNews. See if you can pull it up in the group...it's only a few
days old.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Not even *ME*! My whole point is he posted a bunch of valid
: addresses, many from people who munge just to keep their email address
: hidden. Because he has some problem with CAUCE he had to drag others
: who don't give a damn about them into this. I tried five other "no"
: voters and "yes" voters, they all had zero postings until Information
: Security posted them:

One of my "problems" with CAUCE was the requirement of posting
real email addresses to comp.org.cauce during this time of
heavy spam.

The CFV results were posted to:

# From: David Bostwick <bost...@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu>
# Reply-To: bost...@cas.chemistry.gatech.edu
# Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,
# news.admin.net-abuse.email,news.admin.net-abuse.misc
# Subject: RESULT: comp.org.cauce moderated passes 488:120
# Followup-To: news.groups
# Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers
# Approved: newgroup...@isc.org
# Archive-Name: comp.org.cauce
# Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 17:33:02 GMT
#

# RESULT
# moderated group comp.org.cauce passes 488:120

Posting it to nana guaranteed it was fed to the spambots.

BTW, where did you think I got all the email addresses from?

Did you think I hacked the votetaker?

----

: Anyway can't really do anything about it now. It was just the past
: few weeks that taylor.nospam was starting to get hit with Spam so I
: guess it will be the same for my main address. I'm about to start a
: long weekend down in Ensenada for the Baja 1000. I'm sure when I get
: back I'll see the results of Information Security's bonehead move.

The time lag between address exposure on Usenet and getting spammed
can range from a few days to a few months.

But it *will* happen.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:

: Gee, there goes Dejanews with their lies again. I did a search for

: j e e p b a j a AT m i n d s p r i n g DOT c o m and the *ONE* and
: only time it turned up had "Information Security" all over it.
: Thanks, saying you're against UCE/UBE is like saying Jeffery D. Hunt
: won't try to sell you a extra large french fries.

I once ordered a fries at McDonalds, and they asked
me if I wanted a fries with that. (it was a habit taught them)

Steve Martin once took a crowd of three hundred people after
a show to a McDonalds and ordered _one_ french fry.

: In the past I would read your information, now it appears you're

: heading to kookland like the best of them. Thanks to *YOU* my hidden
: spam free email address is now available to spambots.

Ugh, I'm sorry you feel violated.

I guess you didn't know they were going to post your vote
address. I first noticed this when Henrietta Thomas posted
"Fluffy, Ruler of All Usenet"'s real name, (Felix!) and
said it came from the CFV results.

That's where you should feel violated.

There is something else you should know about address harvesting
from Usenet.

It happens from URLs too.

You have posted:

# Subject: Re: NOMINATION: Bobby Tendinitis KOTM
# From: taylor...@mindspring.com (Taylor)
# Date: 1997/11/07
# Message-ID: <34627c42...@news.mindspring.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.usenet.kooks,alt.config,news.groups,
# news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.flame
# [snip]
#
# McJeffy Land <http://www.mindspring.com/~jeepbaja/>

That is immediately reconstituted from form

http://www.address.com/~username/ignored

to

~user...@address.com

Doh! ;-)

---guy

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet on Thu, 13 Nov 1997 19:04:34 GMT,
wbas...@mindspring.com (WD Baseley) wrote:

>*minor surgery on newsgroups list*
>

>In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security

><T...@NSA.sucks> articulated:

>
>>Indictment: only one tenth of CAUCE's membership was roused to vote.
>

>I highly doubt that you are either the CAUCE database keeper, or a
>representative serving in a US government seat in the House or Senate,
>and so are not privy to the CAUCE member list. Therefore, I think you
>have no way of proving your statement, which makes it just so much
>smoke.

At their web site, CAUCE claims membership in excess of 6,000.
Assuming that to be true, and assuming they sent letters to each
and every one, it is safe to assume that less than 10% took the
time to vote. Of course, we have no way of knowing how many
of the people who voted are CAUCE members, but even if all
of them are, it would still come out to less than 10%. It seems to
me that CAUCE members weren't all that interested.

Nevertheless, if all 488 YES voters come to play in the sandbox,
they should have themselves a very good time. :-)

Henrietta Thomas
voted NO
not a member of CAUCE
does not _ever_ munge her address
has no objection to the list being posted twice
knows how to find the delete key on her keyboard

Dr. Ram Samudrala

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

It may be a good idea to check for names also:

In comp.org.eff.talk Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

>ex...@alanine.ram.org: 0

I post a lot.

--Ram

email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
"Safe sex, safe music, safe clothing, safe hair spray, safe ozone layer.
Too late! Everything that's been achieved in the history of mankind has
been achieved by not being safe." ---Lemmy of Motorhead

Dr. Ram Samudrala

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Taylor Netscum <taylor...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>obligation to explain why. What I don't care for is how my address

>*WAS* posted by you. Thanks to you it's now out there for Spambots to
>get at any time.

Umm, how do you think he got it?

--Ram

email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th

Late last night and the night before,
Tommyknockers, Tommyknockers, knocking at the door.
Want to run, don't know if I can.
Cause I'm so afraid of the Tommyknocker man.

Stan Kalisch III

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

> In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
> : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>
>
> : On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:
>

> : > Indictment: only one tenth of CAUCE's membership was roused to vote.
>
> : That's *still* irrelevant. It's self-serving to call it an indictment.
>
> Irrelevant?

*Yes*, *very*...if they want to exercise the right *not* to vote, that's
certainly *their* decisions... If anything, I think it helps the vote
(unless they officially want to register abstentions) to be more
*accurate*... So I'm being generous by even calling it irrelevant.

> : (This is coming from someone who--I won't get into the semantics of why;

> : it was my fault that my vote was late and improperly formatted--suffice it
> : to say it was obvious I didn't even have enough time for properly

> : following up on any discussion in news.groups...
>
> <chuckle>

? I didn't exactly think it was *funny*, perhaps slightly pathetic (if
one speculates on and misconstrues why my vote wasn't properly formatted
and late)--but to each his own, I suppose...

> : > My, that's pathetic. (In generic terms of group votes, it was great tho)
>
> : I must admit I was surprised.
>
> : > It's a bit fudgy, with a number of assumptions, <...>

>
> : Indeed. It appauls me that you'd go forth with such data.
>

> Say high to Paul for me.

Need I say the word "irrelevant", again? I knew at the time the word was
misspelled, but because I was in a hurry, and my elec. dictionary was
*dead*, and I was having a mental block, I thought you would look past the
spelling, and toward the *content* of what I was saying. Apparently, I
was mistaken, this was a mental block in and of itself, and you're not
capable of doing this. That's sadder than any spelling mistake I can
think of.

> The data came from the CFV and DejaNews.

So *what*? It isn't *helpful*. It isn't *revealing*. You don't use it
to make any *conclusions* (All of your conclusions are argumentative--your
data is irrelevant--presenting it as supportive of a conclusion is
irresponsible).

> : > So, what have we learned?

> : >
> : > *******************************************************************
> : > * That CAUCE's one-mouth official explanation caused 211 people *
> : > * who don't even post to Usenet (and thus aren't victims of *
> : > * Usenet-based spam UCE) to vote YES. *
> : > *******************************************************************
>

> : Why do you assume that none of these people were capable of thinking

> : themselves? How dare you speak on behalf of 211 people?
>

> Hey, feel free to poll them to ask about their source of information
> and understanding on what they were voting on.

No--that's *your* job. If you can't tell us these things, your complaints
are without merit.

> : > So, zero is bad for YES votes <...>

>
> : Once could argue it's potentially bad for NO votes, as well.
>

> This is Usenet, one could argue _period_. ;-)

Then, logically, the next question is, Why are *you* arguing what you're
arguing.

> : > (I find it unlikely many mungers were among them), and zero is good for

> : > NO votes, because it indicates a munger, or someone not bushwacked by
> : > CAUCE's leadership's slimy less-information campaign.
>

> : What? If CAUCE had provided *more* information, they could have been

> : accused of trying to taint the vote.
>

> Whooey!

Who?

> : > CAUCE's leadership should resign over this disgraceful result, <...>

>
> : *Your* results are *vague*. It is irresponsible on your part to call them
> : an *indictment*. The arrogance you harbor in your belief you can guess
> : the thought processes of 211 people is ridiculous.
>

> I call for their resignation mainly because they were incompetent

> enough to require a real email address at a time of heavy UCE <...>

Please explain why this is incompetence. I can see why it would be a
*problem*. I can see why it's *possible* that it could be *paranoia*.
But I still don't see anyone explaining how it's *incompetence*.

<...> and while going against their filtering-is-not-a-solution stated
> principle, <...>

Please explain.

<...> and because of their failure to have an open debate on this issue

> visible at their WWW or mailing list.

Please explain why that was *needed*.

> : > Data trailing. (There is a five-day period for fraud-checking,

> : > so I'm showing the data in case anyone finds it useful)
>

> : Basically, Guy, what you don't like is the group creation process. You

> : have no evidence whatsoever to support your contention. Filing a protest
> : unfairly delays the creation of a group that was fairly voted for by 438
> : people.
>

> I didn't mean to give the impression I was claiming vote fraud
> or filing a protest of the vote results.

Well, it doesn't sound like you *agree* with the *validity* of the
results.

> Let's see how well and useful comp.org.cauce becomes.

Well, we both know some people aren't going to post there because they
can't munge. That is a foregone conclusion. Trying to figure out
whether or not this indiscriminate group of people is "useful", meanwhile,
makes less sense than trying to compute absolutely accurate integrals.

Stan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key

iQCVAwUBNGxQOJyiGl9g1kgJAQHMtgP+KLUwvG73sqAAMGCJpuhtxU0eiPuBju+y
jxr26eYHFIyDlHLlVG9I311adlqVBjIn4wJmEsIrMRQ47QDV7DEtLAH4MPjs5D4D
5qHJZFBEBvqAMwZ6zeErNiFyqaEqWukchp1RYOWUWcz3tZHDUbj8PchN86mOGGts
ood9UWWO3aU=
=fdSh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Stan Kalisch III

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On 13 Nov 1997, Chris Ebenezer wrote:

> Ron Newman (rne...@thecia.net) wrote:
> : In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
> : <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>
> : > The CFV result said 488 YES votes.

> : >
> : > Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
> : >
> : > Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.
>

> And how exactly did you gather this information ? Did you perchance use
> Dejanews ? Are you not aware that people 'x-no-archive' their posts ?

He dismissed these people as statistically negligible, and therefore
irrelevant.

Stan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key

iQCVAwUBNGxQ65yiGl9g1kgJAQFMnQP9G+tLGnz+4mBHPljs0G4530TDYWcFnliZ
uPfBz3QOjZVBUmoDhSAJrWIYyCxipApNSaWwPAzVaSR2NjmOBvSK81PiPRqkGprf
DfmE+2I4KAv8EGysqjXTqXBpm9nU/t707wUfOptHD0bKZtiZh6jNrR+ovaJoRVGx
NaKIlX0phk4=
=OeZl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Stella Nemeth

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

chr...@nortel.ca (Chris Ebenezer) wrote:

>Ron Newman (rne...@thecia.net) wrote:
>: In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
>: <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>

>: > The CFV result said 488 YES votes.

>: >
>: > Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
>: >
>: > Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.
>

>And how exactly did you gather this information ? Did you perchance use
>Dejanews ? Are you not aware that people 'x-no-archive' their posts ?

>My own address will show a grand total of zero posts over the last
>month and a half, but observe :-

And even worse, was he aware that DejaNews' Profile system was broken
quite badly a couple of weeks ago even for people who didn't use
X-no-archive? I wouldn't be so sure of its accuracy today.

During the aftermath of the news.newusers.questions CFV people came
forward who had been lurking Usenet for as long as 5 years and who had
never posted before defending their right to vote on the CFV. This
new newsgroup is a similar kind of issue. One would expect it to
attrack lurkers or people who seldom post.

Stella Nemeth at sne...@home.com
One of the Moderators of news.newusers.questions

Stephan Schulz

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

In article <346becaa...@news.wwa.com>,
Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> wrote:
>In news.groups on 13 Nov 1997 15:15:47 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
>wrote:

[...]

>>You're making the assumption that people vote from the address from which
>>they read news. Roughly 50% of voters, according to information I've
>>gotten from votetakers in the past (after the completion of votes), cut
>>and paste the ballot into a new mail message rather than replying directly
>>to the CFV.
>
>OK, here is Joe Voter, reading news.groups. He comes across the CFV,
>stops to read, then says "Yes, I would like to vote on this." Under your
>scenario, here is what he would have to do:
>
[10 Steps]

>That is a lot of work.
>
>I find it much easier to:

[7 Steps]

You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the environment of Joe
here. I usually vote with a fresh message, and it's simpler for
me. Both news and mail are open all of the time, I just hit m to start
a new message, paste address and ballot, edit the ballot and off goes
the message. Deleting the rest of CFV is much more expensive to me
than the simple copy operation...

Stephan

-------------------------- It can be done! ---------------------------------
Please email me as sch...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Stephan Schulz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Damon

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
...

>Then how did you get the CFV? There were only two ways of getting it -- in
>the newsgroups to which it was posted, in which case your Usenet posting
>address would have been listed, or by email from the votetaker, in which
>case your email address would show up. May I assume that, upon reading
>the message you received from CAUCE, you immediately sent to David
>Bostwick for a ballot? Or did you obtain your ballot elsewhere?
>

I got the pointer to the call for vote from CAUSE, I then when to the news
groups which it was posted and Read about 500 messages the groups in the RFD and
picked up the CFV there. Last I heard read a message does not put my address
into the group. I mailed my vote while inside my news reader (Agent) to the
specified address. My Reply-To address was set to the address specified in my
vote and I got my ack.

Yes, I would have preferred the CAUSE and sent a pointer to the RFD first but I
did not consider the failure to do that cause to vote NO, since they
specifically asked people to read the discussions before voting.
--
richar...@iname.com (Redirector to my current best Mailbox)
rda...@beltronicsInspection.com (Work Adddress)
Richad...@msn.com (Just for Fun)

WD Baseley

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

In article <347f669f.896914743@news>, sne...@home.com (Stella Nemeth)
articulated:

>And even worse, was he aware that DejaNews' Profile system was broken
>quite badly a couple of weeks ago even for people who didn't use
>X-no-archive? I wouldn't be so sure of its accuracy today.

I recall reading a post that the Profile system 'breaks' that way
sometimes when they change the date ranges for 'current' and
'archived' posts, and that they fix it pretty quickly after each
occurence.

