cancel
Joshua Kramer
In article <5jc1a5$l7k$1...@gail.ripco.com>, d...@ripco.com (David Richards) wrote:
>Path:
news.cc.swarthmore.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!europa.clark.net!newsfeed2!news.wwa.com!gail.ripco.com!dr
>From: d...@ripco.com (David Richards)
>Newsgroups: alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex
>Subject: cancel
>Control: cancel <5ir9gq$pd8$2...@its.hooked.net>
>Date: 20 Apr 1997 03:07:49 GMT
>Organization: Ripco Communications Inc.
>Lines: 6
>Message-ID: <5jc1a5$l7k$1...@gail.ripco.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: rci.ripco.com
>
>
><5ir9gq$pd8$2...@its.hooked.net> is excessively silly.
>--
>David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
>My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago
>But they are available for rental Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
>d...@ripco.com (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!
There are 20+ of these in my control.cancel file, all with different
subject headings.
Please stop your rogue cancels, now.
--
Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College. Mail to this account with
a "Newsgroups: *" header will be bounced for technical reasons.
Remove nospam to reply.
Any opinions expressed herein represent only those of Joshua Kramer
and should not be taken to represent the views of any organization
or any other individual living or dead.
David Richards
alt.tv.tiny-toon is for the discussion of the cartoon series, and
alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex is for less "in character" (ab)uses of the characters
from said series.
Guess which of the two gets hit with more (widely crossposted) spam,
to the point that the group is USELESS for it's stated topic?
If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
here, please post and I will.
On the other hand, if you think Mr. Kramer is a puppet of the spammers
with too much time on his hands, please send him mail asking that he
find something better to do:
jkra...@nospamswarthmore.edu
Come on, this jerk won't even accept mail responses to his posts:
>Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College. Mail to this account with
>a "Newsgroups: *" header will be bounced for technical reasons.
In article <jkramer1-200...@res100.parrish-dorm01.swarthmore.edu>,
Joshua Kramer
>alt.tv.tiny-toon is for the discussion of the cartoon series, and
>alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex is for less "in character" (ab)uses of the characters
>from said series.
No problem.
>Guess which of the two gets hit with more (widely crossposted) spam,
>to the point that the group is USELESS for it's stated topic?
Err, the .sex one. My system has them aliased onto eachother.
>If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
>STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
>here, please post and I will.
Why? You are rogue canceling. Ask a reputable spam-canceler to do it for
you.
>On the other hand, if you think Mr. Kramer is a puppet of the spammers
>with too much time on his hands, please send him mail asking that he
>find something better to do:
> jkra...@nospamswarthmore.edu
On the other hand, If I'm well-known as a spam hater, you'd probably
feel kind of stupid saying that, woulden't you?
>Come on, this jerk won't even accept mail responses to his posts:
Come on, trim the "newsgroups" header. It's not hard to do, and
I don't want emailed copies of your posts. Never. And, don't give me
that *nospam* is evil, because it's not. If you can't figure it out,
I don't want you to email me, basically. Post it up, I'll read it.
And no, I will not accept emailed copies of replies to my postings.
>>Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College. Mail to this account with
>>a "Newsgroups: *" header will be bounced for technical reasons.
READ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I wonder if I don't have a technical reason, eh?
--
Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College.
Remove nospam from my address to reply.
Do not post and mail copies.
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[posted and mailed]
alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex and alt.tv.tiny-toon are unmoderated newsgroups. The
consensus of news administrators is that individuals cancelling articles
they feel are off-topic are rogue cancellers and net abusers. Please stop
your activities immediately, and read the Cancel FAQ at
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/home/nana/ , or in the newsgroup
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet .
Stan
Stan Kalisch III
sjk...@crl.com
On 20 Apr 1997, David Richards wrote:
> Date: 20 Apr 1997 07:49:49 GMT
> From: David Richards <d...@ripco.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex, alt.tv.tiny-toon,
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
> Subject: I Cancel SPAM in alt.tv.tiny-toon.*
>
> alt.tv.tiny-toon is for the discussion of the cartoon series, and
> alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex is for less "in character" (ab)uses of the characters
> from said series.
