help with moderator forgeries

Michael S Scheidell

unread,

Apr 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/18/00

to

OK, request for help sent to isp (alt.net) no answer yet
polite email sent to what looks like the poster, and an explanation in the
newsgroup in question.. All that got was a 'nah nah' you can't stop me

So, what assistance, for a BIG 8 moderated newsgroup is there when someone
bypasses or forges the moderators approval?

sample enclosed
ps, the poster never even attempted to post according to the charter, just
assumed that th emoderator would disagree and not post his post

From etanid...@sdniwssorc.net Mon Apr 17 22:56:17 2000
Path: news.alt.net!usenet
From: "insubordinate" <etanid...@sdniwssorc.net>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian.promisekeepers
Subject: Hi!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 22:26:01 -0400
Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - http://www.altopia.com
Lines: 13
Approved: da...@winc.com
Message-ID: <8dgh3g$s9n$0...@dosa.alt.net>
Keywords: .
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Xref: news soc.religion.christian.promisekeepers:4385

Hi!

I just wanted to see if my message would reach this NG! It sure feels
uncomfortable being surrounded by a bunch of conservative bigots.

--
insubordinate
http://cadstudio.mae.cornell.edu/mae225/mae225.95/gpthsymp.html

insubordinate

unread,

Apr 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/18/00

to

Michael S Scheidell <sche...@fdma.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8fpq69.t...@caerulus.cerintha.com...

> OK, request for help sent to isp (alt.net) no answer yet
> polite email sent to what looks like the poster,

I didn't recieve any email from you. Did you send it here?
etanid...@sdniwssorc.net

I figured you right-wing Neanderthals would be to stupid to figure it out
(hint, it's backwards).

> and an explanation in the newsgroup in question..

Oh, are you referring to this?

Message-ID: <38fcaea9...@news.lek.net>

| Pray for people like this. They claim to have a problem iwth Promise
| Keepers, but the truth is that THEIR problem is with God!

> All that got was a 'nah nah' you can't stop me

You got nothing of the sort. All I did was quote the Altopia Policy FAQ
with no other comment from me regarding the moderation issue.

http://www.altopia.com/polfaq.htm

| Q: What is your policy on postings to moderated newsgroups without the
| permission of the moderator?
|
| A: We do not have a policy against this and we rely on users to operate in
| a way they feel is appropriate for Usenet and/or the groups they are
| participating in. If you're a reader, we recommend you ignore it or ask
| your admin to run appropriate moderation software. If you're the
| moderator, do what you feel is necessary to manage the group you moderate.
| If you are a site admin, configure or use appropriate software to avoid
| storing unapproved postings. Altopia is not against the concept of
| newsgroup moderation, we just don't believe the legacy baby-sitting system
| of moderation is practical and that technological solutions (ex. PGPMoose,
| STUMP, passive-UDP, or active-UDP) should be used to enforce moderation

> So, what assistance, for a BIG 8 moderated newsgroup is there when someone
> bypasses or forges the moderators approval?

Why don't you just pray to God?

> sample enclosed
> ps, the poster never even attempted to post according to the charter, just
> assumed that th emoderator would disagree and not post his post

Yeah, that's what I figured.

--
insubordinate
http://cadstudio.mae.cornell.edu/mae225/mae225.95/gpthsymp.html

insubordinate

unread,

Apr 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/18/00

to

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone} <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:878zybx...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk...
> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael S Scheidell <sche...@fdma.com> writes:
>
> Michael> OK, request for help sent to isp (alt.net) no answer yet
> Michael> polite email sent to what looks like the poster, and an
> Michael> explanation in the newsgroup in question.. All that got was
> Michael> a 'nah nah' you can't stop me
>
> Michael> So, what assistance, for a BIG 8 moderated newsgroup is
> Michael> there when someone bypasses or forges the moderators
> Michael> approval?
>
> First you complain to the originating site. If they don't resolve
> the issue within a reasonable time, then let us know and further
> steps will be taken.
>
> I have a standing offer open to any recognised moderator (whether in
> the big-8 or any other hierarchy) to carry out a UDP if necessary
> against any site that is an ongoing source of forged approvals.

It's hard not to overlook your hypocrisy. During the recent debate
regarding RCN binary posting policy you and many of your friends at nan-au
said that posting binaries outside the alt.binaries.* hierarchy was a
serious form of net-abuse. I don't agree with you but that's your argument.