-- WD Baseley

Leo G Simonetta

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

SNECK

In article <346bcdef...@news.wwa.com>, Henrietta Thomas wrote:
SNIP

>At their web site, CAUCE claims membership in excess of 6,000.
>Assuming that to be true, and assuming they sent letters to each
>and every one, it is safe to assume that less than 10% took the
>time to vote. Of course, we have no way of knowing how many
>of the people who voted are CAUCE members, but even if all
>of them are, it would still come out to less than 10%. It seems to
>me that CAUCE members weren't all that interested.

But . . .
I am a CAUCE member and I did not recieve an email from CAUCE
or anyone else informing me of the vote or encouraging me to
to vote for the group. Therefore only the CAUCE member who
read Usenet and news.groups specifically were likely to know about
the vote. I read news.groups and I just tuned everything out when
the level of discussion dropped below our usual low standards.

And yes, I did not vote.

>Nevertheless, if all 488 YES voters come to play in the sandbox,
>they should have themselves a very good time. :-)

Glad to hear you think so.

>Henrietta Thomas
>voted NO
>not a member of CAUCE
>does not _ever_ munge her address
>has no objection to the list being posted twice
>knows how to find the delete key on her keyboard

Didn't vote
Member
Never munges
Knows how to respond to postmaster and abuse desks

--
Leo G. Simonetta My Opinions! MINE. All Mine!
Director, UNH Survey Center le...@christa.unh.edu
Join CAUCE at http://www.cauce.org

Information Security

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

Replies to Stan & Ram...

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: > : On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: > : > Indictment: only one tenth of CAUCE's membership was roused to vote.
: >
: > : That's *still* irrelevant. It's self-serving to call it an indictment.
: >
: > Irrelevant?

: *Yes*, *very*...if they want to exercise the right *not* to vote, that's
: certainly *their* decisions... If anything, I think it helps the vote
: (unless they officially want to register abstentions) to be more
: *accurate*... So I'm being generous by even calling it irrelevant.

I see, not.

So, 1/10th of the voting population actually voting makes for
a more accurate vote?

ESTRAHNO.

Regarding my saying:

: > : > It's a bit fudgy, with a number of assumptions, <...>

Apparently this isn't good enough for some people.

How's this: I put a negative spin on the vote results.

Honest enough for you? (probably not ;-)

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: > : On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: > : > So, what have we learned?

: > : >
: > : > *******************************************************************
: > : > * That CAUCE's one-mouth official explanation caused 211 people *
: > : > * who don't even post to Usenet (and thus aren't victims of *
: > : > * Usenet-based spam UCE) to vote YES. *
: > : > *******************************************************************
: >
: > : Why do you assume that none of these people were capable of thinking
: > : themselves? How dare you speak on behalf of 211 people?
: >
: > Hey, feel free to poll them to ask about their source of information
: > and understanding on what they were voting on.

: No--that's *your* job. If you can't tell us these things, your complaints
: are without merit.

What I meant to say is my guesstimate is 200 of the 211 people
did not post to Usenet recently. So far, about five people
have come forward to indicate they _do_ using a different
address.

In otherwords, they took active steps to avoid the spam.

Using a separate address to filter with is similar to munging!

It just further confirms how wrong it was for CAUCE to require
real email addresses for posting to comp.org.cauce!

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: > : On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: > : > (I find it unlikely many mungers were among them), and zero is good for

: > : > NO votes, because it indicates a munger, or someone not bushwacked by
: > : > CAUCE's leadership's slimy less-information campaign.
: >
: > : What? If CAUCE had provided *more* information, they could have been
: > : accused of trying to taint the vote.
: >
: > Whooey!

: Who?

You!

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Chris Ebenezer wrote:

: > Ron Newman (rne...@thecia.net) wrote:
: > : In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
: > : <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
: >
: > : > The CFV result said 488 YES votes.
: > : >
: > : > Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
: > : >
: > : > Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.
: >
: > And how exactly did you gather this information ? Did you perchance use
: > Dejanews ? Are you not aware that people 'x-no-archive' their posts ?

: He dismissed these people as statistically negligible, and therefore
: irrelevant.

---and---

In comp.org.eff.talk Dr. Ram Samudrala <ram.sa...@stanford.nojunkemail> wrote:
: It may be a good idea to check for names also:

: In comp.org.eff.talk Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: >ex...@alanine.ram.org: 0

: I post a lot.

I guesstimate 11 of the two hundred "ZEROES"
did not post to Usenet recently.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: > : On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: > : > CAUCE's leadership should resign over this disgraceful result, <...>

: >
: > : *Your* results are *vague*. It is irresponsible on your part to call them
: > : an *indictment*. The arrogance you harbor in your belief you can guess
: > : the thought processes of 211 people is ridiculous.
: >
: > I call for their resignation mainly because they were incompetent
: > enough to require a real email address at a time of heavy UCE <...>

: Please explain why this is incompetence. I can see why it would be a
: *problem*. I can see why it's *possible* that it could be *paranoia*.
: But I still don't see anyone explaining how it's *incompetence*.

It is incompetent for them to piss off so many members
who choose to munge.

It is the only thing we're arguing about.

Why unnecessarily create a wedge issue?

Simply find a CAUCE member willing to moderate and
allow munged posts.

It's that simple.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: <...> and while going against their filtering-is-not-a-solution stated
: > principle, <...>

: Please explain.

Yet again:

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: <...> and because of their failure to have an open debate on this issue

: > visible at their WWW or mailing list.

: Please explain why that was *needed*.

To make an informed decision, duh.

That's 2 troll elements in your one post so far.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: > I didn't mean to give the impression I was claiming vote fraud

: > or filing a protest of the vote results.

: Well, it doesn't sound like you *agree* with the *validity* of the
: results.

My complaint is not with the votetaker, or the people who voted.

It is with CAUCE for not coming close to showing
the debate at their WWW site.

I certainly would have shown both sides of the debate,
how about you?

: > In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: > : What? If CAUCE had provided *more* information, they could

: > : have been accused of trying to taint the vote.

I guess not. Are you trying to make CAUCE look bad?

In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:

: > Let's see how well and useful comp.org.cauce becomes.

: Well, we both know some people aren't going to post there because they
: can't munge. That is a foregone conclusion. Trying to figure out
: whether or not this indiscriminate group of people is "useful", meanwhile,
: makes less sense than trying to compute absolutely accurate integrals.

Ugh, whut you said, Stan.
---guy

Information Security

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

In news.admin.net-abuse.email RPG Tools <rpgt...@aol-beresh.com> wrote:
: : I am a CAUCE member and I did not recieve an email from CAUCE

: : or anyone else informing me of the vote or encouraging me to
: : to vote for the group.

: I got one. It's the only thing I've ever gotten from them, but I
: hear it's not the only thing they have sent. It would appear the
: CAUCE mailing list is not reliable.

In news.admin.net-abuse.email Leo G Simonetta <le...@hopper.unh.edu> wrote:

: Therefore only the CAUCE member who read Usenet and news.groups

: specifically were likely to know about the vote.

Then how do you explain 211 'YES' votes with no history
of posting (DejaNews) in the past month and a half?

I guesstimate only 11 of them used other addresses or munge.

What breakdown do you guess?
---guy

Ed Leslie

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

Ron Newman (rne...@thecia.net) wrote:
: In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
: <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
:
: > The CFV result said 488 YES votes.
: >
: > Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
: >
: > Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.
:

: Did I miss the part of the newsgroup creation standard that says
: you must post to Usenet a certain number of times in the
: six weeks preceding the casting of a vote for or against
: a newsgroup?

Or, for that matter, that they have to have been posting under their REAL
email address? A common MO, you will recall, is to not sign your posts
with your real email address, with the SPECIFIC aim of cutting down on
UCE. This would mean, of course, that this little search would have missed
you. :-)

P.S. Remove the * below to make *that* address valid.

--
Ed*Les...@EDU.YorkU.CA (Ed Leslie) Technology Consultant
York University Faculty of Education
Voice: 416-736-5723 FAX: 416-650-8006

Daniel S. Riley

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

p...@netcom.com (Paul Rubin) writes:
> How can you say the group was fairly voted on, when the CFV didn't
> have any PRO and CON statements with the CON statement in the opposer's
> own words?

A usenet CFV isn't really a vote--it is a poll to determine if the
level of interest in the proposed group is sufficient to justify
creating it. This is why the CFV is written by the proponent, and
also why passage isn't by a simple majority.
--
Dan Riley d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu
Wilson Lab, Cornell University HEPNET/SPAN: lns598::dsr (44630::dsr)
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~dsr/ "Distance means nothing/To me" -Kate Bush

Jonathan Rynd

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

Wow, another spammer. * PLONK *

In article <346bcdef...@news.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas)
wrote:

> At their web site, CAUCE claims membership in excess of 6,000.
> Assuming that to be true, and assuming they sent letters to each
> and every one,

Which they most certainly did not.

> it is safe to assume that less than 10% took the
> time to vote. Of course, we have no way of knowing how many
> of the people who voted are CAUCE members, but even if all
> of them are, it would still come out to less than 10%. It seems to
> me that CAUCE members weren't all that interested.

I was annoyed at CAUCE for not being straightforward about the
moderation requirements the first time around!

> knows how to find the delete key on her keyboard

Even when you're getting 178 spams a day? It's predicted that, if
nothing changes by the year 2000, each user will get 65,000 spams that
year. I got 10 today, a new high (or is that a new low?)

--
"Ethical Relativity: The exact same universal laws are always true,
and apply to you no matter what your frame of reference is."

Kathy Pascoe

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>
> OK, here is Joe Voter, reading news.groups. He comes across the CFV,
> stops to read, then says "Yes, I would like to vote on this." Under
> your scenario, here is what he would have to do:
>

> 1. Highlight and "cut" the ballot portion of the CFV.
> 2. Close the news program.

Joys of Windows; keep the mail and news clients open; no need to close
Netscape.

> 3. Open his email program.
> 4. Open a new mail message.
> 5. Paste the ballot into the new mail message.
> 6. Complete the ballot.
> 7. Insert the votetaker's address in the To: line.
> 8. Send the ballot on its way.
> 9, Close the mail program.
> 10. Open the news program to continue reading.

>
> That is a lot of work.

Which is how I *had* to do it until I got an account on our internet
mail server at work. Sure, I had Netscape to read news, but I couldn't
use it to send mail without a mail account. I had to cut and paste
into my mail client. And it's not that much work.
--
Kathy Pascoe ~ kpa...@ford.com (work) ~ kpa...@sprintmail.com (home)

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

In news.groups on Fri, 14 Nov 1997 15:33:50 GMT, rda...@BeltronicsInspection.com
(Richard Damon) wrote:

>h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) wrote:
>...
>>Then how did you get the CFV? There were only two ways of getting it -- in
>>the newsgroups to which it was posted, in which case your Usenet posting
>>address would have been listed, or by email from the votetaker, in which
>>case your email address would show up. May I assume that, upon reading
>>the message you received from CAUCE, you immediately sent to David
>>Bostwick for a ballot? Or did you obtain your ballot elsewhere?
>>
>I got the pointer to the call for vote from CAUSE, I then when to the news
>groups which it was posted and Read about 500 messages the groups in the RFD and
>picked up the CFV there. Last I heard read a message does not put my address
>into the group. I mailed my vote while inside my news reader (Agent) to the
>specified address. My Reply-To address was set to the address specified in my
>vote and I got my ack.
>
>Yes, I would have preferred the CAUSE and sent a pointer to the RFD first but I
>did not consider the failure to do that cause to vote NO, since they
>specifically asked people to read the discussions before voting.

Thank you for responding. I wanted to be sure there was no other
stuff going on with this vote that could make things worse than they
already are. I am much relieved to know that you received your
ballot in a legitimate way.

Henrietta

Stan Kalisch III

unread,

Nov 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/14/97

to

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 13 Nov 1997, Paul Rubin wrote:

> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3_1-10....@crl6.crl.com>,

> Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:

> >> Data trailing. (There is a five-day period for fraud-checking,
> >> so I'm showing the data in case anyone finds it useful)
> >
> >Basically, Guy, what you don't like is the group creation process. You
> >have no evidence whatsoever to support your contention. Filing a protest
> >unfairly delays the creation of a group that was fairly voted for by 438
> >people.
>

> I'm confused about one thing. Where I live, we have these state
> referendums all the time, and both the supporting and the opposing
> sides are allowed to make a ballot statement in their own words.
>
> I've never looked carefully at the CFV process before. But it looks
> like the comp.org.cauce CFV (and by extension, other CFV's?) was
> written entirely by supporters, <...>

What gets posted is basically written by them. But note that before it
gets posted it goes through two third parties, and that everything
the proponent(s) wrote might not be in the ballot.

<...> which because of a ruckus stirred up by an earlier, even more
> one-sided version, included a distorted and watered-down interpretation
> of the opponents' argument.

If you're referring to the first CFV, the *first* CFV was cancelled
because of an error made by the votetaker before submitting the CFV for
posting. The error wasn't made by the proponents of the newsgroup.

The error didn't water down an opposing argument--it simply left out
information upon which other people, myself included, would decide to vote
NO on the proposal instead of YES.

> How can you say the group was fairly voted on, when the CFV didn't
> have any PRO and CON statements with the CON statement in the opposer's
> own words?

There were three official Requests for Discussion (RFDs) regarding the
proposed new group. Supporters, opponents, potential supporters, and
potential opponents discussed the proposal in various forms from heaven to
hell--and back. It's a wonder this group ever even passed.

> Of course, there's the problem then of who gets to speak for the
> opponents, <...>

They were spoken for, believe me. Just go search for "comp.org.cauce" in
DejaNews. Have fun. :-)

<...> but somehow California ballot propositions manage to deal with that
> problem.
>
> It is also ironic that everyone who voted, either way, got their
> address posted to Usenet in the ballot results post (and re-posted in
> several of the followups). These addresses will of course be
> harvested by UCE bots in the usual manner and the voters (especially
> those who normally munge) will get increased amounts of spam as a
> consequence. I find this objectionable, <...>

It might be ironic, and you might find it objectionable, but I don't think
it clearly indicates any kind of bias in regard to this debate--since it's
the result of a practice that long precedes it.

<...> and if I were a munger I'd actually feel upset. Perhaps someone
> familiar with the process can get a formal proposal moving that CFV
> results should not contain voter addresses, except possibly in munged
> form.