>
> Guess which of the two gets hit with more (widely crossposted) spam,
> to the point that the group is USELESS for it's stated topic?
>
> If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
> STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
> here, please post and I will.
>
>
> On the other hand, if you think Mr. Kramer is a puppet of the spammers
> with too much time on his hands, please send him mail asking that he
> find something better to do:
> jkra...@nospamswarthmore.edu
>
>
>
> Come on, this jerk won't even accept mail responses to his posts:
>
> >Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College. Mail to this account with
> >a "Newsgroups: *" header will be bounced for technical reasons.
>
>
>
> In article <jkramer1-200...@res100.parrish-dorm01.swarthmore.edu>,
> Joshua Kramer <jkra...@nospamswarthmore.edu> wrote:
> >In article <5jc1a5$l7k$1...@gail.ripco.com>, d...@ripco.com (David Richards) wrote:
> >
> >>Path:
> >news.cc.swarthmore.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!europa.clark.net!newsfeed2!news.wwa.com!gail.ripco.com!dr
> >>From: d...@ripco.com (David Richards)
> >>Newsgroups: alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex
> >>Subject: cancel
> >>Control: cancel <5ir9gq$pd8$2...@its.hooked.net>
> >>Date: 20 Apr 1997 03:07:49 GMT
> >>Organization: Ripco Communications Inc.
> >>Lines: 6
> >>Message-ID: <5jc1a5$l7k$1...@gail.ripco.com>
> >>NNTP-Posting-Host: rci.ripco.com
> >>
> >>
> >><5ir9gq$pd8$2...@its.hooked.net> is excessively silly.
> >>--
> >>David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
> >>My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago
> >>But they are available for rental Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
> >>d...@ripco.com (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!
> >
> >There are 20+ of these in my control.cancel file, all with different
> >subject headings.
> >
> >Please stop your rogue cancels, now.
> >
> >--
> >Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College. Mail to this account with
> >a "Newsgroups: *" header will be bounced for technical reasons.
> >Remove nospam to reply.
> >Any opinions expressed herein represent only those of Joshua Kramer
> >and should not be taken to represent the views of any organization
> >or any other individual living or dead.
>
>
> --
> David Richards Ripco, since Nineteen-Eighty-Three
> My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago
> But they are available for rental Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
> d...@ripco.com (773) 665-0065 !Free Usenet/E-Mail!>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM1paz5yiGl9g1kgJAQGUNAP/bCqgrMQUg3QsnSOy2HBJW4ITVuEpyvmc
1M6NjwmptLFoOxXXm9/5kRF0klMeawSjgTO9DuSEAKtGZ3jHpEe4P64WDM2E6mFm
gWCMNc/E6A76xHuOzE5XoWj3/N7W8SKfjdb+60E6SP9/rVfeuQY1YNoA7YXRsKHU
5i1PN2nCK+Q=
=XwG6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Richard A. Sauers
On Sun, 20 Apr 1997 11:02:10 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex and alt.tv.tiny-toon are unmoderated newsgroups. The
>consensus of news administrators is that individuals cancelling articles
>they feel are off-topic are rogue cancellers and net abusers. Please stop
>your activities immediately, and read the Cancel FAQ at
>http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/home/nana/ , or in the newsgroup
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet .
>
>
>Stan
Hmmmm. Given that so many ISP's have an "no off-topic posts" statement in
their AUP, it seems that the actual consensus is that they prefer a focussed
Usenet that is enjoyable for their paying customers.
ISPs, I presume, also have the ability to not accept cancels therefore their
acceptance is also indicative of this preference.
(I would hope that full reports of cancels in alt.tv.tiny-toon.* are being
posted to the affected newsgroups and news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins.)
Strange that the ONLY objections are coming from that same old "select"
group of individuals.