Someone said that so-called *misplaced-binaries* throttle servers. And yet
I don't see you calling for a UDP against RCN due to their binary policy.
Has the posting of messages to a moderated NG without the moderator's
approval ever overloaded a server? Of course not. A clear double standard.

In another thread you tried to make a distinction between binaries and
so-called forged approvals by saying you can filter misplaced binaries. LOL
Backtracking? It was YOU who said that filtering binaries does not solve
the issue regarding bandwidth being eaten up.

The reality is you just don't like Altopia and are looking for an excuse.

--
insubordinate
http://cadstudio.mae.cornell.edu/mae225/mae225.95/gpthsymp.html

insubordinate

unread,

Apr 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/18/00

to

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone} <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> wrote in

message news:87ln2ax...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk...
> >>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate

<insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:
>
> >> First you complain to the originating site. If they don't resolve
> >> the issue within a reasonable time, then let us know and further
> >> steps will be taken.
>
> >> I have a standing offer open to any recognised moderator (whether
> >> in the big-8 or any other hierarchy) to carry out a UDP if
> >> necessary against any site that is an ongoing source of forged
> >> approvals.
>

> insubordinate> It's hard not to overlook your hypocrisy.
> [snip ramblings about binary posting]
>
> There is no hypocrisy.
>
> If you ask around various newsadmins,

Translation: If I ask your friends.

> you'll find that very few of
> them will support a UDP for a site that allows posting of misplaced
> binaries, but virtually all of them will support a UDP for a site that
> allows approval-forgery.

I have read that there are tens of thousands of news servers around the
world. Have you taken an opinion poll of the folks who own and operate all
of them? No, you're just talking about your crowd. Lots of talk at this
group about what is accepted without any proof beyond those who participate
at nan-au. A self fulfilling prophecy.

> You may draw your own conclusions about which form of abuse is
> considered more serious.
>
> insubordinate> In another thread you tried to make a distinction
> insubordinate> between binaries and so-called forged approvals by
> insubordinate> saying you can filter misplaced binaries. LOL
> insubordinate> Backtracking? It was YOU who said that filtering
> insubordinate> binaries does not solve the issue regarding bandwidth
> insubordinate> being eaten up.
>
> One form of abuse is filterable in a way that reduces but does not
> completely eliminate its effects. Another form isn't filterable at all
> without putting in place a lot of infrastructure overhead (which most
> moderators are not equipped to deal with). Which is worse?

The moderator of this newsgroup has found his own way of dealing with this
situation:

--
insubordinate
http://cadstudio.mae.cornell.edu/mae225/mae225.95/gpthsymp.html

insubordinate

unread,

Apr 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/18/00

to

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone} <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> wrote in

message news:87em82x...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk...

> >>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate
<insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:
>
> >> If you ask around various newsadmins,
>

> insubordinate> Translation: If I ask your friends.

>
> >> you'll find that very few of them will support a UDP for a site
> >> that allows posting of misplaced binaries, but virtually all of
> >> them will support a UDP for a site that allows approval-forgery.
>

> insubordinate> I have read that there are tens of thousands of news
> insubordinate> servers around the world. Have you taken an opinion
> insubordinate> poll of the folks who own and operate all of them?
> insubordinate> No, you're just talking about your crowd. Lots of
> insubordinate> talk at this group about what is accepted without any
> insubordinate> proof beyond those who participate at nan-au. A self
> insubordinate> fulfilling prophecy.
>
> I often talk with newsadmins who rarely or never post here. How many
> newsadmins have _you_ asked about this?

I'm not the one who claims to know what the majority of the newsadmins in
the world think about this issue. You said most agree with you. Maybe they
do. Maybe they don't. You have the burden of proof.

> I would agree that counting the opinions of posters in this group is
> unlikely to give you a useful answer, because the number of newsadmins
> still prepared to post here (or even lurk) is getting pretty damned
> small thanks to the continuous flamewars and trolling.
>
> insubordinate> The moderator of this newsgroup has found his own way
> insubordinate> of dealing with this situation:
> [snip moderator's cancel]
>
> yes, moderators are explicitly allowed to do that. However, that
> doesn't affect the situation.

He removed my articles from those servers that choose to accept 3rd party
cancels. My articles remain on those servers that choose not to accept such
cancels. There's your solution.