Some fit this qualification, I believe--I can't remember specifics for
some reason. I'm sure someone else can.

Stan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key

iQCVAwUBNGzBOJyiGl9g1kgJAQHMEwP9GyJdmrb6j+2J6x8MjUOo0Cjz3hSr/RNk
c/5rhV73czhoJVryJ3rsg4eASmqVkfNgA5v0C7scxodWZcnEg5ip4LEIwZmsQ9eh
hbt6bi078VxdfLY//qXqQkY/nCe5YoMRAxW1cnjT29CfLuPa8YVfH8gUMQthYv4r
6SsuqD3zBR4=
=XHBf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Stella Nemeth

unread,

Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97

to

Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

[huge snip]

>Well, wasn't that special?
>
>Every last one of them is a computer geek.
>
>That filter or munge.

Isn't it amazing. Every one a "computer geek" (by your standards even
I would qualify as a computer geek) that filters or munges, and that
STILL voted YES on a newsgroup that requires that you use replyable
addresses..

Amazing!

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97

to

It's posts like this one that the Kook Cabal Rightwing call
"hysterical", to try and obfuscate the truth.

Once again, CAUCE leadership is nailed to the Usenet II wall.

---

In comp.org.eff.talk Peter L. Montgomery <pmon...@cwi.nl> wrote:
: In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: >Reminder: the controversy over the creation of the group comp.org.cauce
: >is that CAUCE's UCENET II leaders (Czars) insisted - like U2 Czars -
: >that people have to post with their real email address, thus guaranteeing
: >people who post even more email UCE.

: >YES votes, and #of Usenet posts in the last month and a half:

: >peter-lawren...@cwi.nl: 0

: I did vote YES. And I have posted to Usenet
: many times in the last month, from this and and other accounts.
: For example, the article below on comp.sys.dec is responding
: to one of my postings.

comp.sys.dec?

Well, I'll just move you from the "unknown zero" list to the
computer geek with a second email address list. ;-)

I take it you use a second email address for coping with spam...

My technique is to use an unresolvably munged address, meaning
I am not costing anyone for spam transferred to my ISP, because
it doesn't happen. (If I hadn't first ruined guy@ ;-)

You, however, are receiving spam, then _subsequently_ coping with it.

This is against CAUCE's stated position on dealing with spam.

# CAUCE's official position on filtering:
#
# Filters create a tremendous drag on server resources,
# making email delivery slower and sometimes causing the
# loss of legitimate email.
#
# And: http://www.cauce.org/faq.html
#
# By the time Spam messages reach the filter and are
# possibly thrown away, they have already clogged the email

# pipeline (remember that they are sent by the millions) so

# that they do indeed cost money to all the ISP's and
# relaying companies, who must increase their capabilities
# to be able to continue operations.
#
# http://www.cauce.org/nonsolutions.html
#
# No matter what filtering mechanism is built,
# spammers will find a way around it.

! A PRIMARY PROBLEM with filtering: in order not to lose
! "false positives", one must send the filtered email to
! a capture file, and look through it anyway!

Hey, allowing munging on comp.org.cauce wouldn't have interfered
with people who do the filterfest dance, so why did all these
people who filter and/or use a second email address to cope
with spam insist on interfering with our munging way of coping?

Why did CAUCE's Usenet II leadership unnecessarily create a wedge
issue among its own members?

They threw up every cheesey reason they could think of to disallow
munging, including the wild claim that suddenly: it was a perilous
legal thing to allow munging to a moderated group!

Cheeyeah, right.

They could have allowed mungers to register a real address to
go with their posted munged address (CAUCE insists on this to
eliminate spam from the group), but stated they were not running
an anonymizer and would give out the real address to law enforcement
if presented with the proper papers.

Noone would have had expectations that it was an anonymous posting
service, and mungers could have munged.

Does anyone know why they didn't do this?

Besides the reasons I've been giving...

Clearly, the Usenet II Czars in charge of CAUCE have a higher
allegiance to the Usenet II goals of requiring people post
with their real email address, than they do to their supposed
priority of fighting UCE.

Unresolvable munging is far superior to filtering in fighting spam.

----

Another interesting thing that apparently happened was that the
CFV mailed to CAUCE went to a *selected* subset of the membership.

CAUCE does not often mail things to its membership asking them
to take action, so if they mailed it to the 6000+ members, one
would have expected more than a mere 1/10 of them to return it.

Hey, gang, let's make our own group! But the vote was so light...

Hmmm, let's think of why they might have mailed it to considerably
fewer CAUCE members than the whole membership...

# http://www.cauce.org/newsletter/extra2.html
#
# Q: Isn't there some way I can post with my spamblocked address?
#
# A: Bluntly, no. Help is available to CAUCE members and others who
# would like help installing filtering systems

# http://www.cauce.org/newsletter/extra2.html
#
# If you would like assistance setting up a filtering system that
# does not create bounced messages, please contact John Mozena
# <m...@cauce.org> for details. You do not have to plan to post
# to comp.org.cauce to receive this assistance.

Oh, right: Mozena would have had to help THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE to
setup filtering to help cope with the spam they admit would
result from posting to the anti-spam group.

---guy at ISP Panix

Chris Westbury

unread,

Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97

to

In article <64jbq3$b...@news1.panix.com>,
Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>
> You have demonstrated that every one of them (besides the bogus
> pairing) uses A DIFFERENT ADDRESS FOR POSTING, to filter spam.
>
> I do hope that's not too much of an assumption on my part, regarding
> the use of multiple addresses to the same person, one for email, one
> for Usenet (email replies).

Why, yes, as a matter of fact it is.

First, as Mr. Krueger mentioned in a part you cut, _not_ every one of
them uses a different address for posting. Some of them map to the same
email address at the server, which can be verified by some trivial SMTP
server querying.

For example, cwes...@intranet.com, cwes...@giant.intranet.com, and
cwes...@titan.intranet.com are not different addresses. They are the
SAME ADDRESS. (Which one shows up in my posts or email seems to depend
on the phase of the moons of Saturn.) I get two or three copies of every
UCE.

At least two of the eleven posted addresses fall into this category. (My
vote was not one of the first thirty-one).

Second, you cannot assume that someone who happens to use a different
address for posting than for email on a given day has done it "to filter
spam". Perhaps so, perhaps not. Almost everyone eventually winds up
with multiple addresses, for many reasons, notably not being able to post
from work.

There's no point in going into the other logic errors in your article
since your premises are false. Again.

--
Christopher Westbury, Midtown Associates, 15 Fallon Place, Cambridge, MA 02138

Information Security

unread,

Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Ed Leslie <edle...@yorku.ca> wrote:
: Ron Newman (rne...@thecia.net) wrote:
: : In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
: : <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
: :

: : > The CFV result said 488 YES votes.
: : >
: : > Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
: : >
: : > Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.
: :
: : Did I miss the part of the newsgroup creation standard that says
: : you must post to Usenet a certain number of times in the
: : six weeks preceding the casting of a vote for or against
: : a newsgroup?

: Or, for that matter, that they have to have been posting under their REAL
: email address? A common MO, you will recall, is to not sign your posts
: with your real email address, with the SPECIFIC aim of cutting down on
: UCE. This would mean, of course, that this little search would have missed
: you. :-)

In which case, it was done for a filtering/partitioning technique
to cope with spam.

Not an improvement.
---guy

Peter L. Montgomery

unread,

Nov 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/15/97

to

In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>
Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

< Much data from original posting deleted. >

>Reminder: the controversy over the creation of the group comp.org.cauce
>is that CAUCE's UCENET II leaders (Czars) insisted - like U2 Czars -
>that people have to post with their real email address, thus guaranteeing
>people who post even more email UCE.

># There were 488 YES votes and 120 NO votes, for a total of 608 valid votes.

>I did an analysis at DejaNews for the "current database"
>of 9/25/97 to 11/12/97.

>YES votes, and #of Usenet posts in the last month and a half:

>peter-lawren...@cwi.nl: 0

I did vote YES. And I have posted to Usenet
many times in the last month, from this and and other accounts.
For example, the article below on comp.sys.dec is responding
to one of my postings.

Peter-Lawrence-Montgomery is a mail alias for pmontgom,
my login name. Pnews (which I use to post news) inserts pmon...@cwi.nl
in the headers, but my mailer inserts Peter-Lawren...@cwi.nl.
Both addresses are valid even though they appear different.

: Path: cwi.nl!sun4nl!EU.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news1.digital.com!pa.dec.com!kar.dec.com!neideck
: From: nei...@kar.dec.com (Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz)
: Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec
: Subject: Re: Alpha Assembly Programming
: Date: 13 Nov 1997 18:28:45 GMT
: Organization: CEC Karlsruhe
: Lines: 39
: Message-ID: <64fgst$6...@usenet.pa.dec.com>
: References: <34622F...@dso.org.sg> <63s25m$7v7$1...@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <EJAAH...@cwi.nl>
: NNTP-Posting-Host: bier.kar.dec.com
:
: In article <EJAAH...@cwi.nl> pmon...@cwi.nl (Peter L. Montgomery) writes:

(body deleted)
--
Peter L. Montgomery pmon...@cwi.nl San Rafael, California

A mathematician whose age has doubled since he last drove an automobile.

Kevin Podsiadlik

unread,

Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97

to

In article <64jlsv$lar$1...@news1.teleport.com>, SPAMB...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>I voted "no."
>I cancelled my CAUCE membership over the issue of munging.

I would have done likewise, except for two points:

1) The "Mahmud" "smear" campaign, in my view, served to drive many people
into voting "yes" without looking into the deeper issues. The whole
affair was a nightmare for the "no" side, and the damnable thing was that
there was nothing to be done to stop it. The inevitable 'just ignore it'
advice would not have worked even if it could have been followed perfectly,
for the Freedom Knights controlled both sides of the so-called debate.
Frankly, it was perfectly timed, well-orchestrated, and if the goal of
the Freedom Knights was to make sure comp.org.cauce was passed as proposed,
they quite simply could not have done a better job of it.

To get back to the point, I have concluded that the result of the vote
does not necessarily indicate rank-and-file support within CAUCE for the
banning of address munging. Certainly if I thought that 80% of CAUCE
members were in favor of such a ban, I would have a pretty good idea
where I (didn't) fit in.

2) A sidelight from the "Mahmud" affair: "Mahmud" claimed to be a CAUCE
member. A laughable proposition, of course, but an odd thing: no one
could prove he wasn't! This is for the simple reason that the membership
list of CAUCE is not available to the public. CAUCE states that the
information is only given to the federal legislators. As such, I reason
that whether or not I remain a member is totally irrelevent to anyone
but these legislators. And, at present, the issue of address munging
is not one currently under consideration by these legislators.

Mind you, the day that consideration begins, assuming the situation does
not otherwise change, will be my last as a member of CAUCE.

I do not plan on participating on c.o.c, though I do intend to lurk.
I will be watching for discussion of address munging there with considerable
interest.

--
Kevin Podsiadlik (or just "KJP")
"There is no such thing as a stupid question.
Just stupid people who *ask* questions."
-- Dean Chris Berman

Information Security

unread,

Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97

to

Replies to cwestbury and Russbery...

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: >> windlord:~> echo pns...@vagrecbeg.arg | rot13 | sed 's/@/ (at) /'
: >> cafzali (at) interport.net

: > Then there were zero posts in the current database.

: There were three posts in the current database from the munged address
: that I saw, and a goodly number in the old database (but only a few months
: ago) from the unmunged address.

Ah, I see them now. Probably at least nine of 'em in the current DB.

: > And: another computer geek who munges yet voted 'YES'.

: Yup. Funny that, isn't it? Seems like a lot of mungers still
: don't agree with you.

Yeah, and I don't understand.

They will have to do something other than munge to post.

Kinda like bisexual mungers - they can go either way.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Chris Westbury <cwes...@giant.intranet.com> wrote:
: In article <64jbq3$b...@news1.panix.com>,
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
: >
: > You have demonstrated that every one of them (besides the bogus

: > pairing) uses A DIFFERENT ADDRESS FOR POSTING, to filter spam.
: >
: > I do hope that's not too much of an assumption on my part, regarding
: > the use of multiple addresses to the same person, one for email, one
: > for Usenet (email replies).

: Why, yes, as a matter of fact it is.

: First, as Mr. Krueger mentioned in a part you cut, _not_ every one of
: them uses a different address for posting. Some of them map to the same
: email address at the server, which can be verified by some trivial SMTP
: server querying.

: For example, cwes...@intranet.com, cwes...@giant.intranet.com, and
: cwes...@titan.intranet.com are not different addresses. They are the
: SAME ADDRESS.

Well, their *delivery* maps to the same username, but they are *not* the
same address. It is not just a matter of semantics, but the very purpose
of using multiple addresses to the same mbox.

Filtering.

To prove they are not the same address: do you admit MX records could
be set to route them to completely different domains?

: Second, you cannot assume that someone who happens to use a different

: address for posting than for email on a given day has done it "to filter
: spam". Perhaps so, perhaps not. Almost everyone eventually winds up
: with multiple addresses, for many reasons, notably not being able to post
: from work.

That wasn't a very good example - if you can't post from work, you can't
post from work.

: There's no point in going into the other logic errors in your article
: since your premises are false. Again.

Oh, right. That certainly covered it.

---guy

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97

to

In news.admin.net-abuse.email Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > In comp.org.eff.talk Kevin Podsiadlik <kjpo...@cyberramp.net> wrote:

: >> And, at present, the issue of address munging is not one currently

: >> under consideration by these legislators.

: > Gee, I wonder what CAUCE's Usenet II Czar leadership's position on any
: > such legislation would be. 8*(

: Don't know for sure (although I have guesses). I'd be strongly opposed to
: any such legislation.

Under what circumstances do you favor allowing people to munge?
---guy

Information Security

unread,

Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97

to

Stella Nemeth <sne...@home.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: >However, compared to the average person, you are extremely
: >clued-in to what is happening on Usenet, and the spam that
: >results from posting with your real email address.
: >
: >Therefore, you're a geek.

: Errrr. No.

: What I am is something that is beginning to be rather common. I'm a
: very experienced user of computer software, who is also totally
: non-technical. That makes me a great answerer of questions that
: newbies ask. If I can figure out how to make it work, I can teach
: someone else to do it too.

If you are doing software helpdesk, you are a geek.

Even if you don't think of yourself as one.

Maybe I should just say 'technically aware', instead of geek.

: I don't do hardware and I don't program. (Well, I do "program"
: Access databases, but I don't write code, so I don't think that
: counts.)

