Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
40 views
Skip to first unread message
Eric Stevens
Oct 7, 2019, 7:06:21 PM10/7/19
to
After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
article at a later date.
In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
1728 after that date.
In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
postings.
--
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
article at a later date.
In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
1728 after that date.
In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
postings.
--
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Ken Blake
Oct 7, 2019, 7:31:24 PM10/7/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
>finally decided to kill-file him.
Thank you. The more people that killfile trolls, the fewer quoted
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
>finally decided to kill-file him.
message from the trolls I have to see.
Trolls should always be killfiled, not argued with. Arguing is what
they want to happen.
nospam
Oct 7, 2019, 7:39:18 PM10/7/19
to
In article <e1gnpe1t552p3nbgc...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all
usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged.
> In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
> rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
> 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
> 1728 after that date.
google groups search no longer works reliably.
if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous
threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong
about sensor dynamic range.
> In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
> the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
> follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
> if a long time has elapsed.
or a short time. see above.
> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
only if usenet servers support cancel, which they do not. see above.
> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
> postings.
as usual, you're wrong.
i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even
possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel
messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could
be, before google groups stopped working reliably).
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> article at a later date.
no it doesn't.
> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> article at a later date.
it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all
usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged.
> In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
> rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
> 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
> 1728 after that date.
if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous
threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong
about sensor dynamic range.
> In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
> the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
> follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
> if a long time has elapsed.
> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
> postings.
i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even
possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel
messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could
be, before google groups stopped working reliably).
Arlen _G_ Holder
Oct 7, 2019, 8:27:33 PM10/7/19
to
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:39:11 -0400, nospam wrote:
> i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even
> possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel
> messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could
> be, before google groups stopped working reliably).
This is simply a related datapoint... for those on this Usenet potluck who
> i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even
> possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel
> messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could
> be, before google groups stopped working reliably).
understand Usenet headers better than I do.
Please look at this example, from only 8 days ago where you'll note
X-No-Archive: Yes
By using that one line in his header, it seems that Jolly Roger seems to
have his messages DELETED from Google Groups archives, as far as I can
tell, but, they show up on the Howard Knight archives.
For example, this is the original post that I respond to directly:
From: Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
Newsgroups: misc.phone.mobile.iphone,comp.mobile.ipad
Subject: The 'Checkm8' exploit isn't a big deal to iPhone or iPad users, and here's why
Followup-To: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Date: 29 Sep 2019 15:52:25 GMT
Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Pirates
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <gvc29p...@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net eBu/jVzYSiaAJ0ucHNMznAKR8JwDMJc12PhBF3N7Elrwbae9SL
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Kmy4hpymD3dW705Qzl0alJwfdjg=
X-No-Archive: Yes
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-Face: (removed)
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.1 (Darwin)
Even though I respond directly to Jolly Roger's post above,
only my response shows up in google groups - not Jolly Roger's OP:
o The 'Checkm8' exploit isn't a big deal to iPhone or iPad users, and here's why
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/cwlXKVyQfT4>
Even though Jolly Roger's post does not seem to show up in Google archives,
Jolly Roger's message-id does show up in the Howard Knight archives:
<http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3Cgvc29pFqrc6U1%40mid.individual.net%3E>
And, Jolly Roger's post shows up in the Narkive Usenet archives:
<https://misc.phone.mobile.iphone.narkive.com/365fo343/the-checkm8-exploit-isn-t-a-big-deal-to-iphone-or-ipad-users-and-here-s-why>
I suspect that Google Groups honors the "X-No-Archive" line:
<http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
But I've never used it myself, so I can't say for sure.
o Can you?
Char Jackson
Oct 7, 2019, 8:48:57 PM10/7/19
to
>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>article at a later date.
Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>article at a later date.
now, quite possibly more than two decades.
nospam
Oct 7, 2019, 8:57:31 PM10/7/19
to
In article <e9mnpe9k0q40rcmtl...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson
<no...@none.invalid> wrote:
>
> Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
> now, quite possibly more than two decades.
probably more than that.
>
> Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
> now, quite possibly more than two decades.
Eric Stevens
Oct 7, 2019, 10:08:49 PM10/7/19
to
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:39:11 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <e1gnpe1t552p3nbgc...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>> article at a later date.
>
>no it doesn't.
>it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all
>usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged.
But it does, dear nospam, it does.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
>
"These headers are intended to be used as a simple method to verify
that the author of an article which removes another one is either
the poster, posting agent, moderator or injecting agent that
processed the original article when it was in its proto-article
form."
A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the
identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been
'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do.
Up to 5,947 text retention. And all your messages before 25 Dec 2018
are gone from the server. Nobody else seems to have missing messages.
Only you. Your messages have been cancelled and only you have the
power to do that. Why are you fudging around with your answers?
>
>if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous
>threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong
>about sensor dynamic range.
Oh I did find multiple messages from people telling me I was wrong
when I suggested that Nikon might have been user a particular method
which I have only just recently confirmed is the actual method used by
Nikon and several other manufacturers. I've given you the hint: it is
referred to in the DGN standard.
your headers and why would all your older messages have vanished in
mass?
P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
wrote:
>In article <e1gnpe1t552p3nbgc...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>> article at a later date.
>
>no it doesn't.
>it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all
>usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
>
"These headers are intended to be used as a simple method to verify
that the author of an article which removes another one is either
the poster, posting agent, moderator or injecting agent that
processed the original article when it was in its proto-article
form."
A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the
identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been
'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do.
>
>> In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
>> rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
>> 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
>> 1728 after that date.
>
>google groups search no longer works reliably.
But I don't bother with Google News. See http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
>> In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
>> rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
>> 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
>> 1728 after that date.
>
>google groups search no longer works reliably.
Up to 5,947 text retention. And all your messages before 25 Dec 2018
are gone from the server. Nobody else seems to have missing messages.
Only you. Your messages have been cancelled and only you have the
power to do that. Why are you fudging around with your answers?
>
>if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous
>threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong
>about sensor dynamic range.
when I suggested that Nikon might have been user a particular method
which I have only just recently confirmed is the actual method used by
Nikon and several other manufacturers. I've given you the hint: it is
referred to in the DGN standard.
>
>> In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
>> the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
>> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
>> follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
>> if a long time has elapsed.
>
>or a short time. see above.
>
>> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
>> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>
>only if usenet servers support cancel, which they do not. see above.
If you truly believed that why would you insert a 'Cancel-Lock' in
>> In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
>> the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
>> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
>> follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
>> if a long time has elapsed.
>
>or a short time. see above.
>
>> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
>> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>
>only if usenet servers support cancel, which they do not. see above.
your headers and why would all your older messages have vanished in
mass?
>
>> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
>> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
>> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
>> postings.
>
>as usual, you're wrong.
>
>i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even
>possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel
>messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could
>be, before google groups stopped working reliably).
I invite people with the ability to do so to check their own servers.
>> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
>> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
>> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
>> postings.
>
>as usual, you're wrong.
>
>i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even
>possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel
>messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could
>be, before google groups stopped working reliably).
P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
Eric Stevens
Oct 7, 2019, 10:11:35 PM10/7/19
to
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:
That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
it was intended to do. See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
wrote:
reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
it was intended to do. See
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
nospam
Oct 7, 2019, 10:46:13 PM10/7/19
to
In article <3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
> >
> "These headers are intended to be used as a simple method to verify
> that the author of an article which removes another one is either
> the poster, posting agent, moderator or injecting agent that
> processed the original article when it was in its proto-article
> form."
>
> A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the
> identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been
> 'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do.
that only authenticates the request.
it does *not* mean other servers will act upon it.
cancel-lock is something eternal-september does, and until you noticed
it, i had no idea it was even in there.
since you can't support any of your claims, you have resorted to a
massive attack, claiming i've done things that i have not.
> >> In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
> >> rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
> >> 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
> >> 1728 after that date.
> >
> >google groups search no longer works reliably.
>
> But I don't bother with Google News. See http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
> Up to 5,947 text retention. And all your messages before 25 Dec 2018
> are gone from the server. Nobody else seems to have missing messages.
> Only you. Your messages have been cancelled and only you have the
> power to do that. Why are you fudging around with your answers?
i'm not fudging anything, nor have i canceled anything *ever*.
whatever you're supposedly seeing is entirely *your* newsserver and/or
something *you* are doing, and blaming everyone other than yourself.
> >if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous
> >threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong
> >about sensor dynamic range.
>
> Oh I did find multiple messages from people telling me I was wrong
that should be your first clue.
at least you admit that many people told you were wrong.
> when I suggested that Nikon might have been user a particular method
> which I have only just recently confirmed is the actual method used by
> Nikon and several other manufacturers. I've given you the hint: it is
> referred to in the DGN standard.
dng, and that isn't relevant to what's being discussed.
> >> In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
> >> the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
> >> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
> >> follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
> >> if a long time has elapsed.
> >
> >or a short time. see above.
> >
> >> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
> >> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
> >> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
> >
> >only if usenet servers support cancel, which they do not. see above.
>
> If you truly believed that why would you insert a 'Cancel-Lock' in
> your headers and why would all your older messages have vanished in
> mass?
i'm not inserting anything, and they didn't vanish.
it's something at your end.
stop blaming others for your own ineptness and lack of understanding.
> >> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
> >> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
> >> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
> >> postings.
> >
> >as usual, you're wrong.
> >
> >i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even
> >possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel
> >messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could
> >be, before google groups stopped working reliably).
>
> I invite people with the ability to do so to check their own servers.
>
> P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
> rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
you did so only because you can't support any of your claims and don't
like it when you were called on it.
are you still under the delusional belief that digital cameras do not
do any sampling??
that not only indicates a major disconnect in understanding how digital
cameras work, but it's just flat out fucked up.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> >> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> >> article at a later date.
> >
> >no it doesn't.
>
> >it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all
> >usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged.
>
> But it does, dear nospam, it does.
i thought you killfiled me
> >> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> >> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> >> article at a later date.