--
insubordinate
http://cadstudio.mae.cornell.edu/mae225/mae225.95/gpthsymp.html

anonym™

unread,

Apr 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/18/00

to

Rebecca Ore wrote:
>
> "insubordinate" <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:
>
> > The content of the Altopia Policy FAQ has been public knowledge for a long
> > time. It was only a matter of time before someone did what the FAQ appears
> > to permit. I am not responsible for the FAQ (which I generally support) nor
> > do I have the power do get anyone on either side of the issue to do
> > anything. I'm just an ordinary user.
>
> The FAQ (and most of Caputo's philosophy as I think I understand it)
> hopes that people will not be childish about this and abuse
> moderation.

>
> Chris C had the idea that if people were allowed freedom, they would
> be less, not more, inclined to interact better with each other.

And they do, but it's naive to think that people won't take full
advantage of those freedoms.

> suspect he was not happy to make the restrictions he ended up making.

Who gives a shit if he was happy about it or not? He made his bed, he
takes the consequences, and he knows it.

>
> And I don't see that you aren't rather putting him, and not yourself,
> in a fairly nasty spot. This little game of yours is cost-free, at
> this point, to you, but not to Chris Caputo.

It's ALLOWED, so fuck off.

--

"I am permanently off usenet as of 7/29/99" - Ed Wollmann, pathological liar

http://www.smbtech.com/ed/
http://lart.com/ed/

anonym™

unread,

Apr 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/18/00

to

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone} wrote:
>
> >>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:
>

> >> First you complain to the originating site. If they don't resolve
> >> the issue within a reasonable time, then let us know and further
> >> steps will be taken.
>
> >> I have a standing offer open to any recognised moderator (whether
> >> in the big-8 or any other hierarchy) to carry out a UDP if
> >> necessary against any site that is an ongoing source of forged
> >> approvals.
>
> insubordinate> It's hard not to overlook your hypocrisy.
> [snip ramblings about binary posting]
>
> There is no hypocrisy.
>

> If you ask around various newsadmins, you'll find that very few of

> them will support a UDP for a site that allows posting of misplaced
> binaries, but virtually all of them will support a UDP for a site that
> allows approval-forgery.
>

> You may draw your own conclusions about which form of abuse is
> considered more serious.
>
> insubordinate> In another thread you tried to make a distinction
> insubordinate> between binaries and so-called forged approvals by
> insubordinate> saying you can filter misplaced binaries. LOL
> insubordinate> Backtracking? It was YOU who said that filtering
> insubordinate> binaries does not solve the issue regarding bandwidth
> insubordinate> being eaten up.
>
> One form of abuse is filterable in a way that reduces but does not
> completely eliminate its effects. Another form isn't filterable at all
> without putting in place a lot of infrastructure overhead (which most
> moderators are not equipped to deal with). Which is worse?

Moderators complaining about infrastructure overhead. It's like record
companies complaining about MP3s.

They should get with the program or shut the fuck up.
>
> insubordinate> The reality is you just don't like Altopia and are
> insubordinate> looking for an excuse.
>
> So why are you so set on providing one?
>

Altopia has a policy that allows their posters the ability to get around
moderator's approvals.

Big fucking deal.

It's really NOT that big a problem, if any at all. It's an irritant, at
best, and nothing compared to the REAL, vvolumions net abuse that goes
one, but which you are obviously bored with. *This* particular issue it
has good p.r. value, hence your eagerness to throw your name behind it.

Your vow to UDP Altopia is a bluff, and if you try, you will fail.

anonym™

unread,

Apr 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/18/00

to

insubordinate wrote:
>
> Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone} <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:87em82x...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk...

> > >>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate
> <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:
> >
> > >> If you ask around various newsadmins,
> >

> > insubordinate> Translation: If I ask your friends.
> >

> > >> you'll find that very few of them will support a UDP for a site
> > >> that allows posting of misplaced binaries, but virtually all of
> > >> them will support a UDP for a site that allows approval-forgery.
> >