MS Access DB? SQL or Basic procs?

You are simply not confident as a programmer.

After a couple more job changes, salary >90K, you'll feel better. ;-)
---guy

Message has been deleted

Stella Nemeth

unread,

Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97

to

Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

>Stella Nemeth <sne...@home.com> wrote:
>: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>

>: >Well, wasn't that special?

>: >
>: >Every last one of them is a computer geek.
>: >
>: >That filter or munge.
>
>: Isn't it amazing. Every one a "computer geek" (by your standards even
>: I would qualify as a computer geek) that filters or munges, and that
>: STILL voted YES on a newsgroup that requires that you use replyable
>: addresses..
>

>I take it you are being sarcastic that I would describe someone who:
>
>: Stella Nemeth at sne...@home.com

>: One of the Moderators of news.newusers.questions
>

>..moderates a Usenet group would qualify as a computer geek.

Actually no. I wasn't being sarcastic. It is pretty well known that
I'm the Official Nagger of news.newusers.questions. I don't actually
moderate messages at this moment in time, although I am taking
"moderator lessons" since the nagging seems to have run out. As
Official Nagger I wrote email to ISPs that hadn't turned on the
moderation once the control message had gone out. I also provided any
information they needed to feel comfortable doing that.

They don't let me anywhere near the bot that does most of the
moderation. <g> I am hoping to work myself up to something simple
like test messages by the end of the year, however.

>However, compared to the average person, you are extremely
>clued-in to what is happening on Usenet, and the spam that
>results from posting with your real email address.
>
>Therefore, you're a geek.

Errrr. No.

What I am is something that is beginning to be rather common. I'm a
very experienced user of computer software, who is also totally
non-technical. That makes me a great answerer of questions that
newbies ask. If I can figure out how to make it work, I can teach
someone else to do it too.

I don't do hardware and I don't program. (Well, I do "program"

Access databases, but I don't write code, so I don't think that
counts.)

Information Security

unread,

Nov 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/16/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > Under what circumstances do you favor allowing people to munge?

: I favor leaving it up to each ISP, group moderator, hierarchy policy, or
: what have you. In other words, no government. Usenet has its own
: "authority" structures that have a lot more checks and balances (in the
: form of "anyone can go somewhere else and make a new group") than the
: government does, and if requiring valid addresses isn't a popular policy
: groups that do that won't be successful.

Hmmm, you're not a member of CAUCE...and you're "no government regulation".

Does that mean you don't want a Smith or any other anti-UCE bill?

----

The entire basis for fighting spam is that it costs money to transfer it,
and get rid of it.

That's the entire basis.

Unresolvable munging eliminates the transfer and having to deal with it.

Us mungers are anti-spam.

Do you think I'm a kook for being *persistent and loud* in fighting
loss of munging in places like comp.org.cauce and Usenet II?

Keeping in mind that the Usenet II email history of the project
clearly shows they think of themselves as a Cabal conspiracy...

# * [usenet2] Cabal vs. Anti-Cabal
# * From: "J.D. Falk" <jdf...@cais.com>
# * Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 18:14:17 -0400 (EDT)
#
# I just had the crazy idea that we -- the NNN cabal -- should
# split in half and start an anti-cabal to help steer the anti-NNN traffic
# towards staying in alt.* or that ill-conceived free.* heirarchy.
#
# All hail discordia. Neener neener. Fnord.

Along with: censorship controls...

* [usenet2] net.censor program for nnn
^^^^^^^
* From: Peter duh Silva <pe...@baileynm.com>
* [the "censorbot"]

And both Usenet II Steering Committee and the Usenet II Czars running
CAUCE have come down HARD against munging to anti-spam.

Senselessly.

----

# In news.admin.net-abuse.email Peter duh Silva <pe...@baileynm.com> wrote:
# : Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
#
# : You posted a bunch of thinly disguised personal attacks in net.food, and
# : they were mostly deleted by the hierarchy czar as being off-topic.
#
# You lie when you say I posted "a bunch of thinly disguised personal
# attacks in net.food".
#
# Produce the "bunch" of posts.

What do you think of a member of the Usenet II Steering Committee
lying - out and out lying - about my posts? (Only one post could
qualify, and *I* deleted it.)

Doesn't it cause you any concerns?

Didn't you email duh Silva and ask him what the hell was going on?

To not do so means you implicitly condone the lying, fellow
Steering Committee member.

----

I'd like to see Usenet II withdraw the part of its AUP that
says monetary penalty clauses are "highly recommended".

What were you thinking?

You say requiring people's real email address to post doesn't rule out
anonymity, but the monetary penalty clauses would absolutely require
the person to be identified: how do you fine them if you don't know
who they are? How do you stop them from immediately getting another
account at your ISP after spanking their account when they don't
pay the fine?

Huh?

You have put so many rules and penalties in Usenet II that
you are becoming your own bureaucratic government.

This need to identify users perfectly complements governments'
wishes on the matter:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/121448.asp

Bill would require background checks
from Internet service providers

Rep. Marge Roukema, R-N.J., and Sen. Lauch
Faircloth, R-N.C., introduced a bill aimed at keeping convicted sex
offenders off the Internet. The bill, HR 2791, specifically prohibits
Internet service providers and companies such as America Online from
giving the criminals a subscription. If a sex offender gains access
to the Net, the company issuing the account gets popped for a fine of
up to $5,000 for each day of access.

BACKGROUND CHECKS
What this amounts to is that these companies would have to
perform criminal background checks on each subscriber.

---guy

Information Security

unread,

Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > What do you think of a member of the Usenet II Steering Committee lying

: > - out and out lying - about my posts? (Only one post could qualify, and
: > *I* deleted it.)

: I think that disagreeing with someone else over definitions does not mean
: that the other person is lying, and I think that what you're disagreeing
: about is frankly not enough of a problem to warrant a tenth of the energy
: that any of you are putting into it.

Disagreeing over definitions?

DISAGREEING OVER DEFINITIONS???

Show me A SINGLE post duh Silva's wife deleted that was "a thinly
disguised attack" on her!

We even had a discussion about the Scoville scale of hotness
in another thread.

Go on, you've implied you've seen the "bunch of posts that were
a thinly disguised attack".

Show the ones you feel are a matter of opinion.

This is official Usenet II business we're talking about.
---guy

Cipher

unread,

Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97

to

In article <gerglery-ya0240800...@news.zippo.com> kurdnA
gerG, gerg...@usa.net writes:
>Yo Ciph-baby, snap out of it, man! You usually make sense. With this
>"CAUCE is going to take over the world stuff" you're not making sense.

Really wish I could. But that's the way I see it. First no munging.
Then no anomymous posting. Then Key Escrow and Internet Drivers licenses.

CAUCE is the org that has invited government in, and once those
idealogues are in the door, better lock up the silver. But we'll have to
give them a spare key, in case we're using illegal polish!

>If anything, I'd think that CAUCE would be fully against key escrow.

I wish they would issue a comprehensive statement on all privacy issues.
Really, I would. I've asked..... Privacy is not so far removed from this
munging thing. Mungers wish to protect their privacy, CAUCE wants you to
expose yourself to spam. Go figure....

My objection to c.o.c. all along has been that I see it as a first step
along the road to the dismantling of privacy rights. This *we have to
know who you are nonsense* can be worked around rather easily, as has
been shown. But no compromise is their stand. Gotta look out for all
those innocent postmasters. Right!!

The fact that they are unwilling to even look at other ways to fight UCE
alarms me. Legislation and positive ID are their answers. It tells me
that UCE is not their real concern.

Anyone here now how the Federalist Papers were disseminated? Yup,
anonymously! Seems the Founding Fathers were a bit of a group of mungers
themselves!! And Jefferson created a crypto scheme.

Cipher

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBM81uIbKO9JtAv+/uEQKiBACg0InZT+DGQBNFWAZ4/2Rbm4i2X/8AnjkS
xeNHEHShMX0KgKmIttKbduQn=467z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message has been deleted

First Impression

unread,

Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97

to

Cipher wrote:

> Anyone here now how the Federalist Papers were disseminated? Yup,
> anonymously! Seems the Founding Fathers were a bit of a group of mungers
> themselves!! And Jefferson created a crypto scheme.

The idealists at CAUCE would not understand the work done by these
mungers.

Ginger Glaser

unread,

Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97

to

Henrietta Thomas wrote:
>
> In news.groups on 13 Nov 1997 15:15:47 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
> wrote:

>
> >Henrietta Thomas <h...@wwa.com> writes:
> >
> >> Then how did you get the CFV? There were only two ways of getting it --
> >> in the newsgroups to which it was posted, in which case your Usenet
> >> posting address would have been listed, or by email from the votetaker,
> >> in which case your email address would show up.
> >

> >You're making the assumption that people vote from the address from which
> >they read news. Roughly 50% of voters, according to information I've
> >gotten from votetakers in the past (after the completion of votes), cut
> >and paste the ballot into a new mail message rather than replying directly
> >to the CFV.

>
> OK, here is Joe Voter, reading news.groups. He comes across the CFV,
> stops to read, then says "Yes, I would like to vote on this." Under your
> scenario, here is what he would have to do:
>
> 1. Highlight and "cut" the ballot portion of the CFV.
> 2. Close the news program.

> 3. Open his email program.
> 4. Open a new mail message.
> 5. Paste the ballot into the new mail message.
> 6. Complete the ballot.
> 7. Insert the votetaker's address in the To: line.
> 8. Send the ballot on its way.
> 9, Close the mail program.
> 10. Open the news program to continue reading.
>
> That is a lot of work.

Er, how about...

1. Hit Reply by Email
2. Change from and reply to headers in this message witht the click of a
button
3. Fill out ballot
4. Send in ballot
5. Resume reading mail

I do this quite a bit - not because I care a whit about junk mail, but
because I prefer most replies to go to my home account, plus my work
account runs lots of filters that might catch something I want to get by
filtering their site or something.

As for junk email, my free mail program nicely highlights anything I
don't expect to receive for me in a nice dark color, and I can then scan
those quickly and delete whatever I don't want. Quite a bit less of a
hassle than tossing out all the credit card applications I get in the
snail mail every day.

Ginger

Information Security

unread,

Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: >> I think that disagreeing with someone else over definitions does not
: >> mean that the other person is lying, and I think that what you're

: >> disagreeing about is frankly not enough of a problem to warrant a tenth

: >> of the energy that any of you are putting into it.

: > Disagreeing over definitions?

: > DISAGREEING OVER DEFINITIONS???

: > Show me A SINGLE post duh Silva's wife deleted that was "a thinly
: > disguised attack" on her!

: Could you please reread the part of what I wrote that starts after the
: comma?

I see. You are now disavowing the first part of the sentence.

So, you were commenting on something you haven't read.

Hey, why should ignorance stop you from giving your opinion?

Defend Usenet II Steering Committee members no matter what, eh?

: You posted one post, probably the one that you then cancelled, which was
: rather clearly an attack. (At least I wouldn't generally consider
: forcible oral sex to be on topic in net.food.*. YMMV.)

Yes, my mileage may vary.

Obviously, it was a recipe for Peter duh Silva to implement, since
it was his wife tied to the kitchen table. And "Tickle gently." simply
does not qualify as an "attack". (Unless you are horribly ticklish ;-)

A humor test in the new neighborhood.

But the new Usenet II neighborhood is a cold, alien, unfriendly place.

: You posted a few other things that were clearly heated.
: Stephanie took offense...

This is the "lie" part: I posted no "thinly disguised attacks on
Stephanie which she deleted".

Are you listening?

It's a lie.

Your fellow steering committee member LIED.

: *shrug*

: Frankly, I have rather better things to argue about. If you and Peter
: would like to go back and forth about one thread months ago until the
: world ends, feel free, but it frankly isn't interesting enough to me to
: join in.

Oh, great, you're going to fail to produce to posts too.

: > This is official Usenet II business we're talking about.

: *rolls eyes* You're taking this whole thing far too seriously, IMO.

Well, which is it Russ?

You take humor posts so seriously that you refered to mine as
"an attack" on a Usenet II Czar, or is it just a piece of humor?

You want it both ways.

You'll argue a point from any handy direction.

That's what I mean by "polite liar".

---guy

A point in every direction is like a point in no direction at all.

Fluffy

unread,

Nov 17, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/17/97

to

In <64qel2$l...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> meowed:

: Direction A:
:
: In comp.org.eff.talk Fluffy(R) <flu...@meow.org> wrote:
:
: : I had originally abstained, but changed the vote to a yes precisely
: : because of the negative campaigning.
:
:
: Direction B:
:
: In comp.org.eff.talk Fluffy(R) <flu...@meow.org> wrote:
:
: : That said, I'm none too pleased with the proponents' boneheadedness,
: : sticking to that moderation policy solely because some people loudly
: : opposed it. I hope they aren't so childish when addressing legislators.
:
:
: Fluffster, you're making me dizzy.

Why? I really have no serious problem with the real address requirement
in and of itself. My problem lies only in the fact that sticking to it
_in this case_ produced less benefit than the damage it has caused.

However, while I think that the proponents were being needlessly stubborn,
I think that you and Igor have simply been malicious.

I'll take a lapse of judgment over malice any day.

: Are any groups you might moderate in mod.* going to have
: a real-spam-me-email-address requirement?

That depends entirely on the newsgroup. For example, I think it would be
a valuable requirement for one that is bidirectionally gatewayed to a
mailing list, and for some kinds of announcement newsgroups where the
identity of the poster is important.

But, I don't think it is a necessity for most newsgroups. If you look
back to the first RFD, you'll see that I was the one who first suggested
that the comp.org.cauce proponents consider the x-actual-address:
mechanism.
--
** Sir Fluffy d'Meow of the Templars of the Order of the Holy **
* Configuration, Governor-General of alt, comp, misc, rec, sci, *
humanities, soc, news, talk, bit, ne, pgh, vmsnet and wiz.mopar &
Grand Duke of Hawaii. Meow! <URL:http://world.std.com/~flufster>

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: Irrelevant. There is no requirement for members of an organization to vote
: for a group that organization sponsored.

That doesn't make it irrelevant.

In comp.org.eff.talk Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: |I call for their resignation mainly because they were incompetent
: |enough to require a real email address at a time of heavy UCE and
: |while going against their filtering-is-not-a-solution stated principle,

: Apparently a bunch of people disagreed since the group passed.

I would be frightened if everyone started agreeing with me.