> >
> >no it doesn't.
>
> >it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all
> >usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged.
>
> But it does, dear nospam, it does.
> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
> >
> "These headers are intended to be used as a simple method to verify
> that the author of an article which removes another one is either
> the poster, posting agent, moderator or injecting agent that
> processed the original article when it was in its proto-article
> form."
>
> A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the
> identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been
> 'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do.
it does *not* mean other servers will act upon it.
cancel-lock is something eternal-september does, and until you noticed
it, i had no idea it was even in there.
since you can't support any of your claims, you have resorted to a
massive attack, claiming i've done things that i have not.
> >> In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
> >> rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
> >> 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
> >> 1728 after that date.
> >
> >google groups search no longer works reliably.
>
> But I don't bother with Google News. See http://www.forteinc.com/apn/
> Up to 5,947 text retention. And all your messages before 25 Dec 2018
> are gone from the server. Nobody else seems to have missing messages.
> Only you. Your messages have been cancelled and only you have the
> power to do that. Why are you fudging around with your answers?
whatever you're supposedly seeing is entirely *your* newsserver and/or
something *you* are doing, and blaming everyone other than yourself.
> >if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous
> >threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong
> >about sensor dynamic range.
>
> Oh I did find multiple messages from people telling me I was wrong
at least you admit that many people told you were wrong.
> when I suggested that Nikon might have been user a particular method
> which I have only just recently confirmed is the actual method used by
> Nikon and several other manufacturers. I've given you the hint: it is
> referred to in the DGN standard.
> >> In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
> >> the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
> >> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
> >> follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
> >> if a long time has elapsed.
> >
> >or a short time. see above.
> >
> >> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
> >> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
> >> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
> >
> >only if usenet servers support cancel, which they do not. see above.
>
> If you truly believed that why would you insert a 'Cancel-Lock' in
> your headers and why would all your older messages have vanished in
> mass?
it's something at your end.
stop blaming others for your own ineptness and lack of understanding.
> >> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
> >> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
> >> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
> >> postings.
> >
> >as usual, you're wrong.
> >
> >i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even
> >possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel
> >messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could
> >be, before google groups stopped working reliably).
>
> I invite people with the ability to do so to check their own servers.
>
> P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
> rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
like it when you were called on it.
are you still under the delusional belief that digital cameras do not
do any sampling??
that not only indicates a major disconnect in understanding how digital
cameras work, but it's just flat out fucked up.
nospam
Oct 7, 2019, 10:46:14 PM10/7/19
to
In article <3vrnpedhiagddmfbo...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> >>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> >>article at a later date.
> >
> >Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
> >now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>
> That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
> reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
> it was intended to do. See
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
actually, it doesn't change anything.
> >>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> >>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> >>article at a later date.
> >
> >Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
> >now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>
> That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
> reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
> it was intended to do. See
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
Char Jackson
Oct 7, 2019, 10:49:53 PM10/7/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
enough Usenet servers, you might just find one that will honor a cancel
message *for that server*. Rest assured, even if you find a small out of
the way Usenet server that's misconfigured to the point where cancels are
accidentally honored, that kind of thing won't propagate to the rest of
Usenet.
If you're basing your theory of missing messages solely on what GG shows
you, I think you have your answer. But please, don't let me sway you. Get
on with the task at hand.
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>>article at a later date.
>>
>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>
>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
>it was intended to do. See
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
OK, believe what you will. Go ahead and try it for yourself. If you try
>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>>article at a later date.
>>
>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>
>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
>it was intended to do. See
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
enough Usenet servers, you might just find one that will honor a cancel
message *for that server*. Rest assured, even if you find a small out of
the way Usenet server that's misconfigured to the point where cancels are
accidentally honored, that kind of thing won't propagate to the rest of
Usenet.
If you're basing your theory of missing messages solely on what GG shows
you, I think you have your answer. But please, don't let me sway you. Get
on with the task at hand.
Savageduck
Oct 7, 2019, 11:06:52 PM10/7/19
to
On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in article<3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>):
<<Snip>>
I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
<<Snip>>
> P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
> rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article<3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>):
<<Snip>>
I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
<<Snip>>
> P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
> rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Mayayana
Oct 7, 2019, 11:19:02 PM10/7/19
to
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote
| I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
| with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
|
| I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
| with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
|
| > P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
| > rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
|
| Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
|
Sometimes it best to cure an addiction a little bit at a time. :)
| > rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
|
| Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
|
RichA
Oct 8, 2019, 1:09:16 AM10/8/19
to
On Monday, 7 October 2019 19:06:21 UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
> After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>
> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> article at a later date.
>
> In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
> rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
> 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
> 1728 after that date.
>
> In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
> the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
> follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
> if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>
> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
> postings.
Honestly, with the witch-hunts going on thanks to the liberal press, employers, law-enforcement and governrment, I'm surprised anyone posts anything at all.
> After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>
> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> article at a later date.
>
> In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
> rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
> 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
> 1728 after that date.
>
> In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
> the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
> follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
> if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>
> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
> postings.
Bill W
Oct 8, 2019, 1:30:19 AM10/8/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
you? You sound like the Dems going after Trump. For you, just like
them, it's relentless, and stopped making sense long ago.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>>article at a later date.
>>
>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>
>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
>it was intended to do. See
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
Did you read the date on that article? And what the hell happened to
>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>>article at a later date.
>>
>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>
>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
>it was intended to do. See
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
you? You sound like the Dems going after Trump. For you, just like
them, it's relentless, and stopped making sense long ago.
Ralph Fox
Oct 8, 2019, 2:46:47 AM10/8/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> followed by a hashed code.
Which is added by ES, his news server.
> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> followed by a hashed code.
Albasani also adds it. Check my headers.
The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it.
> This enables him to reliably delete the
> article at a later date.
care about cancel locks.
The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. The message will
not be deleted off the big news servers.
> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
> follows the message being cancelled
news servers.
What you write has not been true for close to 2 decades.
> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
ignore the cancel.
> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
> postings.
It might allow the ES Admin remove a spam flood posted through ES which
managed to get through his filters. However it would only be removed
from ES and the few other news servers which do care about cancel locks.
> After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
see the kill-filed person's text quoted in other replies. Those who
cannot ignore the poster without a kill-file will still post their
own counter-arguments as a reply to the reply. A kill-file is never
a cyber-substitute for self control.
--
Kind regards
Ralph
~BD~
Oct 8, 2019, 3:24:04 AM10/8/19
to
Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
Incubus
Oct 8, 2019, 6:21:54 AM10/8/19
to
On 2019-10-07, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
This just comes across as a parting shot. I don't know why you think it would
> After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
interest anyone.
I did filter him temporarily because I found him abrasive but he also has
valuable insight if you can put your bruised ego to one side.
Whisky-dave
Oct 8, 2019, 10:26:49 AM10/8/19
to
Frank Slootweg
Oct 8, 2019, 11:21:39 AM10/8/19
to
rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
response in rec.photo.digital.
BTW, there shouldn't be a space between newsgroups in a 'Newsgroups:'
header:
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10, rec.photo.digital
My newsreader barfs on it. Didn't bother to check if this is a SHOULD
(not) or MUST (not).
Arlen _G_ Holder
Oct 8, 2019, 11:54:41 AM10/8/19
to
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:21:50 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote:
> I did filter him temporarily because I found him abrasive but he also has
> valuable insight if you can put your bruised ego to one side.
Like Paul, I'm purposefully helpful all the time, and yet,
> I did filter him temporarily because I found him abrasive but he also has
> valuable insight if you can put your bruised ego to one side.
o Unlike Paul, I try to combat the bullshit that people like nospam spew
Why nospam does what he does, wasting everyone's time, is an enigma.
o He has so much to offer - and yet - he's purposefully unhelpful
Why?
o I don't know why.
He'll claim imaginary functionality for iOS
o That nobody on this planet, not even Apple, claims exist
Hence, nospam always fails the simplest test of bullshitters
o Name just one (fact).
Why does nospam bullshit at least 3/4 of the time?
o I suspect he has no formal education
A guy wrong so often wouldn't be able to get a higher degree
o Nor would a bullshitter like nospam last a month in the Silicon Valley
He'd be a good used car salesman perhaps
o Or a religious evangelist
I really don't know why nospam does what he does
o But the net effect is that a coin toss is as accurate as he
I used to say he'd be a good defense lawyer, perhaps
o But not a prosecutor - because the defense doesn't need proof
But he'd never make it through any formal education process
o With him being wrong literally about 3/4 of the time
This is a Windows/digital set of groups:
<http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital>
<http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com>
Where the record shows I have tried to counter nospam's incessantly childish
bullshit with adult facts, mostly on the mobile phone newsgroups
<http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone>
<http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android>
To Incubus' point, about 1/4 of the time (roughly), nospam actually
knows what he's talking about; but about 1/2 the time he's simply dead
wrong, and the other 1/4 of the time (roughtly), he's just playing his
childish silly idiotic games.
In saying that, I note that he's actually DIFFERENT than most people
o Since about 1/4 of the time - he's actually correct in what he writes
Yet, he's wrong so often that he _must_ know he's wrong
o Because he's not as stupid as what he writes implies
So he's just sadistic.
o Or, maybe he just loves to play childish games.
I don't know why nospam does what he does
o But the net effect is that a coin toss is as accurate as he
His worst attribute is his sadistic streak sending innocent people
on wild goose chases - where it irks me to no end out purpoefully
unhelpful he is.
Bearining in mind I strive for 100% factual accuracy, it boggles
my mind that nospam cares not that his credibility is, essentially,
worthless.
I've tried to comprehend why people like nospam even exist on Usenet,
where he's one that I can't really figure out - as he seems to
have no useful intentions whatsoever.
If you need references, read further onward - but otherwise, ignore.