> > insubordinate> I have read that there are tens of thousands of news
> > insubordinate> servers around the world. Have you taken an opinion
> > insubordinate> poll of the folks who own and operate all of them?
> > insubordinate> No, you're just talking about your crowd. Lots of
> > insubordinate> talk at this group about what is accepted without any
> > insubordinate> proof beyond those who participate at nan-au. A self
> > insubordinate> fulfilling prophecy.
> >
> > I often talk with newsadmins who rarely or never post here. How many
> > newsadmins have _you_ asked about this?
>
> I'm not the one who claims to know what the majority of the newsadmins in
> the world think about this issue. You said most agree with you. Maybe they
> do. Maybe they don't. You have the burden of proof.
>
> > I would agree that counting the opinions of posters in this group is
> > unlikely to give you a useful answer, because the number of newsadmins
> > still prepared to post here (or even lurk) is getting pretty damned
> > small thanks to the continuous flamewars and trolling.
> >
> > insubordinate> The moderator of this newsgroup has found his own way
> > insubordinate> of dealing with this situation:
> > [snip moderator's cancel]
> >
> > yes, moderators are explicitly allowed to do that. However, that
> > doesn't affect the situation.
>
> He removed my articles from those servers that choose to accept 3rd party
> cancels. My articles remain on those servers that choose not to accept such
> cancels. There's your solution.
>

Everybody's happy now, right?

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone}

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael S Scheidell <sche...@fdma.com> writes:

Michael> OK, request for help sent to isp (alt.net) no answer yet
Michael> polite email sent to what looks like the poster, and an
Michael> explanation in the newsgroup in question.. All that got was
Michael> a 'nah nah' you can't stop me

Michael> So, what assistance, for a BIG 8 moderated newsgroup is
Michael> there when someone bypasses or forges the moderators
Michael> approval?

First you complain to the originating site. If they don't resolve

the issue within a reasonable time, then let us know and further
steps will be taken.

I have a standing offer open to any recognised moderator (whether in
the big-8 or any other hierarchy) to carry out a UDP if necessary
against any site that is an ongoing source of forged approvals.

--
Andrew.

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone}

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

>>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:

>> First you complain to the originating site. If they don't resolve
>> the issue within a reasonable time, then let us know and further
>> steps will be taken.

>> I have a standing offer open to any recognised moderator (whether
>> in the big-8 or any other hierarchy) to carry out a UDP if
>> necessary against any site that is an ongoing source of forged
>> approvals.

insubordinate> It's hard not to overlook your hypocrisy.

[snip ramblings about binary posting]

There is no hypocrisy.

If you ask around various newsadmins, you'll find that very few of

them will support a UDP for a site that allows posting of misplaced
binaries, but virtually all of them will support a UDP for a site that
allows approval-forgery.

You may draw your own conclusions about which form of abuse is
considered more serious.

insubordinate> In another thread you tried to make a distinction
insubordinate> between binaries and so-called forged approvals by
insubordinate> saying you can filter misplaced binaries. LOL
insubordinate> Backtracking? It was YOU who said that filtering
insubordinate> binaries does not solve the issue regarding bandwidth
insubordinate> being eaten up.

One form of abuse is filterable in a way that reduces but does not
completely eliminate its effects. Another form isn't filterable at all
without putting in place a lot of infrastructure overhead (which most
moderators are not equipped to deal with). Which is worse?

insubordinate> The reality is you just don't like Altopia and are

insubordinate> looking for an excuse.

So why are you so set on providing one?

--
Andrew.

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone}

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

>>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:

>> If you ask around various newsadmins,

insubordinate> Translation: If I ask your friends.

>> you'll find that very few of them will support a UDP for a site

>> that allows posting of misplaced binaries, but virtually all of
>> them will support a UDP for a site that allows approval-forgery.

insubordinate> I have read that there are tens of thousands of news

insubordinate> servers around the world. Have you taken an opinion
insubordinate> poll of the folks who own and operate all of them?
insubordinate> No, you're just talking about your crowd. Lots of
insubordinate> talk at this group about what is accepted without any
insubordinate> proof beyond those who participate at nan-au. A self
insubordinate> fulfilling prophecy.

I often talk with newsadmins who rarely or never post here. How many
newsadmins have _you_ asked about this?

I would agree that counting the opinions of posters in this group is

unlikely to give you a useful answer, because the number of newsadmins
still prepared to post here (or even lurk) is getting pretty damned
small thanks to the continuous flamewars and trolling.

insubordinate> The moderator of this newsgroup has found his own way
insubordinate> of dealing with this situation:
[snip moderator's cancel]

yes, moderators are explicitly allowed to do that. However, that
doesn't affect the situation.

--
Andrew.

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone}

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

>>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:

>> I often talk with newsadmins who rarely or never post here. How many
>> newsadmins have _you_ asked about this?

insubordinate> I'm not the one who claims to know what the majority
insubordinate> of the newsadmins in the world think about this issue.
insubordinate> You said most agree with you. Maybe they do. Maybe
insubordinate> they don't. You have the burden of proof.