Rich.
Bill Marcum
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev2.97...@crl10.crl.com>, Stan Kalisch III wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>[posted and mailed]
>
>consensus of news administrators is that individuals cancelling articles
>they feel are off-topic are rogue cancellers and net abusers. Please stop
>your activities immediately, and read the Cancel FAQ at
So now people who post spam are the good guys, and people who cancel it are
the bad guys? That would explain a lot of what's been going on lately.
>http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/home/nana/ , or in the newsgroup
>news.admin.net-abuse.usenet .
>
>
>Stan
>
>
--
Bill Marcum bmarcum at iglou dot com
If gnus are outlawed, only outlaws will have gnus.
Jeremy
Richard A. Sauers <rsa...@enter.net> wrote:
>
> Hmmmm. Given that so many ISP's have an "no off-topic posts" statement in
>their AUP, it seems that the actual consensus is that they prefer a focussed
>Usenet that is enjoyable for their paying customers.
And those ISPs have every right to enforce it by cancelling anything
which came from their system that violates their AUP.
> ISPs, I presume, also have the ability to not accept cancels therefore their
>acceptance is also indicative of this preference.
It is indicative of their preference to receive and honor spam cancels,
but says nothing of their feelings toward rogue cancels.
If someone wants to cancel spam, they are free to do so. Cancelling
posts they feel are "off-topic" is another story.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
"Never tell me the odds." --Han Solo
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie
In article <E8yEE...@iglou.com>, go_spam_...@iglou1.iglou.com (Bill
Marcum) wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev2.97...@crl10.crl.com>,
Stan Kalisch III wrote:
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>[posted and mailed]
>>
>>alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex and alt.tv.tiny-toon are unmoderated newsgroups. The
>>consensus of news administrators is that individuals cancelling articles
>>they feel are off-topic are rogue cancellers and net abusers. Please stop
>>your activities immediately, and read the Cancel FAQ at
>
>So now people who post spam are the good guys, and people who cancel it are
>the bad guys? That would explain a lot of what's been going on lately.
Those of us who are regulars in the net-abuse newsgroup -know- what Stan
has done to make Usenet a nice place to visit, what have you done?
But he is right, there has been a concensis that 3rd party cancels for
SPAM only occur, under certain conditions. Off-topic is (purhaps,
unfortunately) not generaly held to be cancelable by third parties, such as
what David RIchards is doing.
This isn't a perfect world. If you -really- want a junk free Tiny-Toon
newsgroup, get an RFD together for a moderated newsgroup like
rec.arts.tv.tiny-toon.moderated. It's the only way to do it. I'll vote for
it.
BTW, my server has a rec.arts.tv.tiny-toon newsgroup, but since it is
configured to accept -any- newgroup command I have no idea if it's a
'legal' Big 8 newsgroup.
--
Ralph Lindberg N7BSN n7...@callsign.net
RV and Camping FAQ <http://kendaco.telebyte.net/rlindber/rv/
Just because MS-Window's holds 90% of the market doesn't mean it's superior.
Remember 90% of all animals are insects.
Richard A. Sauers
On 20 Apr 1997 21:54:25 GMT, Jeremy <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>Richard A. Sauers <rsa...@enter.net> wrote:
>> Hmmmm. Given that so many ISP's have an "no off-topic posts" statement in
>>their AUP, it seems that the actual consensus is that they prefer a focussed
>>Usenet that is enjoyable for their paying customers.
>And those ISPs have every right to enforce it by cancelling anything
>which came from their system that violates their AUP.
>> ISPs, I presume, also have the ability to not accept cancels therefore their
>>acceptance is also indicative of this preference.
>It is indicative of their preference to receive and honor spam cancels,
>but says nothing of their feelings toward rogue cancels.
Its more likely that news server software is configured to accept cancels,
period and that most news administrators really don't care if a newsgroup is
unmoderated, moderated or retromoderated.
>If someone wants to cancel spam, they are free to do so. Cancelling
>posts they feel are "off-topic" is another story.