--
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users on wild goose chases?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I/QOiGP4_SFQAJ>
o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ>
o Why do Apple Apologists constantly brazenly fabricate what turns out to be wholly imaginary Apple functionality?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SZfblCIRc9s/BNYMDpdXEgAJ>
o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/iEHFdEXJAQAJ>
etc.
o Why do apologists on this ng consistently hate facts about Apple products
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6OecwGrr4FM/pxffpfr3CQAJ>
o The real question is Why do Apple Apologists _hate_ facts about Apple products?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/boEv7_ePPQ0/ck2VBgaaCgAJ>
o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ>
o Dear badgolferman ... how does one deal with people that incredibly ignorant?
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Tv8DDWzQRys/Pa1ciQaYAAAJ>
Paul Carmichael
Oct 8, 2019, 12:03:24 PM10/8/19
to
On 08/10/2019 17:21, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>> (in article<3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>):
>>
>> <<Snip>>
>>
>> I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
>> with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
>>
>> <<Snip>>
>>
>>> P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
>>> rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
>>
>> Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
>
> As the articles are crossposted (to alt.comp.os.windows-10,
> rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
> alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
> response in rec.photo.digital.
He could set followups. Or is that considered bad netiquette these days?
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>> (in article<3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>):
>>
>> <<Snip>>
>>
>> I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
>> with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
>>
>> <<Snip>>
>>
>>> P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
>>> rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
>>
>> Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
>
> As the articles are crossposted (to alt.comp.os.windows-10,
> rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
> alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
> response in rec.photo.digital.
--
Paul.
https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org
Frank Slootweg
Oct 8, 2019, 1:27:47 PM10/8/19
to
thread, i.e. in the OP.
Doing it later is - IMO - bad netiquette, because the thread is on its
way, there is an audience and suddenly you ask part of the audience to
suscribe to a group they're not subscribed to (and probably not
interested in).
So for example if you directed Followup-To: rec.photo.digital, I would
ignore that followup.
But all of this is largely a matter of opinion and there really is -
at least IMO :-) - not a right or wrong way, just different ways.
geoff
Oct 8, 2019, 4:31:12 PM10/8/19
to
undeniable and patently obvious truth to much of the USA and most of the
rest of the world.
Eric is just a dude ho can manage to find an argument over pretty much
anything anybody says.
geoff
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2019, 7:09:39 PM10/8/19
to
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 22:46:08 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>In article <3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>> >> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>> >> article at a later date.
>> >
>> >no it doesn't.
>>
>> >it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all
>> >usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged.
>>
>> But it does, dear nospam, it does.
>
>i thought you killfiled me
>
>> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
>> >
>> "These headers are intended to be used as a simple method to verify
>> that the author of an article which removes another one is either
>> the poster, posting agent, moderator or injecting agent that
>> processed the original article when it was in its proto-article
>> form."
>>
>> A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the
>> identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been
>> 'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do.
>
>that only authenticates the request.
>
>it does *not* mean other servers will act upon it.
>
>cancel-lock is something eternal-september does, and until you noticed
>it, i had no idea it was even in there.
Ooh! What a liar you are. Either that, or you have done something to
Eternal-September to make them single out your posts for deletion.
I have downloaded some 76,000 messages in this news group and I have
found an enormous number of messages posted from Eternal-September,
all with Cancel-Lock and none of them deleted. The furthest back I
have gone took me to Message-ID: <m4046n$q0f$1...@dont-email.me> which
you will see is from SC Tom about Windows update and dated 13/11/2014.
Interestingly enough there are thousands (?) of posts from nospam but
there is a gap between 16/08/2018 and 26/06/2019 during which nospam
appears to have written no posts.
I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
>
--- snip ---
wrote:
>In article <3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>> >> followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>> >> article at a later date.
>> >
>> >no it doesn't.
>>
>> >it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all
>> >usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged.
>>
>> But it does, dear nospam, it does.
>
>i thought you killfiled me
>
>> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
>> >
>> "These headers are intended to be used as a simple method to verify
>> that the author of an article which removes another one is either
>> the poster, posting agent, moderator or injecting agent that
>> processed the original article when it was in its proto-article
>> form."
>>
>> A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the
>> identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been
>> 'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do.
>
>that only authenticates the request.
>
>it does *not* mean other servers will act upon it.
>
>cancel-lock is something eternal-september does, and until you noticed
>it, i had no idea it was even in there.
Eternal-September to make them single out your posts for deletion.
I have downloaded some 76,000 messages in this news group and I have
found an enormous number of messages posted from Eternal-September,
all with Cancel-Lock and none of them deleted. The furthest back I
have gone took me to Message-ID: <m4046n$q0f$1...@dont-email.me> which
you will see is from SC Tom about Windows update and dated 13/11/2014.
Interestingly enough there are thousands (?) of posts from nospam but
there is a gap between 16/08/2018 and 26/06/2019 during which nospam
appears to have written no posts.
I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
>
--- snip ---
nospam
Oct 8, 2019, 7:33:31 PM10/8/19
to
In article <2o4qped1ophhuf8th...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
everyone other than yourself, which you've done numerous times in the
past.
nothing has been deleted. that's almost as fucked up as claiming that a
digital camera doesn't do any sampling. not quite as fucked up, but
close.
> I have downloaded some 76,000 messages in this news group and I have
> found an enormous number of messages posted from Eternal-September,
> all with Cancel-Lock and none of them deleted. The furthest back I
> have gone took me to Message-ID: <m4046n$q0f$1...@dont-email.me> which
> you will see is from SC Tom about Windows update and dated 13/11/2014.
>
> Interestingly enough there are thousands (?) of posts from nospam but
> there is a gap between 16/08/2018 and 26/06/2019 during which nospam
> appears to have written no posts.
that's something at your end, most likely pebkac.
> I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
no. it never left your court. you've made numerous unsupportable
claims, so you resorted to attacks, and it's backfired big time.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >> A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the
> >> identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been
> >> 'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do.
> >
> >that only authenticates the request.
> >
> >it does *not* mean other servers will act upon it.
> >
> >cancel-lock is something eternal-september does, and until you noticed
> >it, i had no idea it was even in there.
>
> Ooh! What a liar you are. Either that, or you have done something to
> Eternal-September to make them single out your posts for deletion.
more accurately, you have *no* clue what you're doing and blaming
> >> A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the
> >> identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been
> >> 'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do.
> >
> >that only authenticates the request.
> >
> >it does *not* mean other servers will act upon it.
> >
> >cancel-lock is something eternal-september does, and until you noticed
> >it, i had no idea it was even in there.
>
> Ooh! What a liar you are. Either that, or you have done something to
> Eternal-September to make them single out your posts for deletion.
everyone other than yourself, which you've done numerous times in the
past.
nothing has been deleted. that's almost as fucked up as claiming that a
digital camera doesn't do any sampling. not quite as fucked up, but
close.
> I have downloaded some 76,000 messages in this news group and I have
> found an enormous number of messages posted from Eternal-September,
> all with Cancel-Lock and none of them deleted. The furthest back I
> have gone took me to Message-ID: <m4046n$q0f$1...@dont-email.me> which
> you will see is from SC Tom about Windows update and dated 13/11/2014.
>
> Interestingly enough there are thousands (?) of posts from nospam but
> there is a gap between 16/08/2018 and 26/06/2019 during which nospam
> appears to have written no posts.
> I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
claims, so you resorted to attacks, and it's backfired big time.
Savageduck
Oct 8, 2019, 7:35:39 PM10/8/19
to
On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in article<2o4qped1ophhuf8th...@4ax.com>):
<<Snip>>
him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10 &
r.p.d.?
An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
to me, or do you mean something totally different?
Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article<2o4qped1ophhuf8th...@4ax.com>):
<<Snip>>
>
>
> I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
> --- snip ---
How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
>
> I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
> --- snip ---
him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10 &
r.p.d.?
An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
to me, or do you mean something totally different?
Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2019, 7:50:51 PM10/8/19
to
On 8 Oct 2019 15:21:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:
Agent has always accepted it (I think). I could be wrong.
wrote:
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2019, 7:54:06 PM10/8/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:46:39 +1300, Ralph Fox <-rf-nz-@-.invalid>
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>> followed by a hashed code.
>
>Which is added by ES, his news server.
Yep. I've confirmed that. All ES posts have that in their header.
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>> followed by a hashed code.
>
>Which is added by ES, his news server.
>
>Albasani also adds it. Check my headers.
>
>The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it.
Well, somebody seems to be honouring it.
>Albasani also adds it. Check my headers.
>
>The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it.
>
>
>> This enables him to reliably delete the
>> article at a later date.
>
>It might enable the ES admin to delete it off the few servers which do
>care about cancel locks.
>
>The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. The message will
>not be deleted off the big news servers.
>
>
>> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
>> follows the message being cancelled
>
>Not so. A cancel barely half a minute later is not accepted by most
>news servers.
Its accepted by some - or it was.
>
>> This enables him to reliably delete the
>> article at a later date.
>
>It might enable the ES admin to delete it off the few servers which do
>care about cancel locks.
>
>The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. The message will
>not be deleted off the big news servers.
>
>
>> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
>> follows the message being cancelled
>
>Not so. A cancel barely half a minute later is not accepted by most
>news servers.
>
>What you write has not been true for close to 2 decades.
>
>
>> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
>> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>
>The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. They will just
>ignore the cancel.
>
>
>> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
>> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
>> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
>> postings.
>
>Again, it is the ES server which adds the cancel lock.
>
>It might allow the ES Admin remove a spam flood posted through ES which
>managed to get through his filters. However it would only be removed
>from ES and the few other news servers which do care about cancel locks.
>
>
>> After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
>> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
>> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>
>Those who kill-file to avoid getting into arguments will frequently
>see the kill-filed person's text quoted in other replies. Those who
>cannot ignore the poster without a kill-file will still post their
>own counter-arguments as a reply to the reply. A kill-file is never
>a cyber-substitute for self control.
--
>What you write has not been true for close to 2 decades.
>
>
>> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
>> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>
>The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. They will just
>ignore the cancel.
>
>
>> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
>> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
>> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
>> postings.
>
>Again, it is the ES server which adds the cancel lock.