The proof will be forthcoming if the problem continues.

>> [snip moderator's cancel]
>>
>> yes, moderators are explicitly allowed to do that. However, that
>> doesn't affect the situation.

insubordinate> He removed my articles from those servers that choose
insubordinate> to accept 3rd party cancels. My articles remain on
insubordinate> those servers that choose not to accept such cancels.
insubordinate> There's your solution.

This is not a solution for those servers that prefer not to accept
cancels, but also don't want forged approvals. I refer you to Jeremy's
comments on this issue for one example.

--
Andrew.

The Grand Wombat

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

After 151 days of wandering <87aeiqx...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>,

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone} <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> had a vision and wrote:
>>>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:
>
> >> I often talk with newsadmins who rarely or never post here. How many
> >> newsadmins have _you_ asked about this?
>
> insubordinate> I'm not the one who claims to know what the majority
> insubordinate> of the newsadmins in the world think about this issue.
> insubordinate> You said most agree with you. Maybe they do. Maybe
> insubordinate> they don't. You have the burden of proof.
>
> The proof will be forthcoming if the problem continues.
>

Hmmm. A day after you and others post that in the hypothetical instance of
alt.net allowing moderator forgeries, you would UDP alt.net, lo and behold,
someone starts posting them.

Could it be that someone with a vendetta against alt.net is trolling you
into this?

For all you know, it might even be Tim Thorne ...

--
The Grand Wombat - maker of the 100,000,000th post to Usenet

insubordinate

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

The Grand Wombat <grand...@goplay.com> wrote in message
news:38fd2ad0$1$97508$44a1...@news.net-link.net...

> After 151 days of wandering <87aeiqx...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>,
> Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone} <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> had a vision
and wrote:
> >>>>>> "insubordinate" == insubordinate
<insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:
> >
> > >> I often talk with newsadmins who rarely or never post here. How many
> > >> newsadmins have _you_ asked about this?
> >
> > insubordinate> I'm not the one who claims to know what the majority
> > insubordinate> of the newsadmins in the world think about this issue.
> > insubordinate> You said most agree with you. Maybe they do. Maybe
> > insubordinate> they don't. You have the burden of proof.
> >
> > The proof will be forthcoming if the problem continues.
> >
> Hmmm. A day after you and others post that in the hypothetical instance
> of alt.net allowing moderator forgeries, you would UDP alt.net, lo and
> behold, someone starts posting them.
>
> Could it be that someone with a vendetta against alt.net is trolling you
> into this?

I have nothing against Altopia. It's just the opposite. I signed up
because I respect their free speech policy.

The content of the Altopia Policy FAQ has been public knowledge for a long
time. It was only a matter of time before someone did what the FAQ appears
to permit. I am not responsible for the FAQ (which I generally support) nor
do I have the power do get anyone on either side of the issue to do
anything. I'm just an ordinary user.

> For all you know, it might even be Tim Thorne ...

?

--
insubordinate
http://cadstudio.mae.cornell.edu/mae225/mae225.95/gpthsymp.html

Rebecca Ore

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

"insubordinate" <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:

> The content of the Altopia Policy FAQ has been public knowledge for a long
> time. It was only a matter of time before someone did what the FAQ appears
> to permit. I am not responsible for the FAQ (which I generally support) nor
> do I have the power do get anyone on either side of the issue to do
> anything. I'm just an ordinary user.

The FAQ (and most of Caputo's philosophy as I think I understand it)

hopes that people will not be childish about this and abuse
moderation.

Chris C had the idea that if people were allowed freedom, they would

be less, not more, inclined to interact better with each other. I

suspect he was not happy to make the restrictions he ended up making.

And I don't see that you aren't rather putting him, and not yourself,

in a fairly nasty spot. This little game of yours is cost-free, at
this point, to you, but not to Chris Caputo.

--
Rebecca Ore
http://www.ogoense.net

I R A Darth Aggie

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:21:37 -0400,
insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM>, in
<8diu60$htf$0...@pita.alt.net> wrote:

+ Someone said that so-called *misplaced-binaries* throttle servers. And yet
+ I don't see you calling for a UDP against RCN due to their binary policy.
+ Has the posting of messages to a moderated NG without the moderator's
+ approval ever overloaded a server? Of course not. A clear double standard.