Cancelling spam is fine. Perhaps even using a more stringent BI threshold
that was is presently used by the mega-cancellors in their cancelbots.
Retromoderation of sorts is by all accounts clearing out off-topic "spam" in
a newsgroup whose participants do not want off-topic "spam".
Rich.
David Richards
It's simple. I don't want to abandon "my" newsgroups to the sex ad spammers
and create a new, moderated set of groups for real content. I want to take
back these groups for the legitimate users. And the users appreciate it.
If that makes me a rogue, so be it.
In article <jkramer1-200...@res100.parrish-dorm01.swarthmore.edu>,
Joshua Kramer <jkra...@nospamswarthmore.edu> wrote:
>>If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
>>STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
>>here, please post and I will.
>
>Why? You are rogue canceling. Ask a reputable spam-canceler to do it for
>you.
What makes them "reputable"? Strange how nobody who actually reads these
groups complains, just a bunch of self-appointed net cops who don't want
anybody but them to cancel spam.
>On the other hand, If I'm well-known as a spam hater, you'd probably
>feel kind of stupid saying that, woulden't you?
Joshua is well known as being pompous, abusive, and generally making matters
worse, spam hater or not.
>>Come on, this jerk won't even accept mail responses to his posts:
>
>Come on, trim the "newsgroups" header. It's not hard to do, and
>I don't want emailed copies of your posts. Never. And, don't give me
>that *nospam* is evil, because it's not. If you can't figure it out,
>I don't want you to email me, basically. Post it up, I'll read it.
It's not that sticking *nospam* in your headers is "evil", just silly,
especially with the address collection software getting smart enough
to do pattern matches and add your name to their list with and without
the obfuscation.
>And no, I will not accept emailed copies of replies to my postings.
>
>>>Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College. Mail to this account with
>>>a "Newsgroups: *" header will be bounced for technical reasons.
> READ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I wonder if I don't have a technical reason, eh?
"for technical reasons" implies that the only reason you don't accept
messages from news readers is because of a software glitch in your filter,
though you've made it clear that you just have a personal aversion to getting
mailed copies of posts, so why not say that?
Rick Pikul
{at3.fandom added to newsgroups, nana.usenet removed from followups.}
Ralph Lindberg & Ellen Winnie (rlin...@telebyte.com.REMOVE.TO.REPLY) wrote:
{Foomph...}
: BTW, my server has a rec.arts.tv.tiny-toon newsgroup, but since it is
: configured to accept -any- newgroup command I have no idea if it's a
: 'legal' Big 8 newsgroup.
Nope, it's bogus. It was created by that great friend of at3*:
John P Palmer.
: --
: Ralph Lindberg N7BSN n7...@callsign.net
: RV and Camping FAQ <http://kendaco.telebyte.net/rlindber/rv/
: Just because MS-Window's holds 90% of the market doesn't mean it's superior.
: Remember 90% of all animals are insects.
--
Phoenix
David Formosa
David Richards (d...@ripco.com) wrote:
: alt.tv.tiny-toon is for the discussion of the cartoon series, and
: alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex is for less "in character" (ab)uses of the characters
: from said series.
alt.tv.tiny-toon.fandom is for less "in character" users.
alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex is a pourly progergated newsgroup created by a well
know net kook.
: If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
: STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
: here, please post and I will.
I do, STOP now. How dare you look at my posts and consider weather or not
thay should be posted.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. /\ /\ /\ Buy easter
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ( X X ) bilbies.
I can't walk but I can fly. It's lucky to be ducky \/ \/ \/
David Richards
In article <861958941.748450@cabal>,
David Formosa <dfor...@st.st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
I wrote:
>: If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
>: STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
>: here, please post and I will.
>
>I do, STOP now. How dare you look at my posts and consider weather or not
>thay should be posted.
Somebody has to do it- why not me?
As long as your posts to the a.t-t.* hierarchy have some distant relationship
to TTA, you are in no danger from my manually issued cancels.