Which is it? Irrelevant that so few people from the group voted,
or that people voted a certain way? Do you care about the voting
or don't you?

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: |and because of their failure to have an open debate on this issue
: |visible at their WWW or mailing list.

: Their web site, not yours. Their mailing list, not yours. You wanted to
: counter their claims?

You missed the point.

It's not about who gets to control their site, but whether they
are honestly presenting the issue.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: |I didn't mean to give the impression I was claiming vote fraud
: |or filing a protest of the vote results.

: <boggle>
: You are claiming people voted who haven't posted to the net.
: How else do you expect people to take your screaming?
: </boggle>

Why, that I was complaining the unbalanced coverage of the
issue unfairly affected the vote.

Anyone can understand how non-Usenet users could come to vote
on it at CAUCE's request. I now have no percentage to suggest
as to the ratio of "ZERO" DejaNews authors, but for those that
someone else further found: they were all computer technical
people.

So, newbies are screwed.

----

: |Let's see how well and useful comp.org.cauce becomes.
: |
: |I'll just have to start using procmail and
: |post as 'guy+CAUCE_L...@panix.com'.

: A week or so back I speculated as to how you would behave depending
: on the outcome of the vote. It appears you have chosen to be a Poor
: Loser and continue your established behavioural pattern.

You gotta be kidding me.

I'm supposed to be _less_ unhappy now that CAUCE leadership has
railroaded this through, and never even replied to a _single_
post of mine on the matter, including the civil ones???

My "established behavioural pattern" is to be persistent.

----

: |---guy
: |
: | Spam this: pe...@baileynm.com

: Vindictive little SOB, aren't you.

Heavy, ain't it? He is Kook Cabal Rightwing, a Usenet II Committe member
who insists people get spammed by posting with their real email address.

You want to see "vindictive"?

# From: Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
# Newsgroups: news.groups
# Subject: Re: RESULT: comp.org.cauce moderated passes 488:120
# Date: 13 Nov 1997 15:19:27 -0800
#
# I voted YES solely due to the hysteria and Igor Chudov's vote-NO campaign.
# I am not a member of CAUCE...

That was vindictive.

Again, Kook Cabal Rightwing.

----

: Into the killfile with you. Blather on all you want.

: And just to give you something else to provide some snide comment on:

: >* PLONK *<

Oh, what a pussy, not simply posting a "plonk"!

I just hope you mean it.
---guy

In Usenet, noone can hear you scream.

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97

to

In news.groups on Mon, 17 Nov 1997 14:29:13 -0800, Ginger Glaser
<gin...@pfizer.com> wrote:

regarding how to vote.......

>Er, how about...
>
>1. Hit Reply by Email
>2. Change from and reply to headers in this message witht the click of a
>button
>3. Fill out ballot
>4. Send in ballot
>5. Resume reading mail

That is generally the way I cast my ballot while reading
news.groups. The only step you left out was the part where
you have to delete all text before and after the ballot.

>I do this quite a bit - not because I care a whit about junk mail, but
>because I prefer most replies to go to my home account, plus my work
>account runs lots of filters that might catch something I want to get by
>filtering their site or something.
>
>As for junk email, my free mail program nicely highlights anything I
>don't expect to receive for me in a nice dark color, and I can then scan
>those quickly and delete whatever I don't want. Quite a bit less of a
>hassle than tossing out all the credit card applications I get in the
>snail mail every day.

Sounds like a good plan to me. :-)

Henrietta
---
Confused by the noise in news.groups? For an in-depth explanation,
see the Bernstein/McQuitty news.groups FAQ:
http://www.tezcat.com/~josephb/newsgroups/debate.html

WD Baseley

unread,

Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97

to

In article <64r1gj$s...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
<T...@NSA.sucks> articulated:

>In comp.org.eff.talk Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
>: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>: |In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>: |: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>: |: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:
>: |
>: |: > Indictment: only one tenth of CAUCE's membership was roused to vote.
>: |
>: |: That's *still* irrelevant. It's self-serving to call it an indictment.
>: |
>: |Irrelevant?
>
>: Irrelevant. There is no requirement for members of an organization to vote
>: for a group that organization sponsored.
>
>That doesn't make it irrelevant.

Then how about this: you're equating the total number of voters with
the CAUCE-published total number of members, and attempting to
implicate CAUCE in voting irregularities based on that comparison.
Either you trust CAUCE or you don't; or, as seems evident, you trust
them only when it serves your odd purpose.

>: Their web site, not yours. Their mailing list, not yours. You wanted to
>: counter their claims?
>
>You missed the point.

No, you missed the point. They can do what they like. And they can
care, or not, what you think of it, as they choose. Get over it.

>It's not about who gets to control their site, but whether they
>are honestly presenting the issue.
>
>----
>
>In comp.org.eff.talk Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
>: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>
>: |I didn't mean to give the impression I was claiming vote fraud
>: |or filing a protest of the vote results.
>
>: <boggle>
>: You are claiming people voted who haven't posted to the net.
>: How else do you expect people to take your screaming?
>: </boggle>
>
>Why, that I was complaining the unbalanced coverage of the
>issue unfairly affected the vote.

The counterpoint has been made by the individuals who posted here
saying that they voted YES only because of the invectives hurled by
you and others against the proposal. Therefore, it could be said that
_you_ affected the vote with _your_ unbalanced coverage of the issue.
Pots and kettles, at best.

>I'm supposed to be _less_ unhappy now that CAUCE leadership has
>railroaded this through, and never even replied to a _single_
>post of mine on the matter, including the civil ones???

Ahh-ha.

>My "established behavioural pattern" is to be persistent.

Quite so; you persistently throw a snit when you don't the attention
you think you deserve.

>Heavy, ain't it? He is Kook Cabal Rightwing, a Usenet II Committe member
>who insists people get spammed by posting with their real email address.

Attention K-Mart shoppers; we're running a blue-light special on the
net conspiracy flavor of the week, "Kook Cabal Rightwing".

>: And just to give you something else to provide some snide comment on:
>
>: >* PLONK *<
>
>Oh, what a pussy, not simply posting a "plonk"!

Dave sure can call 'em.

> In Usenet, noone can hear you scream.

Which bothers some folks a lot more than it does others.

-- WD Baseley
"We know the race is not to the swift
nor the battle to the strong.
But do you not think an angel
rides in the whirlwind and directs the storm?"
J. Page

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> articulated:

: >In comp.org.eff.talk Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
: >: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
: >: |In comp.org.eff.talk Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
: >: |: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: >: |: On 13 Nov 1997, Information Security wrote:
: >: |
: >: |: > Indictment: only one tenth of CAUCE's membership was roused to vote.
: >: |
: >: |: That's *still* irrelevant. It's self-serving to call it an indictment.
: >: |
: >: |Irrelevant?
: >
: >: Irrelevant. There is no requirement for members of an organization to vote
: >: for a group that organization sponsored.
: >
: >That doesn't make it irrelevant.

: Then how about this: you're equating the total number of voters with
: the CAUCE-published total number of members, and attempting to
: implicate CAUCE in voting irregularities based on that comparison.

I stated clearly that the voters and vote-taker were all on the up-and-up,
that I was not claiming a fraudulent vote.

What are you huffing-and-puffing about?

Even Russ Allbery says CAUCE did a poor job.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com> wrote:

: Either you trust CAUCE or you don't; or, as seems evident, you trust

: them only when it serves your odd purpose.

"Odd purpose" is how intolerant bastards like you describe munger's
anti-spammer efforts. Mungers would not have excluded filter-fest
people or power-delete-key people.

CAUCE leadership NEVER EVEN ASKED its members what they'd like
for comp.org.cauce posting rules before issuing the RFD...
And when they saw that munging anti-spammers were upset,
they gave hokey reasons for insisting people get spammed
by posting to comp.org.cauce.

----

WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> articulated:
: >In comp.org.eff.talk WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com> wrote:

: >: Their web site, not yours. Their mailing list, not yours. You wanted to

: >: counter their claims?
: >
: >You missed the point.

: >
: >It's not about who gets to control their site, but whether they

: >are honestly presenting the issue.

: No, you missed the point. They can do what they like. And they can

: care, or not, what you think of it, as they choose. Get over it.

I can see that one flew over your head, and pooped on you.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> articulated:

: >Why, that I was complaining the unbalanced coverage of the

: >issue unfairly affected the vote.

: The counterpoint has been made by the individuals who posted here
: saying that they voted YES only because of the invectives hurled by
: you and others against the proposal.

So what? Vulis posted pro-CAUCE-will-get-the-Jews crap.

You'd be pissed-off too, if someone tried to take away your
anti-spamming tool for no good reason.

Do you admit it was not necessary to create a group for fighting
spam with rules guaranteed to send spam to the posters?

Apparently, Usenet II Czars Mozena and J.D. Falk are the only ones.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk WD Baseley <wbas...@mindspring.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> articulated:

: >Heavy, ain't it? He is Kook Cabal Rightwing, a Usenet II Committe member

: >who insists people get spammed by posting with their real email address.

: Attention K-Mart shoppers; we're running a blue-light special on the
: net conspiracy flavor of the week, "Kook Cabal Rightwing".

This is backed up by extensive conspiracy theory terminology
used by the Usenet II crew itself.

Notice how Russ didn't respond to my question about being games players.
They're a bunch of D&D heads into R.A. Wilsons' Illuminatus! trilogy.
If they're going to picture themselves that way, I'm gonna talk about
them that way.

---guy

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: >> I'm not particularly fond of having any governmental legislation at
: >> all. That's why I haven't joined CAUCE. I don't think it's
: >> necessarily a bad idea, but it still concerns me enough that I can't
: >> give it my whole-hearted support either.

: > Okay, you're not fond of governmental legislation, but you love your
: > rules-city Usenet II AUP (http://www.usenet2.org/rules.txt) that only a
: > control-freak would create.

: Do you understand the difference? Think about it for a second. How hard
: is it to start using a different Usenet hierarchy if you don't like the
: policies of one? How hard is it to start using a different government if
: you don't like the policies of one?

Gee, the way you've written up the Usenet II AUP as a dire penalty-
ridden beauracracy even the IRS would blanch at, what's the difference?

# From: m...@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) [Panix Staff]
# Newsgroups: panix.announce,panix.policy
# Followup-to: panix.policy
# Subject: Usenet II -- posting to net.* groups
# Date: 13 Sep 1997 08:16:16 -0400
#
# The rules for net.* groups are posted regularly to net.config, and
# are available on the Usenet II web page (www.usenet2.org). Anyone
# who wants to post to these groups *must* follow the rules.
#
# Failure to do so is very likely to result in abrupt termination of
# your account. Ignorance is not considered an excuse.
#
# Among the rules:
# - No munging of headers.
[snip]

Usenet II is duplicating perfectly good Usenet groups to take them over.

You're a polite liar.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > And, oh yeah: you're in charge.

: You might want to keep in mind that I'm as much or more in charge of
: Usenet I at the moment than I am of Usenet II.

You are among the very few who can authorize new net.* sub-hierarchies.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: >> Note that blocking by IP address at a router *also* eliminates the
: >> transfer and having to deal with the spam, and is a lot more robust
: >> than munging...

: > Blocking lists for routers (or, equally: firewalls at wrapper-level)
: > need to be maintained. An unresolvably munged address doesn't.

: And I presume that your argument against having to maintain something is
: that it requires work.

Filter lists must constantly be maintained.

: Unresolvably munged addresses require work on the part of everyone
: who wants to send you e-mail...

That should be my choice, not yours.

It is also a filtering mechanism: intolerant bastard tend not to email me.

You got a problem with me using this filtering mechanism?

Yep.

: *Both* methods require work; one of them just shifts a large portion
: of the work off onto other people.

No, it doesn't.

Don't reply if it's too much work.

Verstehen Sie?

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: >> I'm not accusing people who munge their posting
: >> addresses of being pro-spam. I just think that munging has a lot of
: >> drawbacks as well as having benefits, and I don't like the drawbacks.

: > Besides "bounces", what other drawbacks were there?

: It makes it hard for people who may legitimately want to send you mail to
: get in touch with you.

Good, I get enough damn email.

: if you've worked end-user tech support, you may
: realize that the concept of "use the e-mail address in the signature" is
: sufficiently confusing to some people who are not familiar with computers
: that they may not be able to understand what they need to do without help.

Good, I get enough damn email.

: It breaks any system that needs to send you mail automatically from posts
: (a lot of moderated newsgroups work this way, as do a variety of other
: internalish or limited-distribution systems that aren't on Usenet at
: large).

I have received email confirmation of post submissions to moderated
groups, and had the post show up munged.

: It can cause strange, potentially broken, often confusing, and usually
: difficult-to-detect problems whenever there is a gateway involved and your
: posts are crossing news/mail or mail/news boundaries. This is true for
: any moderated newsgroup and any newsgroup gated unidirectionally or
: bidirectionally to a mailing list.

Give me a break. You seem to forget the purpose IS NOT TO GET EMAIL
from the munged address.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > At sites with more than 1000 users, was percentage of email to
: > postmaster do you estimate are bounced replies to munged Usenet posts?

: I've disabled postmaster notification of bounces on all systems I run. I
: fail to see the need for a postmaster to know every time a user bounces
: mail.

: I therefore wouldn't have any idea.

That's interesting.

I claim there is no problem from bounces due to replies to munged addresses.

In effect, you agree.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > It's like the encryption "controversy". There is no middle ground I'm
: > willing to concede. Why should I, and other mungers? Nor would Mozena
: > or Falk discuss it (even when asked civily) with me.

: If there's no middle ground you're willing to concede, what is there to
: discuss?

Why there should be no middle ground.

----

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: >> *shrug* "Highly recommended" is not equivalent to required. There are
: >> lots of cases where monetary penalty clauses *wouldn't* be a good idea,
: >> which is why they're not required.

: > Then do this one teeny tiny little thing: change the AUP to say this
: > should never be interpreted to eliminate anonymous accounts.

: You're missing the philosophy so completely you're getting it backwards.

Wow. I must be dense.

: The entire point of the Usenet II rules is to state what is and is not
: expected of participating sites. Not to explain to them *how* to achieve
: those ends. How they achieve those ends isn't any of our business;
: provided that the site is sound, it doesn't matter *how* they ensure they
: remain sound.

: Think of it like international politics. It's considered bad form to
: interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.

Then be consistent: either get rid of the recommendation for monetary
penalties, or clarify it to say this should not be interpreted to
eliminate anonymous accounts.