>
>It might allow the ES Admin remove a spam flood posted through ES which
>managed to get through his filters. However it would only be removed
>from ES and the few other news servers which do care about cancel locks.
>
>
>> After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
>> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
>> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>
>Those who kill-file to avoid getting into arguments will frequently
>see the kill-filed person's text quoted in other replies. Those who
>cannot ignore the poster without a kill-file will still post their
>own counter-arguments as a reply to the reply. A kill-file is never
>a cyber-substitute for self control.
--
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2019, 7:54:53 PM10/8/19
to
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2019, 8:06:56 PM10/8/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 00:30:12 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
reasonable discussoins with nospam I suspect I feel more like Trump
after trying to have dealings with the Democrats.
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>>>article at a later date.
>>>
>>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>>
>>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
>>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
>>it was intended to do. See
>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
>
>Did you read the date on that article? And what the hell happened to
>you? You sound like the Dems going after Trump. For you, just like
>them, it's relentless, and stopped making sense long ago.
That's an interesting comparison. After years of trying to have
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>>>article at a later date.
>>>
>>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>>
>>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
>>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
>>it was intended to do. See
>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
>
>Did you read the date on that article? And what the hell happened to
>you? You sound like the Dems going after Trump. For you, just like
>them, it's relentless, and stopped making sense long ago.
reasonable discussoins with nospam I suspect I feel more like Trump
after trying to have dealings with the Democrats.
Char Jackson
Oct 8, 2019, 8:08:29 PM10/8/19
to
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:54:52 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ <B...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
>
>Not quite - at least not yet.
Haven't you been mistaken right from the start? In a prior post, I invited
you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What happens? Was
your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?
wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ <B...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
>
>Not quite - at least not yet.
you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What happens? Was
your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?
Eric Stevens
Oct 8, 2019, 8:11:20 PM10/8/19
to
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:30:58 +1300, geoff <ge...@nospamgeoffwood.org>
wrote:
But I'm not always right. Nor to I twist and turn in an attempt to
change the topic of the argument.
I posted this as (I thought) an intersting finale to years of nospam.
It seems I have not quite finished but I am nearly there. I'm only
hanging in here not to argue but to get to the bottom of what has
really been going on.
wrote:
change the topic of the argument.
I posted this as (I thought) an intersting finale to years of nospam.
It seems I have not quite finished but I am nearly there. I'm only
hanging in here not to argue but to get to the bottom of what has
really been going on.
Savageduck
Oct 8, 2019, 8:18:31 PM10/8/19
to
On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in article<269qpelha32v517fe...@4ax.com>):
Just stop!
By now you should know that you will ever get to the bottom of any nospam
circular argument, ...er, discussion.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article<269qpelha32v517fe...@4ax.com>):
By now you should know that you will ever get to the bottom of any nospam
circular argument, ...er, discussion.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Oct 8, 2019, 8:19:52 PM10/8/19
to
In article <269qpelha32v517fe...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> Nor to I twist and turn in an attempt to
> change the topic of the argument.
oh yes you do, particularly in this thread.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >Eric is just a dude ho can manage to find an argument over pretty much
> >anything anybody says.
> >
> But I'm not always right.
particularly in this thread.
> >Eric is just a dude ho can manage to find an argument over pretty much
> >anything anybody says.
> >
> But I'm not always right.
> Nor to I twist and turn in an attempt to
> change the topic of the argument.
Bill W
Oct 8, 2019, 8:43:01 PM10/8/19
to
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 13:11:19 +1300, Eric Stevens
You need to step back, and look at this thing from some distance. You
are starting to sound plain nuts. From my end, that is something
relatively new.
are starting to sound plain nuts. From my end, that is something
relatively new.
Bill W
Oct 8, 2019, 9:36:24 PM10/8/19
to
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 13:06:53 +1300, Eric Stevens
got him! There is no way out for sure."
BTW, you have had reasonable discussions with him. You can decide for
yourself why some of those went sideways, but some didn't. But
finally, what exactly are you trying to pin on him? Do you understand
that no one is agreeing with you on the technical issue of the DR
stops? They might be siding with you in a general sense, but not
specifically on the issue.
And let's say you get into another dispute, and you actually "win".
What do you suppose it is you won? And do you think it could possibly
be unanimous that you won? I just don't get this. Like I said in the
other post, step away and look at this disinterestedly.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 00:30:12 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>>>>article at a later date.
>>>>
>>>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>>>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>>>
>>>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
>>>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
>>>it was intended to do. See
>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
>>
>>Did you read the date on that article? And what the hell happened to
>>you? You sound like the Dems going after Trump. For you, just like
>>them, it's relentless, and stopped making sense long ago.
>
>That's an interesting comparison. After years of trying to have
>reasonable discussoins with nospam I suspect I feel more like Trump
>after trying to have dealings with the Democrats.
Really? There's nothing familiar about, "okay, *this* time I've really
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 00:30:12 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>>>>article at a later date.
>>>>
>>>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
>>>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
>>>
>>>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
>>>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
>>>it was intended to do. See
>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
>>
>>Did you read the date on that article? And what the hell happened to
>>you? You sound like the Dems going after Trump. For you, just like
>>them, it's relentless, and stopped making sense long ago.
>
>That's an interesting comparison. After years of trying to have
>reasonable discussoins with nospam I suspect I feel more like Trump
>after trying to have dealings with the Democrats.
got him! There is no way out for sure."
BTW, you have had reasonable discussions with him. You can decide for
yourself why some of those went sideways, but some didn't. But
finally, what exactly are you trying to pin on him? Do you understand
that no one is agreeing with you on the technical issue of the DR
stops? They might be siding with you in a general sense, but not
specifically on the issue.
And let's say you get into another dispute, and you actually "win".
What do you suppose it is you won? And do you think it could possibly
be unanimous that you won? I just don't get this. Like I said in the
other post, step away and look at this disinterestedly.
Arlen _G_ Holder
Oct 8, 2019, 11:28:43 PM10/8/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck wrote:
> Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
> Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
> poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
When you speak of killfiles, this list combines both newsgroups...
> Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
> Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
> poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
<http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital>
<http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10>
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o "Boris T." <b...@lsd.invalid> (a common troll)
o Carlos E.R. <robin_...@es.invalid>
o Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r...@WizardsTower.invalid> (always a child)
o Dan Purgert <d...@djph.net> (sometimes, but only rarely posts as an adult)
o David Catterall <djc...@eircom.net> (a common troll)
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Diesel <m...@privacy.net> (aka Dustin Cook, mentally scary)
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o Fox's Mercantile <jda...@att.net> Jeff
o "G. B" <g...@gb.com>
o Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> (always posts as that of a child)
o John Gabriel <NoS...@nospam.net> (can only troll)
o Hemidactylus <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o Idaho Homo Joe <dick...@aol.com> (worthless common moron troll)
o Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> (mostly is an adult but often is a child)
o joe <no...@domain.invalid> (rarely, but sometimes posts as an adult would)
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o John Doe <alway...@message.header> worthless posts always
o John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net>
o John-Del <ohg...@gmail.com>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Ken Hart <kwh...@frontier.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o Shemp14 <she...@outlook.com>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> (bullshitter par excellence)
o Nil <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net>
o Panthera Tigris Altaica <northe...@outlook.com>
o Paul Raymond (aka porn king) <arling...@nospam.net> (porn obsessed)
o "pf...@aol.com" <peterw...@gmail.com> Peter Wieck, Melrose Park, PA
o Rene Lamontagne <rla...@shaw.ca> (always posts as a child would post)
o "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available> (aka Rudy Wieser) (always a child)
o Sandman <m...@sandman.net> (hates facts)
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o she...@outlook.com
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser, troll's troll)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Wolf K <wol...@sympatico.ca> (always posts as a child)
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.
Rene Lamontagne
Oct 8, 2019, 11:37:25 PM10/8/19
to
Eric Stevens
Oct 9, 2019, 4:55:18 AM10/9/19
to
>After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
>finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
>discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>
>finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
>discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>
>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>article at a later date.
>
>In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>article at a later date.
>
>rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
>2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
>1728 after that date.
>
>In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
>the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
>Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
>follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
>if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
>by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
I have to withdraw what I said above and apologise about nospam's
>identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
posts being cancelled.
I've spent lots of time and have downloaded literally hundreds of
thousands of articles and have come to the conclusion that that
something squiffy is going on beytween my news reader (Agent) and
Agent Usenet Service.
The large block of nospam's messages are still missing from my
computer. My previous attemts down load some of the from the
'References' chain in the header was greeted with a response which
implied that they were not on the server. Since then I have run repair
on the database and 'voila' a whole lot of new messages appeared. In
the casae of alt.comp.os.windows-10 over 72,000 messages appeared.
About 2,700 appeared in rec.photo.digital. Nevertheless in the latter
group there still were no messages before 5 Jan 2019.
I then went back to threads in that empty time period and opened the
headers from articles which carried nospam's message IDs in the chain
of References. The messages then appeared. I don't understand what is
going on: Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.
In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
messages and I apologise.
[When I first started with Agent, Agent.ini used to be a standalone
one and a half pages. Now its about 30 pages, about a third are full
of code and with fish hooks into the registry. I'm damned if I'm going
to bother trying to unravel that lot].
Paul
Oct 9, 2019, 6:01:11 AM10/9/19
to
This is indicated by a "high water mark" and "low water mark"
when a group is queried by a client program. If you connect to
port 119, use Wireshark and capture packets, there's actually
an English text message type for this, with four numbers
in the response field.
The administrator on the server, sets a retention policy. In
high volume groups, retention can be as short as 3 days. That
means for such a server, on the third day, the body of the
message is no longer available. This reduces the disk storage
necessary for the group.
On commercial servers, you can easily get ten year retention.
I haven't tried a lot of news clients, but at least one
of them, the "headers" shown in the tool, are more
extensive than the time horizon of the server. I
can have headers with "Subject" "Date" "Username" from
2007, yet when I try to fetch them, the server reports
they're not present. The header information is still
valuable, as if you take the <MID> from the header
and feed it into Howard, you can find the message content.