Only to a moron...much like yourself. Posting a mis-placed binary can
be done out of ignorance, which isn't a crime, per se. Adding an
approval line, tho, shows you *know* that the group is moderated, and
that you don't give a flying fig. That ain't "accidental", that ain't
done out of ignorance, that's a willful breaking of convention.

+ The reality is you just don't like Altopia and are looking for an excuse.

Nah, we just don't like you...

James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>

I R A Darth Aggie

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

On 19 Apr 2000 00:57:39 +0100,
Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone} <and...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk>, in
<878zybx...@erlenstar.demon.co.uk> wrote:

+ First you complain to the originating site. If they don't resolve
+ the issue within a reasonable time, then let us know and further
+ steps will be taken.

Well, it's altopia, and we both know Capuato isn't going to do a thing
about it. Do note that insubordinate isn't doing this from RCN, or
AB would already be LARTing him into next year...

+ I have a standing offer open to any recognised moderator (whether in
+ the big-8 or any other hierarchy) to carry out a UDP if necessary
+ against any site that is an ongoing source of forged approvals.

This could be good...insubordinate isn't smart enough to walk away...

Andrew Gierth {not a hipclone}

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

>>>>> "I" == I R A Darth Aggie <sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz> writes:

>> First you complain to the originating site. If they don't resolve

>> the issue within a reasonable time, then let us know and further

>> steps will be taken.

I> Well, it's altopia, and we both know Capuato isn't going to do a
I> thing about it.

No, actually, we don't know that. Caputo is entitled to his chance to
deal with the situation himself.

--
Andrew.

Lionel Lauer

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

On 19 Apr 2000 04:59:48 GMT, in
<slrn8fqfa5....@gurcragntba.pbz>, sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R
A Darth Aggie) said:

>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:21:37 -0400,
>insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM>, in
><8diu60$htf$0...@pita.alt.net> wrote:
>
>+ Someone said that so-called *misplaced-binaries* throttle servers. And yet
>+ I don't see you calling for a UDP against RCN due to their binary policy.
>+ Has the posting of messages to a moderated NG without the moderator's
>+ approval ever overloaded a server? Of course not. A clear double standard.
>
>Only to a moron...much like yourself. Posting a mis-placed binary can
>be done out of ignorance, which isn't a crime, per se. Adding an
>approval line, tho, shows you *know* that the group is moderated, and
>that you don't give a flying fig. That ain't "accidental", that ain't
>done out of ignorance, that's a willful breaking of convention.

It can be done by accident, or at least by forgetfulness. I have done so
once on a provider's internal newsgroup, & got my wrist slapped for it.

>+ The reality is you just don't like Altopia and are looking for an excuse.
>
>Nah, we just don't like you...
>
>James

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

insubordinate

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

I R A Darth Aggie <sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz> wrote in message
news:slrn8fqfa5....@gurcragntba.pbz...

> On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:21:37 -0400,
> insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM>, in
> <8diu60$htf$0...@pita.alt.net> wrote:
>
> + Someone said that so-called *misplaced-binaries* throttle servers. And

> + yet I don't see you calling for a UDP against RCN due to their binary
> + policy. Has the posting of messages to a moderated NG without the
> + moderator's approval ever overloaded a server? Of course not. A clear
> + double standard.

>
> Only to a moron...much like yourself. Posting a mis-placed binary can
> be done out of ignorance, which isn't a crime, per se. Adding an
> approval line, tho, shows you *know* that the group is moderated, and
> that you don't give a flying fig. That ain't "accidental", that ain't
> done out of ignorance, that's a willful breaking of convention.

I posted binaries to alt.sex.pictures.nospam via my RCN account knowing
full well the issues. It was no accident. And at many so-called *stealth*
binaries newsgroups people know the issues because of the presence of
bincancel-bots and net-cops.

You focus on the intent of the poster. The issue is the policy of the
site. In both cases a site allows for conduct that some folks at nan-au
consider to be so-called net-abuse. But we have from Gierth a different
response. Double standard.

> + The reality is you just don't like Altopia and are looking for an

> + excuse.

>
> Nah, we just don't like you...

LOL That's OK, I can't please everyone. But if it was about me personally
than you would call for a UDP when I post binaries via RCN.