Can you do that, Russ?
---guy

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: >> In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
: >>> In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: >>>> I think that disagreeing with someone else over definitions does not
: >>>> mean that the other person is lying, and I think that what you're
: >>>> disagreeing about is frankly not enough of a problem to warrant a
: >>>> tenth of the energy that any of you are putting into it.

: >>> Disagreeing over definitions?

: >>> DISAGREEING OVER DEFINITIONS???

: >>> Show me A SINGLE post duh Silva's wife deleted that was "a thinly
: >>> disguised attack" on her!

: >> Could you please reread the part of what I wrote that starts after the
: >> comma?

: > I see. You are now disavowing the first part of the sentence.

: I most certainly am not. Disagreeing with someone else over definitions
: does not mean that the other person is lying. That's a true statement,
: one which I believe, and one which I most certainly am not retracting.

Wait, you keep avoiding my question.

You have repeatedly stated, "it's a disagreement over definitions".

Did you see the disputed posts, or didn't you?

If you didn't, why the hell don't you investigate the allegation
that fellow Usenet II Steering Committee (High Kook Cabal Rightwing)
Peter duh Silva is a liar?

If you did see them, POST THEM, so everyone can decide for themselves.
---guy

...the ones duh Silva said.

Robotech_Master

unread,

Nov 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/18/97

to

On 18 Nov 1997 22:04:11 GMT, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

> I can see that one flew over your head, and pooped on you.

> They're a bunch of D&D heads into R.A. Wilsons' Illuminatus! trilogy.

Anyone else get the sense that I.S. is running low on insults and
starting to get a bit desperate?
--
Chris Meadows aka | http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/index.html
Robotech_Master | -----------------------------------------
robo...@eyrie.org | Co-moderator, rec.games.mecha
robo...@jurai.net |

Information Security

unread,

Nov 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/19/97

to

Robotech_Master <robo...@eyrie.org> wrote:

: On 18 Nov 1997 22:04:11 GMT, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
:
: > I can see that one flew over your head, and pooped on you.

: > They're a bunch of D&D heads into R.A. Wilsons' Illuminatus! trilogy.

: Anyone else get the sense that I.S. is running low on insults and
: starting to get a bit desperate?

I am commenting on traffic in bofh.*
---guy

Information Security

unread,

Nov 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/19/97

to

Previously:

In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:

: I'll take full responsibility for my own flames. Why don't you do the same,
: instead of pretending that the series of attacks you made on my wife (who
: is doubly innocent of having anything to do with the rule you're so pissed
: off about) was simply innocent fun.

In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:

: >A test of ribald humor in the new neighborhood.
: >Produce, beyond the disputed ribald post, the "SERIES OF ATTACKS" I made.
: >It didn't happen.

: "Mickey mouse. Didn't happen. Giant sucking sound."
: The trick is, Guy, you need to learn what words mean.
: Words mean things.

Right, duh Silva: you claimed I made "a series of attacks" on your wife.

You lied.

****

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > Did you see the disputed posts, or didn't you?

: I did.

Here are the deleted posts that duh Silva calls "a series of
attacks on my wife".

Care to point out where I am attacking his wife?
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^

Who's the hysterical one?

(Russ' answer: ugh, ugh, it's not important, or something, huh-huh-huh)

---guy

----

Craig Thompson <thom...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
: Well since message IDs are unique
: Message-ID: <5vpm7s$o...@panix2.panix.com>
: NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com

: Panix aka ab...@panix.com could track the poster down if they wanted
: to.

: On 17 Sep 1997 18:39:56 -0400, Information Security
: <g...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:

That's right!!!

All I want is to be able to post with my standard 'From:'
of 'T...@NSA.Sucks' so it can't be spammed!

No loss of accountability.

So, why won't they let us do it???

Because: they're jerks who whine about not being able
to hit 'reply' to email someone.

Y'all might be setup with filters, but many people are not
going to like Usenet II when they find out it's guaranteed
endless spam.

Cyberpromo will have a field day.

----

Ron Echeverri <ro...@bofh.noc.best.net> wrote:
: In article <5vq3kh$b...@panix2.panix.com>,
: Information Security <g...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
: >All I want is to be able to post with my standard 'From:'
: >of 'T...@NSA.Sucks' so it can't be spammed!

: If you think posting with a fake address prevents spam from reaching
: you, you are extremely deluded.

Bzzzt! Wrong.

You are playing with words.

This: 'T...@NSA.Sucks' can't be unmunged, therefor can't be spammed.

You disingenuously lied.

----

Obviously, this group doesn't appreciate on-topic humor,
a parody of a recipe.

Fine: I deleted it.

Whiners!

----

Seth Meyer <sme...@panix.com> wrote:

: You may have something funny to say, but it doesn't belong here.

I guess not, Mr. Grim.

: I've waited for some time for these net.* groups. I've waited
: patiently for panix.com to get access. Please don't ruin it for the
: rest of us at panix.com by posting this type of trash.

What do you mean, "ruin"?

Don't you know how to killfile?

Information Security

unread,

Nov 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/19/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
: > In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: >> Do you understand the difference? Think about it for a second. How
: >> hard is it to start using a different Usenet hierarchy if you don't
: >> like the policies of one? How hard is it to start using a different
: >> government if you don't like the policies of one?

: > Gee, the way you've written up the Usenet II AUP as a dire penalty-
: > ridden beauracracy even the IRS would blanch at, what's the difference?

: Read the above paragraph. I explain the difference.

Russ, Usenet II is duplicating perfectly good Usenet groups.
If it succeeds (it won't if I can help it ;-), then everyone
using those groups will be subject to your Na^H^H vicious AUP.

----

: >> You might want to keep in mind that I'm as much or more in charge of
: >> Usenet I at the moment than I am of Usenet II.

: > You are among the very few who can authorize new net.* sub-hierarchies.

: And I'm among the very few who can authorize new Big Eight groups. In
: practice, that doesn't mean much does it? It doesn't mean all that much
: more in net.*.

Well, if you don't mean much, quit posting!

----

: >> And I presume that your argument against having to maintain something
: >> is that it requires work.

: > Filter lists must constantly be maintained.

: They also work a lot better...

No, they don't.

: don't cause other people problems...

My munged address does not cause anyone any meaningful problems.

: don't break other systems...

The sky is falling! It's "T...@NSA.sucks" fault!

: and are a heck of a lot more reliable.

No, they aren't.

: They also throw the problem back in the spammer's face a lot
: better than munged addresses do (munged addresses immediately fail;
: connections blocked at a router can take 3-7 days to time out, with
: constant retries).

Not according to Panix owner Alexis Rosen: he says most spammers
try to do the SMTP directly, not through someone's sendmail, and
that retries are not involved.

----

: > Give me a break. You seem to forget the purpose IS NOT TO GET EMAIL from
: > the munged address.

: I think there are better ways to do that.

But your control-freak nature shows when you *require* other people
do it your way.

: If you don't want to get any e-mail to your munged address at all,
: post as nob...@some.sendmail.site. You can pretty much pick one,
: provided they don't mind.

Unbelievably stupid: allowing spammer I/O across the Net unnecessarily.

----

: > Then be consistent: either get rid of the recommendation for monetary

: > penalties, or clarify it to say this should not be interpreted to
: > eliminate anonymous accounts.

: > Can you do that, Russ?

: *Can* I? Probably. *Will* I? No, I'm not in the habit of modifying what
: other people wrote if there isn't a good reason, and the fact that you
: don't like the wording is *reason* but not *enough reason*. Convince
: Peter. Alternately, bring it up with the steering committee. You've got
: a point, I'll grant that.

: Hell, maybe I'll bring it up with the steering committee after I get back
: from vacation.

If you are not against anonymity, you should do it.

It's not asking much of you.
---guy

It won't happen.

Information Security

unread,

Nov 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/20/97

to

Dave Ratcliffe <da...@frackit.com> wrote:
: In <slrn6749a0....@eyrie.org>, robo...@eyrie.org (Robotech_Master)
: wrote:
: -On 18 Nov 1997 22:04:11 GMT, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
: -> I can see that one flew over your head, and pooped on you.
: -
: -> They're a bunch of D&D heads into R.A. Wilsons' Illuminatus! trilogy.
: -
: -Anyone else get the sense that I.S. is running low on insults and
: -starting to get a bit desperate?

: Starting?

Sez the person who insulted me first.

BTW, Russ was the wrong person to ask.

duh Silva's the one.

He plays some sort of Universe game.
---guy

Just curious what it was...

Paul Murray

unread,

Nov 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/20/97

to

On 15 Nov 1997 20:21:37 GMT, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
>It's posts like this one that the Kook Cabal Rightwing call
>"hysterical", to try and obfuscate the truth.

Surely noone could call your posts hysterical? Normally quite funny,
but not hysterical.

>In comp.org.eff.talk Peter L. Montgomery <pmon...@cwi.nl> wrote:
>: In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>
>: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:
>: >Reminder: the controversy over the creation of the group comp.org.cauce
>: >is that CAUCE's UCENET II leaders (Czars) insisted - like U2 Czars -
>: >that people have to post with their real email address, thus guaranteeing
>: >people who post even more email UCE.
>: >YES votes, and #of Usenet posts in the last month and a half:
>: >peter-lawren...@cwi.nl: 0
>: I did vote YES. And I have posted to Usenet
>: many times in the last month, from this and and other accounts.
>: For example, the article below on comp.sys.dec is responding
>: to one of my postings.
>comp.sys.dec?
>Well, I'll just move you from the "unknown zero" list to the
>computer geek with a second email address list. ;-)

Again I point out to you that it is hardly a suprise that many of the
people who follow news administration groups and express opinions on
email abuse are computer geeks.

>I take it you use a second email address for coping with spam...

Mr Montgomery explained exactly why his posts and emails come out with
different addresses, because he uses a different tool for email than
for usenet, and those tools behave differently.
If he was using two addresses to control spam, why would he post to
usenet with one (getting spam) and vote on the ballot, which he knew
would be posted to usenet (getting spam) with the other? Surely he
would have used the same address to vote as he does to post to usenet?

You don't seem to understand the fact that not everyone's system is
set up like yours. Taking an example close to home, Oxford University
in England. You will see posts with addresses of the form:
coll...@sable.ox.ac.uk, where coll is an abbreviation for the Oxford
collage or department, and xxxx is a usernumber with that college.
You will also see posts with addresses of the form:
user...@college.oxford.ac.uk or even user...@college.ox.ac.uk
It depends on the software someone is using and what settings they make.
All of these types of address can map to the same person, there is
no sinister reason for seeing different types of address, even for the
same person, it just means that the different pieces of software they
are using are set up slightly differently. For example when I used to
help administrate some of my college's machines, they automatically
rewrote outgoing addresses so that rather than
us...@machine.college.ox.ac.uk they appeared as from
user...@college.oxford.ac.uk, so you should only have seen one type
of address. But other colleges may not have bothered to so this, or
to have done it slightly wrong, as user...@college.ox.ac.uk for
example. Bottom line is that this has no effect on the users, it all
maps back to the same mailbox, so why should they even care?
It is far more likely that this sort of thing is just a quirk of the
machine setup. If someone was going to filter mail, why not get another
account, or use a free email address, rather than muck around with
several aliases all mapping to the same account? It just doesn't make
sense.

>You, however, are receiving spam, then _subsequently_ coping with it.

And you are making unwarranted assumptions about others motives.

>Hey, allowing munging on comp.org.cauce wouldn't have interfered
>with people who do the filterfest dance, so why did all these
>people who filter and/or use a second email address to cope
>with spam insist on interfering with our munging way of coping?
>
>Why did CAUCE's Usenet II leadership unnecessarily create a wedge
>issue among its own members?

I think probably because they believe it is rude. (oops, just made
an assumption about someone else's motives :)

>They could have allowed mungers to register a real address to
>go with their posted munged address (CAUCE insists on this to
>eliminate spam from the group), but stated they were not running
>an anonymizer and would give out the real address to law enforcement
>if presented with the proper papers.
>
>Noone would have had expectations that it was an anonymous posting
>service, and mungers could have munged.
>
>Does anyone know why they didn't do this?
>
>Besides the reasons I've been giving...

Because it is a lot of additional work for them to go through?
Here's an idea. You set up such a scheme, call it caucemunge.com.
People register with you, you register a us...@caucemunge.com
address with the comp.org.cauce moderators. Then you forward
articles from the user to the newsgroup, allow moderation notices
to pass back to the user and /dev/null everything else.
Then people can post to comp.org.cauce without exposing their real
email addresses.
However it would be a lot of work for you to administer, so you
probably don't want to do it. Also then you won't be able to
attack CAUCE over the issue.
Go on, put your money where your mouth is, otherwise using your logic
whenever you complain about mungers not being able to post to
comp.org.cauce I can point to this idea and ask
'Does anyone know why he didn't do this?'
'Besides the reasons I've been giving...'

>Another interesting thing that apparently happened was that the
>CFV mailed to CAUCE went to a *selected* subset of the membership.
>
>CAUCE does not often mail things to its membership asking them
>to take action, so if they mailed it to the 6000+ members, one
>would have expected more than a mere 1/10 of them to return it.
>
>Hey, gang, let's make our own group! But the vote was so light...
>
>Hmmm, let's think of why they might have mailed it to considerably
>fewer CAUCE members than the whole membership...

Um, you really ought to touch base with reality at some point in
your posts. First of all you were using the fact that such a small
percentage of the 6000 members voted to show that the group proposal
was bad, now you are saying that the group proposal was so good that
surely more than that percentage would have voted, therefore they can't
have told all 6000 members. Make up your mind.

-Paul Murray

Information Security

unread,

Nov 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/20/97

to

Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
: *sneck*
: Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: >Usenet II is duplicating perfectly good Usenet groups to take them over.

: Before I used Usenet, I was a user of WWIVNet, a Usenet-like
: system of distributed pseudo-moderated groups amongst a large number of
: BBS systems world-wide. One of the things I miss most about that network
: was that several message forums duplicated each other - there were lots of
: political discussion groups, game discussion groups, etc. The traffic was
: divided amongst them. They were, I suppose, in competetion, but the
: competition just helped the system along.

You miss a lot of competing moderated groups?

This is your idea of "the good old days"?

And, no, it's not all right: they are duplicating perfectly good
group after group for the purpose of taking them over.

An end run around the spirit of the rules of newsgroup creation,
particularly appalling in Russ Allbery's case.

Russ has said repeatedly that - despite being listed as a high Cabal
member - that he really doesn't have much power, that it was Peter
duh Silva's idea to have him on board.