Apparently Howard taps into some news server with decent
retention.
You have to put the angle brackets around your <MID>
value, to find a message here.
http://al.howardknight.net/
At one time, Google Groups would provide a "profile"
for a user. Using nospams details, you could get a listing
of how many posts per month the user made. This feature
was removed from the server, years ago. As well as anything
remotely resembling a decent search. The last time
I checked groups.google.com, at least I wasn't
getting the message that the search engine was
out of commission. But it's far from useful in
its current state. That's why we have to use
Howard, for anything of this nature. Google has
gone for a shit.
Paul
Whisky-dave
Oct 9, 2019, 6:27:39 AM10/9/19
to
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019 01:06:56 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 00:30:12 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
> ><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> >>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> >>>>article at a later date.
> >>>
> >>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
> >>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
> >>
> >>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
> >>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
> >>it was intended to do. See
> >>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
> >
> >Did you read the date on that article? And what the hell happened to
> >you? You sound like the Dems going after Trump. For you, just like
> >them, it's relentless, and stopped making sense long ago.
>
> That's an interesting comparison. After years of trying to have
> reasonable discussoins with nospam I suspect I feel more like Trump
> after trying to have dealings with the Democrats.
and we all know (or should know) what a lying piece of shit Trump is.
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 00:30:12 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
> ><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
> >>>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
> >>>>article at a later date.
> >>>
> >>>Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time
> >>>now, quite possibly more than two decades.
> >>
> >>That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's
> >>reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as
> >>it was intended to do. See
> >>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-usefor-cancel-lock-01
> >
> >Did you read the date on that article? And what the hell happened to
> >you? You sound like the Dems going after Trump. For you, just like
> >them, it's relentless, and stopped making sense long ago.
>
> That's an interesting comparison. After years of trying to have
> reasonable discussoins with nospam I suspect I feel more like Trump
> after trying to have dealings with the Democrats.
~BD~
Oct 9, 2019, 2:52:52 PM10/9/19
to
On 09/10/2019 09:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
> In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
> messages and I apologise.
Respect, Eric! :-D
> In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
> messages and I apologise.
--
David B.
Devon
Char Jackson
Oct 9, 2019, 5:39:05 PM10/9/19
to
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 21:55:14 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
providers no longer honor cancel messages? (I don't know of any that do,
and even if there is one or two, they would never propagate to the rest of
Usenet, so it doesn't matter.)
>Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.
I'd say it still is.
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
>>finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
>>discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>>
>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>article at a later date.
>>
>>In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
>>rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
>>2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
>>1728 after that date.
>>
>>In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
>>the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
>>Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
>>follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
>>if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
>>by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>>identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>
> I have to withdraw what I said above and apologise about nospam's
>posts being cancelled.
>
...
>On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
>>finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
>>discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>>
>>All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the
>>article at a later date.
>>
>>In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in
>>rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec
>>2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were
>>1728 after that date.
>>
>>In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with
>>the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender.
>>Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
>>follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it
>>if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
>>by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>>identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>
> I have to withdraw what I said above and apologise about nospam's
>posts being cancelled.
>
>In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
>messages and I apologise.
Thank you. Do you also acknowledge that the vast majority of Usenet
>messages and I apologise.
providers no longer honor cancel messages? (I don't know of any that do,
and even if there is one or two, they would never propagate to the rest of
Usenet, so it doesn't matter.)
>Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.
Eric Stevens
Oct 9, 2019, 9:50:40 PM10/9/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>(in article<2o4qped1ophhuf8th...@4ax.com>):
>
><<Snip>>
>>
>>
>> I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
>> --- snip ---
>
>How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
>him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10 &
>r.p.d.?
>
discovery was sufficiently intersting that I thought that I should
discuss it in the Windows 10 group - with a copy to rec.photo.digital.
As you will gather from my my most recent post in this thread I have
discovered I have falsely accused nospam and withdrawn my claim and
apologised. Within the next few minutes nospam will be killfiled on
all my news groups, not just rec.photo.digital.
>An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
>to me, or do you mean something totally different?
periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
as kill filed.
>
>Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
>Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
>poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
>Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
>Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
>poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
pointed out to him. He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
basis of his faulty understanding.
That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
(hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
might write an article about it. It's not quite what the popular
articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
doing.
nospam
Oct 9, 2019, 10:00:36 PM10/9/19
to
In article <oa3tped768pdolnuu...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
work, including the bizarro claim that no sampling is done (!), which
is why you fail to understand why dxo is a sham. their numbers violate
basic sampling theory, and worse, money can obtain better scores.
> He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
> they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
> pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
> continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
> basis of his faulty understanding.
also false. what nikon is doing is entirely unrelated to dxo's tests,
therefore your assumptions are incorrect.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
> and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
> besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
> of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
> pointed out to him.
false. it's *your* totally wrong understanding of how digital cameras
> It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
> and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
> besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
> of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
> pointed out to him.
work, including the bizarro claim that no sampling is done (!), which
is why you fail to understand why dxo is a sham. their numbers violate
basic sampling theory, and worse, money can obtain better scores.
> He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
> they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
> pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
> continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
> basis of his faulty understanding.
therefore your assumptions are incorrect.
Savageduck
Oct 9, 2019, 10:46:52 PM10/9/19
to
On Oct 9, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in article<oa3tped768pdolnuu...@4ax.com>):
>
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
> > (in article<2o4qped1ophhuf8th...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > <<Snip>>
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
> > > --- snip ---
> >
> > How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
> > him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10&
> > r.p.d.?
> I've certainly kill filed him for rec.photo.digital but my supposed
> discovery was sufficiently intersting that I thought that I should
> discuss it in the Windows 10 group - with a copy to rec.photo.digital.
However, your, “I think the ball is back in your court nospam.” was
undoubtably an invitation to continue your dialog.
I have been making good use of them to clear up noise in Usenet for some
time. I know what has proven most effective for me.
capability based on their inability, or refusal to assess Fujifilm X-Trans
and current Bayer sensor cameras along with XF, and GX lenses.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article<oa3tped768pdolnuu...@4ax.com>):
>
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
> > (in article<2o4qped1ophhuf8th...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > <<Snip>>
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
> > > --- snip ---
> >
> > How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
> > him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10&
> > r.p.d.?
> I've certainly kill filed him for rec.photo.digital but my supposed
> discovery was sufficiently intersting that I thought that I should
> discuss it in the Windows 10 group - with a copy to rec.photo.digital.
undoubtably an invitation to continue your dialog.
>
>
> As you will gather from my my most recent post in this thread I have
> discovered I have falsely accused nospam and withdrawn my claim and
> apologised. Within the next few minutes nospam will be killfiled on
> all my news groups, not just rec.photo.digital.
We shall see how that goes.
>
> As you will gather from my my most recent post in this thread I have
> discovered I have falsely accused nospam and withdrawn my claim and
> apologised. Within the next few minutes nospam will be killfiled on
> all my news groups, not just rec.photo.digital.
>
>
> > An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
> > to me, or do you mean something totally different?
>
> There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
> periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
> to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
> I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
> as kill filed.
There is no need to educate me on the fine points of kill files and filters,
>
> > An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
> > to me, or do you mean something totally different?
>
> There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
> periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
> to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
> I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
> as kill filed.
I have been making good use of them to clear up noise in Usenet for some
time. I know what has proven most effective for me.
>
> >
> > Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
> > Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
> > poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
>
> It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
> and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
> besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
> of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
> pointed out to him. He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
> they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
> pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
> continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
> basis of his faulty understanding.
>
> That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
> (hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
> arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
> It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
> might write an article about it. It's not quite what the popular
> articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
> doing.
All I can about DxOMark is, I have questioned their test results, and
> >
> > Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
> > Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
> > poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
>
> It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
> and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
> besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
> of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
> pointed out to him. He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
> they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
> pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
> continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
> basis of his faulty understanding.
>
> That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
> (hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
> arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
> It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
> might write an article about it. It's not quite what the popular
> articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
> doing.
capability based on their inability, or refusal to assess Fujifilm X-Trans
and current Bayer sensor cameras along with XF, and GX lenses.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 12:04:13 AM10/10/19
to
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:46:44 -0700, Savageduck
an answer.
about the role played by sensor geometry when assessing lenses. I
can't really remember the details but it might explain why they have
not yet come to grips with the Fuji's non-Bayer geometry. Maybe they
don't regard doing the necessary work as justified for only the one
make of camera. As for the Bayer Fuji - I have no idea.
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On Oct 9, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>(in article<oa3tped768pdolnuu...@4ax.com>):
>
>>
>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>> > (in article<2o4qped1ophhuf8th...@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> > <<Snip>>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
>> > > --- snip ---
>> >
>> > How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
>> > him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10&
>> > r.p.d.?
>> I've certainly kill filed him for rec.photo.digital but my supposed
>> discovery was sufficiently intersting that I thought that I should
>> discuss it in the Windows 10 group - with a copy to rec.photo.digital.
>
>However, your, “I think the ball is back in your court nospam.” was
>undoubtably an invitation to continue your dialog.
>
Not with me, I can assure you.
>On Oct 9, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>(in article<oa3tped768pdolnuu...@4ax.com>):
>
>>
>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>> > (in article<2o4qped1ophhuf8th...@4ax.com>):
>> >
>> > <<Snip>>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
>> > > --- snip ---
>> >
>> > How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
>> > him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10&
>> > r.p.d.?
>> I've certainly kill filed him for rec.photo.digital but my supposed
>> discovery was sufficiently intersting that I thought that I should
>> discuss it in the Windows 10 group - with a copy to rec.photo.digital.
>
>However, your, “I think the ball is back in your court nospam.” was
>undoubtably an invitation to continue your dialog.
>
>>
>> As you will gather from my my most recent post in this thread I have
>> discovered I have falsely accused nospam and withdrawn my claim and
>> apologised. Within the next few minutes nospam will be killfiled on
>> all my news groups, not just rec.photo.digital.