--
insubordinate
http://cadstudio.mae.cornell.edu/mae225/mae225.95/gpthsymp.html

I R A Darth Aggie

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 04:57:32 -0400,
insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM>, in
<8djsfj$8um$0...@pita.alt.net> wrote:
+
+ I R A Darth Aggie <sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz> wrote in message
+ news:slrn8fqfa5....@gurcragntba.pbz...
+ > On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:21:37 -0400,
+ > insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM>, in
+ > <8diu60$htf$0...@pita.alt.net> wrote:
+ >
+ > + Someone said that so-called *misplaced-binaries* throttle servers. And
+ > + yet I don't see you calling for a UDP against RCN due to their binary
+ > + policy. Has the posting of messages to a moderated NG without the
+ > + moderator's approval ever overloaded a server? Of course not. A clear
+ > + double standard.
+ >
+ > Only to a moron...much like yourself. Posting a mis-placed binary can
+ > be done out of ignorance, which isn't a crime, per se. Adding an
+ > approval line, tho, shows you *know* that the group is moderated, and
+ > that you don't give a flying fig. That ain't "accidental", that ain't
+ > done out of ignorance, that's a willful breaking of convention.
+
+ I posted binaries to alt.sex.pictures.nospam via my RCN account knowing
+ full well the issues. It was no accident. And at many so-called *stealth*
+ binaries newsgroups people know the issues because of the presence of
+ bincancel-bots and net-cops.
+
+ You focus on the intent of the poster.

No, I focus on giving people the benefit of the doubt. Of course you
posted binaries outside the binary groups on purpose -- after it had
been explained to you.

+ > Nah, we just don't like you...
+
+ LOL That's OK, I can't please everyone. But if it was about me personally
+ than you would call for a UDP when I post binaries via RCN.

That's not to say I haven't thought about it. It isn't as clear-cut,
tho, and the support isn't there, so it's an awful lot like tilting
at windmills...

pavanas abludo incusus

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:53:35 -0400,
insubordinate <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> mused and hath written:

>
trimmage
>

Did you attempt to submit your posts to the normal moderation process?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

cheers

--
IHS
pavanas
Time is growing distant.

J. Porter Clark

unread,

Apr 19, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/19/00

to

In fact, when I have complained to alt.net about forged approvals in
newsgroups I moderate, they have stopped. I don't know whether Chris
or someone else did something about it or whether they stopped on their
own. I don't care, either, as long as they stopped.

FWIW, I believe that a site that actively supports approval forgery on
moderated newsgroups is guilty of abuse regardless of its sheer bulk.

--
J. Porter Clark porter...@msfc.nasa.gov
NASA/MSFC Computers and Data Systems Group

The Grand Wombat

unread,

Apr 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/20/00

to

After 151 days of wandering <irasfskuevp74koj8...@4ax.com>,
BOFH <bo...@from.hell> had a vision and wrote:

> grand...@goplay.com (The Grand Wombat) wrote:
>
>>Hmmm. A day after you and others post that in the hypothetical instance of
>>alt.net allowing moderator forgeries, you would UDP alt.net, lo and behold,
>>someone starts posting them.
>>
>>Could it be that someone with a vendetta against alt.net is trolling you
>>into this?
>

> Or maybe someone you know is on the payroll of Caputo's political
> opponents...
>
Thorne, not everyone is as craven and underhanded as you ,...

>>For all you know, it might even be Tim Thorne ...
>

> <grin>

Who is still fighting flame wars he's already lost ...

Erik Warmelink

unread,

Apr 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM4/22/00

to

[posted to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet and alt.religion.afterburner]
[mailed to ab...@rcn.net]
In article <8diu60$htf$0...@pita.alt.net>,
"insubordinate" <insubo...@crosswinds.netSNUFFSPAM> writes:

> It's hard not to overlook your hypocrisy. During the recent debate
> regarding RCN binary posting policy you and many of your friends at nan-au
> said that posting binaries outside the alt.binaries.* hierarchy was a
> serious form of net-abuse. I don't agree with you but that's your argument.
>

> Someone said that so-called *misplaced-binaries* throttle servers. And yet
> I don't see you calling for a UDP against RCN due to their binary policy.

OTOH, I do call for an UDP against RCN because they allow binary posts
to alt.sex.fetish.linux. I think that any provider should be able to
respond within two weeks.

Spam advertizing the same gisnet.net block continues to flow from the
newsservers of RCN, RCN chooses to ignore complaints.

--
http://sengir.selwerd.nl/spam_sites.html