Since he has a FAQ on the newsgroup creation process, I guess he
was brought in for "prestige"...a figurehead.

----

Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
: I see no reason why the same basic idea couldn't be applied to
: Usenet. Duplication of groups is a *good* thing, Guy - and I'm happy to
: see that some people are trying it.

Considering most of your Mod Squad groups will probably be duplicates,
it would be natural for you to be of this opinion.

I, perhaps arbitrarily, don't mind myself your mod.*, because every
single group will have the moderator flag set.

Not so UCENET II, where about four of my posts were deleted by
an irate Czar, then lied about by the UCENET II Steering Committee
member who's her husband.

(I've posted documentation of his lying about it.)

Russ Allbery chuckles at it - no big deal if the Steering Committee
are accused of, and caught lying.

Ugh, where was I...

Tim Skirvin <tski...@uiuc.edu> wrote:

: This is especially true considering that I'm seeing one of
: Usenet's current major problems is that it's grown too big,
: and that there's really no way to split up some groups anymore
: that have way, way too much traffic...

You feel splitting into regular-gas and a moderated pairing
of groups will do it?

BTW, just how many groups do you feel are too big in Usenet
right now?

How many of those because of spam?

---guy

*unsneck*, and I repeated his entire post. ;-)

Ken Arromdee

unread,

Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97

to

Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> I'm not particularly fond of having any governmental legislation at
>>> all. That's why I haven't joined CAUCE. I don't think it's
>>> necessarily a bad idea, but it still concerns me enough that I can't
>>> give it my whole-hearted support either.
>> Okay, you're not fond of governmental legislation, but you love your
>> rules-city Usenet II AUP (http://www.usenet2.org/rules.txt) that only a
>> control-freak would create.

>Do you understand the difference? Think about it for a second. How hard
>is it to start using a different Usenet hierarchy if you don't like the
>policies of one? How hard is it to start using a different government if
>you don't like the policies of one?

Starting another hierarchy except for a few limited cases is _very difficult_,
since a group with high propagation and high usage is more useful than one
with better policies but lower propagation and lower usage. (An exception
would be something like Clarinet, where the articles all come from a central
source and this is not true.)

This works in favor of Usenet in that it will make it hard for Usenet II to
succeed, but if Usenet II does manage to succeed anyway, it will make it hard
to start a hierarchy with better policies. (And the hierarchy won't be able to
use the name "net.", either.)

>And I presume that your argument against having to maintain something is

>that it requires work. Unresolvably munged addresses require work on the
>part of everyone who wants to send you e-mail, as well as awareness and
>newsreader configuration to keep your real e-mail address from leaking
>out. *Both* methods require work; one of them just shifts a large portion

>of the work off onto other people.

Russ, some of the methods listed on the Usenet II web site for dealing with
email spam without munging require just as much or more work on the part of
the end user as munging. For instance, Peter da Silva suggests using an
autoresponder which people have to reply to before they can send any mail to
you. For the end user to do that requires at least as much work as unmunging
an address.

>It makes it hard for people who may legitimately want to send you mail to
>get in touch with you.

So does using an email address with a one week lifetime, as suggested on the
Usenet II web site.

>It may, in fact, prevent some people from *ever*
>getting in touch with you; if you've worked end-user tech support, you may

>realize that the concept of "use the e-mail address in the signature" is
>sufficiently confusing to some people who are not familiar with computers
>that they may not be able to understand what they need to do without help.

I seem to recall a while back that you rejected the concept of "too confusing"
when applied to the newsgroup creation process, instead arguing that if
somebody does not follow directions which are explicitly stated, it is the
fault of the person who did not read the directions, and not the fault of the
directions for being too complex or being aimed at technical users.
--
Ken Arromdee |They said it was *daft* to build a space
arro...@inetnow.net |station in a swamp, but I showed them! It
karr...@nyx.nyx.net |sank unto the swamp. So I built a second
http://www.inetnow.net/~arromdee|space station. That sank into the swamp too.
--------------------------------+My third space station sank into the swamp.
So I built a fourth one. That fell into a time warp and _then_ sank into the
swamp. But the fifth one... stayed up! --Monty Python/Babylon 5

Message has been deleted

Ken Arromdee

unread,

Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97

to

>The fact that someone has gone out and successfully started a new
>hierarchy in spite of all the impediments that you believe exist is proof
>that it's extremely hard to start a new hierarchy?

No. It's like walking to the North Pole. That's really difficult to do.
But if I am so obsessed with it that I walk to the North Pole anyway and drag
you with me, it's going to be hard to walk _back_.

>What proof that
>starting a new hierarchy is easier than you think would you accept?

How about a new hierarchy started by ordinary people, and started because of
the types of complaints which usually lead news.groupies to yell "if you don't
like that, you can always start a new hierarchy".

>> (And the hierarchy won't be able to use the name "net.", either.)

>We're not having any particular crisis of top-level hierarchies at the
>moment; I think we can safely not worry about that.

We're having a crisis of top-level hierarchies whose namespaces were once
used for all of Usenet, which can be used to sneakily grab mindshare. I
suppose I could start a set of fa groups, but that still won't have the same
ring to it as net and mod.

>> I seem to recall a while back that you rejected the concept of "too
>> confusing" when applied to the newsgroup creation process,

>I'm sure that you can understand the difference between sending someone
>e-mail and trying to create a new newsgroup.

Yes, I do, but the difference is in the wrong direction. Creating a
newsgroup is more important--so extra care should be taken that the directions
are simple ones which are easy for anyone to follow.

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: In news.groups, Ken Arromdee <karr...@nyx.net> writes:
: > I wrote:

: >> The fact that someone has gone out and successfully started a new

: >> hierarchy in spite of all the impediments that you believe exist is
: >> proof that it's extremely hard to start a new hierarchy?

: > No. It's like walking to the North Pole. That's really difficult to
: > do. But if I am so obsessed with it that I walk to the North Pole
: > anyway and drag you with me, it's going to be hard to walk _back_.

: How is creating a new hierarchy equivalent to forcing you to go to the
: North Pole? How does creating a new hierarchy force you to do anything at
: all?

For Christ's sake Russ!

# From: Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>

# Newsgroups: net.config
# Subject: Re: SWM Seeks Host
# Date: 25 Nov 1997 10:05:15 -0800
#
# I'm also currently about a thousand miles away
# on vacation until next week

You are on vacation: vacate!

Relax, Russ.

Stay off the Internet during your vacation.

Demonstrate you actually have a life!
---guy

Real easy to create a hierarchy if there's no traffic. ;-)

Message has been deleted

Information Security

unread,

Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97

to

In comp.org.eff.talk Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:

: In news.groups, Information Security <T...@NSA.sucks> writes:

: > You are on vacation: vacate! Relax, Russ.

: *laugh* I have been. Spent most of yesterday writing, which is something
: I haven't had a chance to do in a long while.

: > Stay off the Internet during your vacation.

: Nah. Why would I want to do that?

Because you are the biggest troll around.
---guy

It would improve Usenet. ;-)

Ken Arromdee

unread,

Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97

to

>> It's like walking to the North Pole. That's really difficult to
>> do. But if I am so obsessed with it that I walk to the North Pole
>> anyway and drag you with me, it's going to be hard to walk _back_.
>How is creating a new hierarchy equivalent to forcing you to go to the
>North Pole? How does creating a new hierarchy force you to do anything at
>all?

Creating Usenet II will badly damage and probably kill Usenet, so I won't have
any option other than using Usenet II. The analogy, of course, isn't exact,
since I could always not use any version of Usenet at all, while someone
located at the North Pole can't decide not to have a location.

And recreating Usenet after Usenet II kills it will be as hard as walking back
from the North Pole.

>Or, if the involvement of a news administrator or two in mod.* disqualifies
>it, have you seen what Henrietta's doing with us.*? That's basically a new
>hierarchy at this stage.

I'd count mod and us. But they haven't succeeded yet, let alone succeeded
without a great deal of difficulty.

>>> We're not having any particular crisis of top-level hierarchies at the
>>> moment; I think we can safely not worry about that.
>> We're having a crisis of top-level hierarchies whose namespaces were
>> once used for all of Usenet, which can be used to sneakily grab mindshare.

>Are you honestly arguing that a hierarchy has some advantage from using
>the pre-Great Renaming top level names, when those names are not used in
>any modern news software and when I doubt more than 10% of Usenet readers
>have ever even *heard* of the Great Renaming?

I was referring to a quote from Peter da Silva, who used the above phrase to
explain why he liked the net.* name.

And while most readers, of course, have not heard of net.*, their admins (who
actually decide to add the groups to their system) are more likely to have.

Message has been deleted

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97

to

In news.groups on 25 Nov 1997 23:38:40 -0800, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
wrote:

>In news.groups, Ken Arromdee <karr...@nyx.net> writes:
>> I wrote:

[snip].....

>>> What proof that starting a new hierarchy is easier than you think would
>>> you accept?
>
>> How about a new hierarchy started by ordinary people, and started
>> because of the types of complaints which usually lead news.groupies to
>> yell "if you don't like that, you can always start a new hierarchy".
>

>Well, the latter pretty much sums up net.*, or at least portions of it
>(like the newsgroup creation system). The former sounds a lot like mod.*,
>unless your definition of "ordinary people" is "people who haven't been
>around for more than a year." Or, if the involvement of a news

>administrator or two in mod.* disqualifies it, have you seen what
>Henrietta's doing with us.*? That's basically a new hierarchy at this
>stage.

Not really, IMO, because I'm not creating it from scratch. I'm picking
up the pieces from what went on before and trying to patch it up into
a meaningful whole. Whether or not I succeed will depend on how
many news admins think us.* has a right to at least a fighting chance.
If I tried to start "Henrietta's hierarchy," I think it would be Dead On
Arrival.

>>> We're not having any particular crisis of top-level hierarchies at the
>>> moment; I think we can safely not worry about that.
>
>> We're having a crisis of top-level hierarchies whose namespaces were
>> once used for all of Usenet, which can be used to sneakily grab
>> mindshare.
>
>Are you honestly arguing that a hierarchy has some advantage from using
>the pre-Great Renaming top level names, when those names are not used in
>any modern news software and when I doubt more than 10% of Usenet readers
>have ever even *heard* of the Great Renaming?

IMHO, both net.* and mod.* are nostalgia trips. Most newcomers never heard
of them, or even the Great Renaming, but the oldtimers remember everything
the way it was, and they will be the main supporters of both hierarchies. Of the
two, I think that mod.* is more likely to have long-term success, because there
are a lot of people (newbies included) who would like nothing better than to
"own" their own newsgroup.

Henrietta

? the platypus {aka David Formosa}

unread,

Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97

to

In <65ko4i$460$1...@nyx.nyx.net> karr...@nyx.net (Ken Arromdee) writes:

[...]

>Creating Usenet II will badly damage and probably kill Usenet, so I won't have
>any option other than using Usenet II.

In what way. The Big 8 isn't going to be vanish unless group admin gouse
mad and remogroups the lot. And alt has show itself to be highly resent
to attack.

With a growing net population it may indeed be neccery to split the
population accross two hyrakies. Peaple who like net.*'s style will go
one way and peaple who like big8.* will go the other.

And the split will help us manige the contious expantion. When groups get
over a size thay have to spilt or thay choake on there own grouth. The
same thing with hyrakies thay two must split or die.

[...]

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. I do not reply to mungged
Support NoCeM http://www.cm.org/ addresses.
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yucky' a convincing argument

Boyd Roberts

unread,

Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97

to

In article <347de6bc...@news.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
>
>IMHO, both net.* and mod.* are nostalgia trips. Most newcomers never heard
>of them, or even the Great Renaming, but the oldtimers remember everything
>the way it was, and they will be the main supporters of both hierarchies.

Nonsense. The Great Renaming was years ago -- the 1980's. The
'oldtimers' learned to lump it pretty quickly.

Were you even around to read net.*?

--
Boyd Roberts <bo...@france3.fr> UTM N 31 447109 5411310

En fin, bon, bref, si tu veux, point à la ligne, voilà quoi -- Jacques

SPAT: q...@interbrix.com

Peter Seebach

unread,

Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97

to

In article <65mdva$f5s$1...@route1.mdrf.france3.fr>,

Boyd Roberts <bo...@france3.fr> wrote:
>Nonsense. The Great Renaming was years ago -- the 1980's. The
>'oldtimers' learned to lump it pretty quickly.

>Were you even around to read net.*?

I was! I remember spending hours trying to figure out how to mail the
guy who maintained the Zork spoilers when I found out that you could
'eat the eatme cake' rather than having to put all the other cakes
in a bag to eat it.

I never did figure that out. :(

-s
--
se...@plethora.net -- I am not speaking for my employer. Copyright '97
All rights reserved. This was not sent by my cat. C and Unix wizard -
send mail for help, or send money for a consultation. Visit my new ISP
<URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam! Plethora . Net

Henrietta Thomas

unread,

Nov 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/29/97

to

In news.groups on 28 Nov 1997 12:38:02 GMT, bo...@france3.fr (Boyd Roberts)
wrote:

>In article <347de6bc...@news.wwa.com>, h...@wwa.com (Henrietta Thomas) writes:
>>
>>IMHO, both net.* and mod.* are nostalgia trips. Most newcomers never heard
>>of them, or even the Great Renaming, but the oldtimers remember everything
>>the way it was, and they will be the main supporters of both hierarchies.
>

>Nonsense. The Great Renaming was years ago -- the 1980's. The
>'oldtimers' learned to lump it pretty quickly.
>
>Were you even around to read net.*?

I did not even know there was a Usenet (or anything else,
for that matter) until 1994, and did not subscribe to any
newsgroups until early 1995. So, no, I never read the
original net.* or the original mod.*, and I did not attend
the Great Renaming. The first time someone complained
in news.groups about the perennial September (meaning
all the real world newbies coming in all the time), I had no
idea what he was talking about. That world is not part of
my online experience with Usenet. And while I understand
the nostalgia, I cannot relate to it on a personal basis, because
it never was a part of my personal life.

Henrietta

Tora Miller

unread,

Nov 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/30/97

to ed*l...@yorku.ca

Subject:
ez money, no sweat!