>
>We shall see how that goes.
Its gone.
>> As you will gather from my my most recent post in this thread I have
>> discovered I have falsely accused nospam and withdrawn my claim and
>> apologised. Within the next few minutes nospam will be killfiled on
>> all my news groups, not just rec.photo.digital.
>
>We shall see how that goes.
>>
>>
>> > An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
>> > to me, or do you mean something totally different?
>>
>> There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
>> periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
>> to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
>> I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
>> as kill filed.
>
>There is no need to educate me on the fine points of kill files and filters,
>I have been making good use of them to clear up noise in Usenet for some
>time. I know what has proven most effective for me.
You asked me a question. Please don't start bitching when you receive
>>
>> > An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
>> > to me, or do you mean something totally different?
>>
>> There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
>> periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
>> to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
>> I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
>> as kill filed.
>
>There is no need to educate me on the fine points of kill files and filters,
>I have been making good use of them to clear up noise in Usenet for some
>time. I know what has proven most effective for me.
an answer.
>>
>> >
>> > Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
>> > Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
>> > poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
>>
>> It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
>> and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
>> besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
>> of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
>> pointed out to him. He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
>> they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
>> pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
>> continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
>> basis of his faulty understanding.
>>
>> That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
>> (hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
>> arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
>> It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
>> might write an article about it. It's not quite what the popular
>> articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
>> doing.
>
>All I can about DxOMark is, I have questioned their test results, and
>capability based on their inability, or refusal to assess Fujifilm X-Trans
>and current Bayer sensor cameras along with XF, and GX lenses.
I have a dim memory of reading an article by DxO (as it was then)
>> >
>> > Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
>> > Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
>> > poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?
>>
>> It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
>> and nospam is a champion at that. In this particular case he was
>> besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
>> of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
>> pointed out to him. He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
>> they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
>> pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
>> continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
>> basis of his faulty understanding.
>>
>> That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
>> (hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
>> arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
>> It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
>> might write an article about it. It's not quite what the popular
>> articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
>> doing.
>
>All I can about DxOMark is, I have questioned their test results, and
>capability based on their inability, or refusal to assess Fujifilm X-Trans
>and current Bayer sensor cameras along with XF, and GX lenses.
about the role played by sensor geometry when assessing lenses. I
can't really remember the details but it might explain why they have
not yet come to grips with the Fuji's non-Bayer geometry. Maybe they
don't regard doing the necessary work as justified for only the one
make of camera. As for the Bayer Fuji - I have no idea.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 12:07:33 AM10/10/19
to
On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 16:39:01 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:
That's what I understood but the disappearnce of a large block of
messages from nospam (and knowing nospam) caused me to jump to a
conclusion.
wrote:
messages from nospam (and knowing nospam) caused me to jump to a
conclusion.
>
>>Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.
>
>I'd say it still is.
>
Something squiffy occurred with my down loads. That's all I can say.
>>Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.
>
>I'd say it still is.
>
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 4:24:23 AM10/10/19
to
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 20:06:43 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>(in article<3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>):
>
><<Snip>>
>
>I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
>with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
>
><<Snip>>
>
>> P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
>> rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
>
>Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
Cross post.
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
>(in article<3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>):
>
><<Snip>>
>
>I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
>with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
>
><<Snip>>
>
>> P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
>> rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
>
>Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 4:27:18 AM10/10/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:42:58 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
A long period of trying to argue logically with nospam seems to have
that affect.
wrote:
that affect.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 4:30:59 AM10/10/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 20:36:19 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
I'm sorry to hear that. In that case I will have to revisit the
subject. I have found out a great deal over the last few weeks and I
am now confident that I know what Nikon is doing - and its not what
everyone seems to expect.
subject. I have found out a great deal over the last few weeks and I
am now confident that I know what Nikon is doing - and its not what
everyone seems to expect.
>
>And let's say you get into another dispute, and you actually "win".
>What do you suppose it is you won? And do you think it could possibly
>be unanimous that you won? I just don't get this. Like I said in the
>other post, step away and look at this disinterestedly.
>And let's say you get into another dispute, and you actually "win".
>What do you suppose it is you won? And do you think it could possibly
>be unanimous that you won? I just don't get this. Like I said in the
>other post, step away and look at this disinterestedly.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 4:32:16 AM10/10/19
to
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ <B...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>On 08/10/2019 07:46, Ralph Fox wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>> followed by a hashed code.
>>
>>
>>> All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:"
>>> followed by a hashed code.
>>
>> Which is added by ES, his news server.
>>
>> Albasani also adds it. Check my headers.
>>
>> The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Albasani also adds it. Check my headers.
>>
>> The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it.
>>
>>
>>> This enables him to reliably delete the
>>> article at a later date.
>>
>>> article at a later date.
>>
>> It might enable the ES admin to delete it off the few servers which do
>> care about cancel locks.
>>
>> The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. The message will
>> not be deleted off the big news servers.
>>
>>
>> care about cancel locks.
>>
>> The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. The message will
>> not be deleted off the big news servers.
>>
>>
>>> Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely
>>> follows the message being cancelled
>>
>>> follows the message being cancelled
>>
>> Not so. A cancel barely half a minute later is not accepted by most
>> news servers.
>>
>> What you write has not been true for close to 2 decades.
>>
>>
>> news servers.
>>
>> What you write has not been true for close to 2 decades.
>>
>>
>>> However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed
>>> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>>> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>>
>>> by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their
>>> identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message.
>>
>> The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. They will just
>> ignore the cancel.
>>
>>
>>> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
>>> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
>>> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
>>> postings.
>>
>> Again, it is the ES server which adds the cancel lock.
>>
>> It might allow the ES Admin remove a spam flood posted through ES which
>> managed to get through his filters. However it would only be removed
>> from ES and the few other news servers which do care about cancel locks.
>>
>>
>> ignore the cancel.
>>
>>
>>> As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk
>>> deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone
>>> who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier
>>> postings.
>>
>> Again, it is the ES server which adds the cancel lock.
>>
>> It might allow the ES Admin remove a spam flood posted through ES which
>> managed to get through his filters. However it would only be removed
>> from ES and the few other news servers which do care about cancel locks.
>>
>>
>>> After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
>>> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
>>> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>>
>>> finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I
>>> discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on.
>>
>> Those who kill-file to avoid getting into arguments will frequently
>> see the kill-filed person's text quoted in other replies. Those who
>> cannot ignore the poster without a kill-file will still post their
>> own counter-arguments as a reply to the reply. A kill-file is never
>> a cyber-substitute for self control.
>
>
>Many thanks for your words of wisdom, Ralph! :-)
>
>> see the kill-filed person's text quoted in other replies. Those who
>> cannot ignore the poster without a kill-file will still post their
>> own counter-arguments as a reply to the reply. A kill-file is never
>> a cyber-substitute for self control.
>
>
>Many thanks for your words of wisdom, Ralph! :-)
>
>Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
Eric Stevens was mistaken. There is no sadly about it.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 4:35:10 AM10/10/19
to
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:08:26 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:
The question was not about the mere cancelling of posts but about the
cancelling of Cancel-Lock posts. I discovered that such things exist
and in broad terms how they work but I have no understanding of how to
set up and then try to cancel a Cancel-Locked post.
wrote:
cancelling of Cancel-Lock posts. I discovered that such things exist
and in broad terms how they work but I have no understanding of how to
set up and then try to cancel a Cancel-Locked post.
Paul
Oct 10, 2019, 4:55:42 AM10/10/19
to
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:08:26 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:54:52 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ <B...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
>>> Not quite - at least not yet.
>> Haven't you been mistaken right from the start? In a prior post, I invited
>> you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
>> that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What happens? Was
>> your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
>> servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?
>
> The question was not about the mere cancelling of posts but about the
> cancelling of Cancel-Lock posts. I discovered that such things exist
> and in broad terms how they work but I have no understanding of how to
> set up and then try to cancel a Cancel-Locked post.
>
You would let the tool do the work.
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:08:26 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:54:52 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ <B...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.
>>> Not quite - at least not yet.
>> Haven't you been mistaken right from the start? In a prior post, I invited
>> you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
>> that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What happens? Was
>> your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
>> servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?
>
> The question was not about the mere cancelling of posts but about the
> cancelling of Cancel-Lock posts. I discovered that such things exist
> and in broad terms how they work but I have no understanding of how to
> set up and then try to cancel a Cancel-Locked post.
>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.thunderbird/LrAePSoGdn4
Seeing as nobody can be bothered to indicate what version
of Thunderbird supports Cancel-Lock, you just have to test it.
Vanilla Cancel is unlikely to work. So if selecting
"Cancel" from some menu worked, that's probably Cancel-Lock.
If you connect to port 119 and you use Wireshark to record
the plaintext session, you might even get to see what
messages are sent during an attempt to Cancel.
And Wireshark is a pig to set up... when the WinPCAP replacement,
you can't seem to get it started. You need promiscuous receiver
capability to log the packets on the NIC, which normally requires
admin privileges, but with Wireshark, if they neglected to spend
sufficient time testing the thing, you could have some trouble
getting it to capture anything. That was my experience on the
last version I downloaded. I probably have some older
versions that still work.
On the Macintosh, the Wireshark team never bothered to
indicate what MacOSX versions worked with what Wireshark
versions, which meant "even more testing" to get something
to work. Wireshark is great when it works, but otherwise,
is a source of hair loss.
The GUI on it, was relatively simple to understand at one
time, but developers cannot leave "well enough" alone. And
that's part of the fun. If you can't see anything to click,
it's pretty difficult for a user to realize "something is wrong".
Paul
Whisky-dave
Oct 10, 2019, 5:39:35 AM10/10/19
to
On Thursday, 10 October 2019 02:50:40 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
> There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
> periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
> to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
> I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
> as kill filed.
No they can't.