Recently I was browsing these newsgroups, just
like you are now, and came across an article similar to this
that said you could make thousands of dollars within weeks
with only an initial investment of $6.00! I
thought,"Yeah, right, this must be a scam", but like most of
us I was curious--so I kept reading. It said that
you send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address stated in
the article. You then place your own name and address in the
bottom of the list at #6, and post the article in at least
200 newsgroups.(There are thousands) No catch, that was it.
The main difference between this system and others
is that you have a mailing list of 6 instead of 5... This
means that your average gain will be approx. 15 times
higher!!!

So after thinking it over, and talking to a few people
first, I thought about trying it. I figured what have I got
to lose except 6 stamps and $6.00, right? I was a little
skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it
all, so I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office
(1-800-725-2161) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal!
Then I invested the measly $6.00............. Well GUESS
WHAT!!... Within 7 days I started getting money in the
mail! I was shocked! I still figured it would end soon, and
didn't give it another thought. But the money just kept
coming in. In my first week, I made between $20.00 and
$30.00. By the end of the second week I had made a total of
over $1,000.00!!!!!! In the third week I had over $10,000.00
and it's still growing. This is now my fourth week and I
have made a total of just over $42,000.00 and it's still
coming in rapidly.......

It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I spent more than
that on the lottery!!

Let me tell you how this works and most importantly, why it
works....also, make sure you print a copy of this article
NOW, so you can get the information off of it as you need
it. The process is very simple and consists of 3 easy steps:

===================================

STEP 1:

Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write, "PLEASE PUT ME ON
YOUR MAILING LIST" on each of them. Now get 6 US$1.00 bills
and fold ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of paper so the
bill will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent
thievery). Next, place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes
and seal them. So now you've got 6 sealed envelopes, each
with a piece of paper stating the above phrase, your name
and address, and a $1.00 bill.

#1 A. Swope
2009 Avon Dr.
Dayton, Ohio 45431
USA

#2 B. A. Long
554 Lipscomb St.
Fort Worth, TX 76104
USA

#3 J. Roland
12 Kingswood Dr
Orchard Park, NY 14127
USA

#4 J. Smith
444 Victoria Rd N
#410
Guelph, Ontario
Canada, N1E 5J8

#5 M.C. Alejandro
5924 Woodland Lane
Clinton, Maryland 20735
USA

#6 O. Melie
193 Newark Ave #5
Jersey city NJ 07302
USA
===================================

STEP 2:

Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move
the other names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and
add YOUR Name as number 6 on the list.

===================================

STEP 3:

Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as
close to original as possible. Now, post your amended
article to at least 200 newsgroups. (there are close to
24,000 groups) All you need is 200, but remember, the more
you post, the more money you make!

===================================

Don't know HOW to post in the newsgroups? Well do exactly
the following:

-----------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTIONS - HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Step 1. You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do
your own posting. Simply put your cursor at the beginning of
this letter and click and hold down your mouse button. While
continuing to hold down the mouse button, drag your cursor
to the bottom of this document and over to just after the
last character, and release the mouse button. At this point
the entire letter should be highlighted. Then, from the
'edit' pull down menu at the top of your screen select
'copy'. This will copy the entire letter into the computers
memory.

Step 2. Open a blank 'notepad' file and place your cursor
at the top of the blank page. From the 'edit' pull down menu
select 'paste'. This will paste a copy of the letter into
notepad so that you can add your name to the list. Remember
to eliminate the #1 position, move everyone up a spot
(re-number everyone elses positions), and add yourself in as
#6.

Step 3. Save your new notepad file as a .txt file. If you
want to do your postings in different sittings, you'll
always have this file to go back to.

----------------------------------------
FOR NETSCAPE USERS:
----------------------------------------
Step 4. Within the Netscape program, go to the pull-down
window entitled 'Window' select 'NetscapeNews'. Then from
the pull down menu 'Options', select 'Show all Newsgroups'.
After a few moments a list of all the newsgroups on your
server will show up. Click on any newsgroup you desire. From
within this newsgroup, click on the 'TO NEWS' button, which
should be in the top left corner of the newsgroups page.
This will bring up a message box.

Step 5. Fill in the Subject. This will be the header that
everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in
a particular group.

Step 6. Highlight the entire contents of your .txt file and
copy them using the same technique as before. Go back to the
newsgroup 'TO NEWS' posting you are creating and paste the
letter into the body of your posting.

Step 7. Hit the 'Send' Button in the upper left corner.
You're done with your first one! Congratulations...

--------------------------------------------------
INTERNET EXPLORER USERS:
--------------------------------------------------
Step 4. Go to newsgroups and select 'Post an Article'.
Step 5. Fill in the subject.
Step 6. Same as #6 above
Step 7. Hit the 'Post' button.

===================================

THAT'S IT! All you have to do is jump to different
newsgroups and post away, after you get the hang of it, it
will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup!

**REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY
YOU WILL MAKE!! BUT YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200**

That's it! You will begin reciving money from around the
world within days! You may eventually wany to rent a P.O.
box due to the large amount of mail you receive. If you wish
to stay anonymous, you can invent a name to use, as long as
the postman will deliver it.

**JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.**

===================================

Now the WHY part:
Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5 replies (a very
low example). So then I made $5.00 with my name at position
#6 on the letter. Now, each of the 5 persons who just sent
me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200 postings, each with my name at
#5 and only 5 persons respond to each of the original 5,
that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each make 200
MINIMUM postswith my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I
will bring in an additional $125.00! Now, those 125 persons
turn around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3 and
only receive 5 replies each, I will make an additional
$626.00!

OK, now here is the fun part, each of those 625 persons post
a MINIMUM 200 letters with my name at #2 and they each only
receive 5 replies, that just made me $3,125.00!!! Those
3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200
newsgroups with my name at #1 and if still 5 persons per 200
newsgroups react I will receive $15,625,00! With a original
investment of only $6.00! AMAZING! And as I said 5 responses
is actually VERY LOW! Average is probably
between 20 and 30! So lets put those figures at just 15
responses per person. Here is what you will make:

at #6 $15.00
at #5 $225.00
at #4 $3,375.00
at #3 $50,625.00
at #2 $759,375.00
at #1 $11,390,625.00

When your name is no longer on the list, you just take the
latest posting in the newsgroups, and send out another $6.00
to names on the list, putting your name at number 6 and
start posting again. Just think: thousands of people all
over the world are joining the internet and reading these
articles everyday, JUST LIKE YOU are now!! So can you afford
$6.00 and see if it really works?? I think so... People have
said, "what if the plan is played out and no one sends you
the money? So what! What are the chances of that happening
when there are tons of new honest users and new honest
people who are joining the internet and newsgroups everday
and are willing to give it a try? Estimates are at 20,000 to
50,000 new users, every day, with thousands of those joining
the actual internet. Remember, play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and
this will work. You just have to be honest.

Make sure you print this article out RIGHT NOW, also. Try to
keep a list of everyone that sends you money and always keep
an eye on the newsgroups to make sure everyone is playing
fairly. Remember, HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY. You don't need
to cheat the basic idea to make the money!!

GOOD LUCK to all and please play fairly and reap the huge
rewards from this, which is tons of extra CASH.

**BY THE WAY, if you try to deceive people by posting the
messages with your name in the list and not sending the
money to the rest of the people already on the list, you
will NOT get as much. Someone I talked to knew someone who
did that and he only made about $150.00, and that's after
seven or eight weeks! Then he sent the 6 $1.00 bills,
people added him to their lists, and in 4-5 weeks he had
over $10k. This is the fairest and most honest way I have
ever seen to share the wealth of the world without costing
anything but our time!!!

Please remember to declare your extra income. Thanks once
again...
Ed Leslie wrote:

> Ron Newman (rne...@thecia.net) wrote:
> : In article <64efhq$b...@news1.panix.com>, Information Security
> : <T...@NSA.sucks> wrote:
> :
> : > The CFV result said 488 YES votes.
> : >
> : > Of all YES votes, 211 had zero posts in the last month and a half.
> : >
> : > Of all YES votes, only 173 had more than five posts.
> :
> : Did I miss the part of the newsgroup creation standard that says
> : you must post to Usenet a certain number of times in the
> : six weeks preceding the casting of a vote for or against
> : a newsgroup?
>
> Or, for that matter, that they have to have been posting under their REAL
> email address? A common MO, you will recall, is to not sign your posts
> with your real email address, with the SPECIFIC aim of cutting down on
> UCE. This would mean, of course, that this little search would have missed
> you. :-)
>
> P.S. Remove the * below to make *that* address valid.
>
> --
> Ed*Les...@EDU.YorkU.CA (Ed Leslie) Technology Consultant
> York University Faculty of Education
> Voice: 416-736-5723 FAX: 416-650-8006

parker_rob

unread,

Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97

to

Ken Arromdee (karr...@nyx.net) wrote:
>Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>>> I'm not particularly fond of having any governmental legislation at
>>>> all. That's why I haven't joined CAUCE. I don't think it's
>>>> necessarily a bad idea, but it still concerns me enough that I can't
>>>> give it my whole-hearted support either.
>>> Okay, you're not fond of governmental legislation, but you love your
>>> rules-city Usenet II AUP (http://www.usenet2.org/rules.txt) that only a
>>> control-freak would create.
>>Do you understand the difference? Think about it for a second. How hard
>>is it to start using a different Usenet hierarchy if you don't like the
>>policies of one? How hard is it to start using a different government if
>>you don't like the policies of one?

>Starting another hierarchy except for a few limited cases is _very difficult_,
>since a group with high propagation and high usage is more useful than one
>with better policies but lower propagation and lower usage. (An exception
>would be something like Clarinet, where the articles all come from a central
>source and this is not true.)

"Starting another hierarchy ... is _very difficult_", and yet you want to
barge in and change the rules that they worked so hard to set up for net.*
to make the sort of hierarchy they wanted?

He didn't say "start a new hierarchy", he said "start *using* a different
... hierarchy" [emphasis added]. It's not difficult at all for you to
choose what hierarchy(ies) you want to participate in. It's even easier
than moving somewhere else to have your choice of government.

>This works in favor of Usenet in that it will make it hard for Usenet II to
>succeed, but if Usenet II does manage to succeed anyway, it will make it hard

>to start a hierarchy with better policies. (And the hierarchy won't be able

>to use the name "net.", either.)

If it succeeds, it will be because enough people *want* it to succeed, ie
that most people like the way it works. As long as that condition does
not exist, there will be room for competing hierarchies with different
policies, that more people might feel have "better policies". Note that
net.* is competing against a great deal of inertial on "traditional"
hierarchies, so if it becomes truly successful, it will be because it
has overwhelming support of Usenet readers.

>>And I presume that your argument against having to maintain something is
>>that it requires work. Unresolvably munged addresses require work on the
>>part of everyone who wants to send you e-mail, as well as awareness and
>>newsreader configuration to keep your real e-mail address from leaking
>>out. *Both* methods require work; one of them just shifts a large portion
>>of the work off onto other people.

>Russ, some of the methods listed on the Usenet II web site for dealing with
>email spam without munging require just as much or more work on the part of
>the end user as munging. For instance, Peter da Silva suggests using an
>autoresponder which people have to reply to before they can send any mail to
>you. For the end user to do that requires at least as much work as unmunging
>an address.

Perhaps, but you only have to do it once (depending on how the mechanism
is set up). The effectiveness of munging requires that the complexity
gradually increase (spammers have already started de-munging certain
techniques, I believe) and/or that the number of different approaches is
large enough that programming a de-munger to account for a lot of them
is difficult. The most effective munging requires the most "work" by
a potential sender to decipher.

Also notice that some of "the work" being required of others is required
*to prevent "your" demunged address from leaking*. Users have to be aware
that you don't want the demunged address accessible to the harvesting bots,
and make sure that they don't accidentally post it in the clear (if it
wasn't already in the clear in your .sig). The munger is expecting others
to help them avoid the spammers, to do some of the work for the munger.

>>It makes it hard for people who may legitimately want to send you mail to
>>get in touch with you.

>So does using an email address with a one week lifetime, as suggested on the
>Usenet II web site.

Well, that would only make it hard if you're using an obsolete address.
But that doesn't sound like it would be entirely effective against spam
anyway. Spammers would happily harvest your new address as soon as it
shows up; I think some even harvest and go straight into spamming, rather
than maintain a separate list (would make sense for those "this is a one-
time mailing" spams). I expect they have more suggestions than that.

BTW, what's the URL for the Usenet II web site?

>>It may, in fact, prevent some people from *ever*
>>getting in touch with you; if you've worked end-user tech support, you may
>>realize that the concept of "use the e-mail address in the signature" is
>>sufficiently confusing to some people who are not familiar with computers
>>that they may not be able to understand what they need to do without help.

>I seem to recall a while back that you rejected the concept of "too confusing"

>when applied to the newsgroup creation process, instead arguing that if
>somebody does not follow directions which are explicitly stated, it is the
>fault of the person who did not read the directions, and not the fault of
>the directions for being too complex or being aimed at technical users.

Hmmm? Someone creating a new newsgroup is expected to have a certain
minimum level of technical competence, or at least to RTFM and understand
the process. Simply participating in Usenet does not require that same
level of technical competence, so expecting too much from the typical
Usenet user is not all that realistic.

However, while I choose not to munge myself (even if I could, I'm on the
lists now so it probably wouldn't help much--I've started filtering
instead, which is currently *very* effective), I personally feel that
"use the e-mail address in the signature" is a task which any human
being using a computer should be expected to understand. Anyone using
email should be competent enough to copy-and-paste (or manually enter)
an email address into their mailer as the destination (To, Cc, or Bcc),
and not rely on their reader's Reply function their whole life. It's
like learning how to program your VCR; if you can't or won't learn how
to do it, you shouldn't have a VCR.

So while I think your counter-point is an inappropriate comparison, I
may not agree with the previous poster, either. I do agree that there
are certainly users on Usenet who might be unable to handle demunging
instructions, who would thus be unable to contact you. I don't think
that's necessarily a bad thing (it's up to the munger to decide); it's
like an IQ test that you have to pass for the privilege of contacting
the munger. I find that much less annoying than the people who refuse
all email contact from Usenet because they fail to comprehend the
distinction between *bulk* or *commercial* email, and *personal* email
that just happens to come from strangers. (It is annoying when following
the directions doesn't work, though.) I'm not sure if the previous
poster was expressing it as a "Bad Thing(tm)", or just as a fact. As
quoted it sounds like just a fact, but it's possible to infer an opinion
that it is undesirable.

-Rob Parker

Kathy Pascoe

unread,

Dec 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM12/1/97

to

parker_rob wrote:
>
> BTW, what's the URL for the Usenet II web site?

http://www.usenet2.org/