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
> There are all kinds of options for kill filing ranging from short
> periods, just for selected news groups or global. It's also possible
> to ignore posts, download and delete (though quite what that achieves
> I do not know) and download and mark read. They all can be described
> as kill filed.
Any more than killing someone is the same as murder.
>
> It always concerns me when someone posts articles which are misleading
> and nospam is a champion at that.
>In this particular case he was
> besmirching the reputation of DxOMark by a totally wrong understanding
> of what was entailed in DxOMarks measurements, even when it was
> pointed out to him.
> He also denied that Nikon could do what I assumed
> they must be doing even though I posted a number of articles which
> pointed piece by piece to the correctness of my assumptions. Still he
> continued to accuse DxOMark of skullduggery and dishonesty on the
> basis of his faulty understanding.
> That wouldn't have much worried me except that there were a number of
> (hopefully) more rational people who appeared to be accepting nospam's
> arguments and I was attempting to help them see the error of his ways.
> It's pretty clear what Nikon are doing and once I fill a few gaps I
> might write an article about it.
> It's not quite what the popular
> articles tell you and its certainly not what nospam insists they are
> doing.
Whisky-dave
Oct 10, 2019, 6:24:30 AM10/10/19
to
On Thursday, 10 October 2019 05:04:13 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:46:44 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >However, your, “I think the ball is back in your court nospam.” was
> >undoubtably an invitation to continue your dialog.
> >
> Not with me, I can assure you.
So where you playing a doubles match, if so who was your partner ?
> On Wed, 09 Oct 2019 19:46:44 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >However, your, “I think the ball is back in your court nospam.” was
> >undoubtably an invitation to continue your dialog.
> >
> Not with me, I can assure you.
(tennis is one of the few games where you have a ball and a court that is considered to be your side of the 'pitch').
Well this is how I understood your comment, or perhaps next time use a more accurate phrase, or shock, horror just say exactly what you mean, so people don't get the 'wrong end of the stick'
> I have a dim memory of reading an article by DxO (as it was then)
> about the role played by sensor geometry when assessing lenses. I
> can't really remember the details but it might explain why they have
> not yet come to grips with the Fuji's non-Bayer geometry. Maybe they
> don't regard doing the necessary work as justified for only the one
> make of camera. As for the Bayer Fuji - I have no idea.
I don't know if say canon or nikon send them cameras to test as a random sample or the cherry pick the ones they send.
A friend that worked on a camera mag in the 70s told me that some camera manufactors used to imply that if there cameras did well in a test then they'd obviously then be willing to advertise with that mag.
And advertising paid wages and bills.
I'm not sure how it works with these 'free' test sites in todays world, unless everyone works for nothing or for the pleasure of doing it.
I;d say it;'s similar to why a top model would fuck a certain president or marry him, is it really because he's such a nice person, handsome, inteligent, witty, great hair etc.. or is there a possiblilty that there might be another reason ?
If anyone actually knows how this works with review websites I'd be interested to hear, but the UK one called Which that tests all sorts of stuff is paid for mostly by subscriptions rather than advertising. You cna try for £1 a month but it soon gets to £10 every month, which I think it a little expensive personally.
But at least I have a bit of trust that they are at least honest with their reviews as they can be.
One interesting review is
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-best-countries-to-live-in-the-world.html
Trump and perhaps other seem to think the USA is being land of the 'free'
and whatever other crap some come out with.
Perhaps someone(s) have been paid to say Norway, but it's strange to me that the USA isn't even in the top 10.
Be interesting to Hear both Erics and nospams POV on this.
I'm off to buy some asbestos underwear. ;-)
~BD~
Oct 10, 2019, 8:24:06 AM10/10/19
to
Wireshark CLI tools & scripting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=IZ439VNvJqo
Of interest?
--
David B.
Devon
~BD~
Oct 10, 2019, 8:31:05 AM10/10/19
to
On 10/10/2019 13:24, ~BD~ wrote:
[....]
Details of the speaker!
https://wiki.wireshark.org/SakeBlok
Sake Blok
My interest in Networking was first raised when I started working for
one of the first ISP's in The Netherlands (back in 1995). My L2/L3
knowlegde was gathered while working for a large bank. I then switched
teams within that bank to manage their redundant internet gateway based
on a loadbalanced firewall cluster, loadbalancers, ssl-offloaders,
caches and proxies. In that time (2000) I started using Ethereal to
troubleshoot problems within that environment. After my switch to a
reseller, my skills developped towards bug-chasing and
Ethereal/Wireshark has been an invaluable tool for me. I use it on a
daily basis.
In february 2006 I wished to be able to filter on the "X-Forwarded-For:"
http-header and joined the mailing-lists. First I wanted to ask for that
functionality, but then I realised that I might be able to add it
myself. Well, one thing led to another and after submitting a few of my
own patches, I started working on bug-reports too. Resulting in being
invited to the core development team in august 2007.
I live in The Netherlands near Amsterdam and have started the company
SYN-bit in February 2010. SYN-bit specializes in troubleshooting
services for Application Delivery Networks. Analyzing traffic flows to
the bit level to solve design flaws, bugs. But also for exploring the
best way to optimize application delivery. I also give training and do
remote packet capture analysis :-)
[....]
Details of the speaker!
https://wiki.wireshark.org/SakeBlok
Sake Blok
My interest in Networking was first raised when I started working for
one of the first ISP's in The Netherlands (back in 1995). My L2/L3
knowlegde was gathered while working for a large bank. I then switched
teams within that bank to manage their redundant internet gateway based
on a loadbalanced firewall cluster, loadbalancers, ssl-offloaders,
caches and proxies. In that time (2000) I started using Ethereal to
troubleshoot problems within that environment. After my switch to a
reseller, my skills developped towards bug-chasing and
Ethereal/Wireshark has been an invaluable tool for me. I use it on a
daily basis.
In february 2006 I wished to be able to filter on the "X-Forwarded-For:"
http-header and joined the mailing-lists. First I wanted to ask for that
functionality, but then I realised that I might be able to add it
myself. Well, one thing led to another and after submitting a few of my
own patches, I started working on bug-reports too. Resulting in being
invited to the core development team in august 2007.
I live in The Netherlands near Amsterdam and have started the company
SYN-bit in February 2010. SYN-bit specializes in troubleshooting
services for Application Delivery Networks. Analyzing traffic flows to
the bit level to solve design flaws, bugs. But also for exploring the
best way to optimize application delivery. I also give training and do
remote packet capture analysis :-)
Frank Slootweg
Oct 10, 2019, 11:35:58 AM10/10/19
to
Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2019 15:21:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
> >rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
> >alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
> >response in rec.photo.digital.
> >
> > BTW, there shouldn't be a space between newsgroups in a 'Newsgroups:'
> >header:
> >
> >> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10, rec.photo.digital
> >
> > My newsreader barfs on it. Didn't bother to check if this is a SHOULD
> >(not) or MUST (not).
>
> Agent has always accepted it (I think). I could be wrong.
Yes, in the spirit of 'Be lenient on what you receive and strict on
what you send!".
So Agent should *accept* such an header, but not *send* it.
> On 8 Oct 2019 15:21:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
> >> (in article<3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>):
> >>
> >> <<Snip>>
> >>
> >> I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
> >> with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
> >>
> >> <<Snip>>
> >>
> >> > P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
> >> > rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
> >>
> >> Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
> >
> > As the articles are crossposted (to alt.comp.os.windows-10,
> >Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
> >> (in article<3tqnped89kjog6ihi...@4ax.com>):
> >>
> >> <<Snip>>
> >>
> >> I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away
> >> with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d.
> >>
> >> <<Snip>>
> >>
> >> > P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in
> >> > rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly.
> >>
> >> Strange? I am responding from r.p.d.
> >
> >rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
> >alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
> >response in rec.photo.digital.
> >
> > BTW, there shouldn't be a space between newsgroups in a 'Newsgroups:'
> >header:
> >
> >> Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10, rec.photo.digital
> >
> > My newsreader barfs on it. Didn't bother to check if this is a SHOULD
> >(not) or MUST (not).
>
> Agent has always accepted it (I think). I could be wrong.
Yes, in the spirit of 'Be lenient on what you receive and strict on
what you send!".
So Agent should *accept* such an header, but not *send* it.
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 7:20:34 PM10/10/19
to
Eric Stevens
Oct 10, 2019, 7:27:33 PM10/10/19
to
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 21:31:00 +1300, Eric Stevens
A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
of a ladder 14'-4" long?
of a ladder 14'-4" long?
Bill W
Oct 10, 2019, 8:59:45 PM10/10/19
to
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:27:33 +1300, Eric Stevens
In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
Whisky-dave
Oct 11, 2019, 5:11:28 AM10/11/19
to
On Friday, 11 October 2019 00:27:33 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 21:31:00 +1300, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
> of a ladder 14'-4" long?
That would depend on the use of the ladder but first I'd convert it to a more sensible unit of lengh.
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 21:31:00 +1300, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
> of a ladder 14'-4" long?
Eric Stevens
Oct 11, 2019, 5:13:12 AM10/11/19
to
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
Yep. That's one of the key points.
where the sensor detcts zero light. One stop is where the sensor is
just able to detect light at above the noise level. That quanyity of
light sets the reference point for determining the basic quantity of
light 'q'. Two stops are 2 x q, three stops are 4 x q etc. At stop n
the total quantity of light has a value of Q = q^(n-1).
Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
>
>I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
>measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
>I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
>measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
where the sensor detcts zero light. One stop is where the sensor is
just able to detect light at above the noise level. That quanyity of
light sets the reference point for determining the basic quantity of
light 'q'. Two stops are 2 x q, three stops are 4 x q etc. At stop n
the total quantity of light has a value of Q = q^(n-1).
Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
Whisky-dave
Oct 11, 2019, 8:25:07 AM10/11/19
to
On Friday, 11 October 2019 10:13:12 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
> >>A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
> >>of a ladder 14'-4" long?
> >
> >In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
>
> Yep. That's one of the key points.
Yep, and you have to know what resoultion you need or perhaps want.
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
> >>A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
> >>of a ladder 14'-4" long?
> >
> >In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
>
> Yep. That's one of the key points.
> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
>
> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
> where the sensor detcts zero light.
Zero stop is corrected exposure NOT zero light.
>One stop is where the sensor is
> just able to detect light at above the noise level. That quanyity of
> light sets the reference point for determining the basic quantity of
> light 'q'. Two stops are 2 x q, three stops are 4 x q etc. At stop n
> the total quantity of light has a value of Q = q^(n-1).
>
> Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
> not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
nospam
Oct 11, 2019, 9:00:32 AM10/11/19
to
In article <09h0qedlaia9ov0ed...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
> not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
there may be other definitions, but only one is correct, and if you
don't know what it is, you're not in a position to comment on what dxo
or anyone else does.
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
>
> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
> where the sensor detcts zero light. One stop is where the sensor is
> just able to detect light at above the noise level. That quanyity of
> light sets the reference point for determining the basic quantity of
> light 'q'. Two stops are 2 x q, three stops are 4 x q etc. At stop n
> the total quantity of light has a value of Q = q^(n-1).
no.
> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
>
> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
> where the sensor detcts zero light. One stop is where the sensor is
> just able to detect light at above the noise level. That quanyity of
> light sets the reference point for determining the basic quantity of
> light 'q'. Two stops are 2 x q, three stops are 4 x q etc. At stop n
> the total quantity of light has a value of Q = q^(n-1).
> Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
> not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
don't know what it is, you're not in a position to comment on what dxo
or anyone else does.
nospam
Oct 11, 2019, 9:00:32 AM10/11/19
to
In article <0pkvpet1q3jee4b65...@4ax.com>, Bill W
misunderstanding.
> I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
> measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
double or half the light, same as with film.
<not...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
> >of a ladder 14'-4" long?
>
> In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
yes, however, his question as written is meaningless, adding to his
> >
> >A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
> >of a ladder 14'-4" long?
>
> In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
misunderstanding.
> I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
> measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
Eric Stevens
Oct 11, 2019, 6:54:38 PM10/11/19
to
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
<whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 11 October 2019 10:13:12 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >>A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
>> >>of a ladder 14'-4" long?
>> >
>> >In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
>>
>> Yep. That's one of the key points.
>
>Yep, and you have to know what resoultion you need or perhaps want.
>
>
>> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
>> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
>>
>> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
>> where the sensor detcts zero light.
>
>Not sure where you get that from as it's wrong.
>Zero stop is corrected exposure NOT zero light.
In this context, 'stop' does not define a value, it define a
<whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 11 October 2019 10:13:12 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >>A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
>> >>of a ladder 14'-4" long?
>> >
>> >In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
>>
>> Yep. That's one of the key points.
>
>Yep, and you have to know what resoultion you need or perhaps want.
>
>
>> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
>> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
>>
>> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
>> where the sensor detcts zero light.
>
>Not sure where you get that from as it's wrong.
>Zero stop is corrected exposure NOT zero light.
relationship, in this case a factor of 2. You are free to start
measuring from any point as long as you define whee it is.
>
>
>>One stop is where the sensor is
>> just able to detect light at above the noise level. That quanyity of
>> light sets the reference point for determining the basic quantity of
>> light 'q'. Two stops are 2 x q, three stops are 4 x q etc. At stop n
>> the total quantity of light has a value of Q = q^(n-1).
>
>
>>
>> Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
>> not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
>
>Which makes it difficult to test and compare, a bit like recalibrating something whether it needs it or not tells you nothing.
>
Would you rather I used decibels? Same basic idea.
>
>>One stop is where the sensor is
>> just able to detect light at above the noise level. That quanyity of
>> light sets the reference point for determining the basic quantity of
>> light 'q'. Two stops are 2 x q, three stops are 4 x q etc. At stop n
>> the total quantity of light has a value of Q = q^(n-1).
>
>
>>
>> Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
>> not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
>
>Which makes it difficult to test and compare, a bit like recalibrating something whether it needs it or not tells you nothing.
>
Whisky-dave
Oct 14, 2019, 5:34:42 AM10/14/19
to
On Friday, 11 October 2019 23:54:38 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
> <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 11 October 2019 10:13:12 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >>A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
> >> >>of a ladder 14'-4" long?
> >> >
> >> >In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
> >>
> >> Yep. That's one of the key points.
> >
> >Yep, and you have to know what resoultion you need or perhaps want.
> >
> >
> >> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
> >> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
> >>
> >> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
> >> where the sensor detcts zero light.
> >
> >Not sure where you get that from as it's wrong.
> >Zero stop is corrected exposure NOT zero light.
>
> In this context, 'stop' does not define a value, it define a
> relationship, in this case a factor of 2. You are free to start
> measuring from any point as long as you define whee it is.
No you aren't, because if yuo start from zero light you can;t have a stop below zero light so again it makes no sense.
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
> <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 11 October 2019 10:13:12 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >>A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
> >> >>of a ladder 14'-4" long?
> >> >
> >> >In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
> >>
> >> Yep. That's one of the key points.
> >
> >Yep, and you have to know what resoultion you need or perhaps want.
> >
> >
> >> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
> >> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
> >>
> >> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
> >> where the sensor detcts zero light.
> >
> >Not sure where you get that from as it's wrong.
> >Zero stop is corrected exposure NOT zero light.
>
> In this context, 'stop' does not define a value, it define a
> relationship, in this case a factor of 2. You are free to start
> measuring from any point as long as you define whee it is.
> >> Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
> >> not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
> >
> >Which makes it difficult to test and compare, a bit like recalibrating something whether it needs it or not tells you nothing.
> >
> Would you rather I used decibels? Same basic idea.
Zero is the minium a human ear can hear, so you can have -3dB which is probably the sound of a flea farting or something that we can't hear.
Eric Stevens
Oct 14, 2019, 7:47:17 PM10/14/19
to
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 02:34:38 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
start there.
didn't say 'from zero light'. There is always a level where there is
too little light for the sensor to be able to detect it. Noise is a
significant factor.
Decibels are not used solely for sound. See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(electronics) -include the
bracketed text in the URL.
<whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 11 October 2019 23:54:38 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
>> <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, 11 October 2019 10:13:12 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
>> >> >>of a ladder 14'-4" long?
>> >> >
>> >> >In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
>> >>
>> >> Yep. That's one of the key points.
>> >
>> >Yep, and you have to know what resoultion you need or perhaps want.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
>> >> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
>> >>
>> >> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
>> >> where the sensor detcts zero light.
>> >
>> >Not sure where you get that from as it's wrong.
>> >Zero stop is corrected exposure NOT zero light.
>>
>> In this context, 'stop' does not define a value, it define a
>> relationship, in this case a factor of 2. You are free to start
>> measuring from any point as long as you define whee it is.
>
>No you aren't, because if yuo start from zero light you can;t have a stop below zero light so again it makes no sense.
That's what known as a mathematical discontuity. That's why I didn't
>On Friday, 11 October 2019 23:54:38 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 05:25:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
>> <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Friday, 11 October 2019 10:13:12 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 19:59:40 -0500, Bill W <not...@nowhere.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>A leading question: how many bits do you need to digitize the length
>> >> >>of a ladder 14'-4" long?
>> >> >
>> >> >In general, the number of bits just determines the resolution, right?
>> >>
>> >> Yep. That's one of the key points.
>> >
>> >Yep, and you have to know what resoultion you need or perhaps want.
>> >
>> >
>> >> >I have a question, too. What precisely does "1 stop" mean when
>> >> >measuring the DR of a camera sensor?
>> >>
>> >> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
>> >> where the sensor detcts zero light.
>> >
>> >Not sure where you get that from as it's wrong.
>> >Zero stop is corrected exposure NOT zero light.
>>
>> In this context, 'stop' does not define a value, it define a
>> relationship, in this case a factor of 2. You are free to start
>> measuring from any point as long as you define whee it is.
>
>No you aren't, because if yuo start from zero light you can;t have a stop below zero light so again it makes no sense.
start there.
>
>
>
>
>> >> Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
>> >> not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
>> >
>> >Which makes it difficult to test and compare, a bit like recalibrating something whether it needs it or not tells you nothing.
>> >
>> Would you rather I used decibels? Same basic idea.
>
>Decibels don't start from a zero or no noise either.
>Zero is the minium a human ear can hear, so you can have -3dB which is probably the sound of a flea farting or something that we can't hear.
And I started from _where_the_sensor_detects_zero_light_. Note that I
>
>
>
>> >> Of course there are other definitions according to circumstances. I am
>> >> not exactly sure of how DxOMark defines it.
>> >
>> >Which makes it difficult to test and compare, a bit like recalibrating something whether it needs it or not tells you nothing.
>> >
>> Would you rather I used decibels? Same basic idea.
>
>Decibels don't start from a zero or no noise either.
>Zero is the minium a human ear can hear, so you can have -3dB which is probably the sound of a flea farting or something that we can't hear.
didn't say 'from zero light'. There is always a level where there is
too little light for the sensor to be able to detect it. Noise is a
significant factor.
Decibels are not used solely for sound. See for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(electronics) -include the
bracketed text in the URL.
Whisky-dave
Oct 15, 2019, 5:20:54 AM10/15/19
to
>> >> In the context of dynamic range, where all this started, zero stop is
>> >> where the sensor detcts zero light.
> >Decibels don't start from a zero or no noise either.
> >Zero is the minium a human ear can hear, so you can have -3dB which is probably the sound of a flea farting or something that we can't hear.
>
> And I started from _where_the_sensor_detects_zero_light_.
No such 'place'
> >Zero is the minium a human ear can hear, so you can have -3dB which is probably the sound of a flea farting or something that we can't hear.
>
> And I started from _where_the_sensor_detects_zero_light_.
> Note that I
> didn't say 'from zero light'. There is always a level where there is
> too little light for the sensor to be able to detect it. Noise is a
> significant factor.
>
> Decibels are not used solely for sound. See for example
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_(electronics) -include the
> bracketed text in the URL.
0 new messages