MMF, MLM, and porn-site spammers are another matter entirely.
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[alt.config added]
On 1 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
> In article <861958941.748450@cabal>,
> David Formosa <dfor...@st.st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
> I wrote:
> >: If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
> >: STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
> >: here, please post and I will.
> >
> >I do, STOP now. How dare you look at my posts and consider weather or not
> >thay should be posted.
>
> Somebody has to do it- why not me?
Because you're not the moderator, and it's an unmoderated group.
> As long as your posts to the a.t-t.* hierarchy have some distant relationship
> to TTA, you are in no danger from my manually issued cancels.
The problem is it isn't your place to determine what is on-topic and what
isn't in an unmoderated newsgroup. You're simply usurping what little of
the creation process there is in alt.* .
Please stop now. Your cancels are generally frowned upon by news
administrators. They don't want them.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM2koupyiGl9g1kgJAQGEJwQApcYdSiaPFUeAnso/iZdg7h7k00WsiI/H
+fl6W2W4osHv6FKQIyp1g0tfPU2/airAY6UycJhPmaDavGA5i9sCZd+6TpG0zFZO
+BKMA4ku2q4Nx5HDY2foO1zQ9HRvQkU16UO+dToObr86rn64iMhS8kd+oLQyGiYp
1S25rf+Vm8o=
=EkEO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
> >Please stop now. Your cancels are generally frowned upon by news
> >administrators. They don't want them.
>
>
> And the spam is specifically frowned on by me, and the other legitimate
> users of the newsgroups.
You're not talking about spam. You're talking about posts you personally
deem off-topic. The only binding definition of spam is at
http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/spam.html .
Meanwhile, you're abusing the very Usenet you claim to be protecting.
Are you still cancelling posts that don't fit the standard definition of
spam?
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM2llnpyiGl9g1kgJAQECLwP/SqE8OqkEM8RRBG0RDUCEa9qQwAevDRUQ
mFUNenTCF0xJnZpb8doxm8QCTPRfH32oUsmEOfD4bt1uUUhoDzS881dvGcag9IHS
Yc1uyZYwwfwJJohRxxGM1hvV5VyosbfdKnyNnoejcOzJBMS+CmTNLgVcd2kPg72u
Y/vXJidH1RY=
=CDcp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David Richards
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3.97...@crl9.crl.com>,
>
>[alt.config added]
>
>On 1 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
>
>> In article <861958941.748450@cabal>,
>> David Formosa <dfor...@st.st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>> I wrote:
>> >: If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
>> >: STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
>> >: here, please post and I will.
>> >
>> >I do, STOP now. How dare you look at my posts and consider weather or not
>> >thay should be posted.
>>
>> Somebody has to do it- why not me?
>
>Because you're not the moderator, and it's an unmoderated group.
>
>> As long as your posts to the a.t-t.* hierarchy have some distant relationship
>> to TTA, you are in no danger from my manually issued cancels.
>
>The problem is it isn't your place to determine what is on-topic and what
>isn't in an unmoderated newsgroup. You're simply usurping what little of
>the creation process there is in alt.* .
>
David Richards
In article <5kbq6h$8...@news.orst.edu>,
John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>In article <5k9e18$cks$1...@gail.ripco.com>, David Richards <d...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>Somebody has to do it- why not me?
>
Yes, somebody does have to do it. Some of these newsgroups are frequented
by children ( alt.tv.tiny-toon,alt.tv.tiny-toon.fandom and others),
and most of the spam that appears is advertising for sexually oriented sites.
I have nothing against adult material, but I will not tolerate advertisements
for sites selling pictures of naked people in newsgroups that are clearly
not intended for that.
Also, 99% of this "spam" is produced by people intending to make a profit
from their activities. Remove the messages, you remove the profit potential,
and eventually they'll go somewhere else to "make money fast".
If somebody will provide me with (perl) code to produce cancels messages
that fit the accepted "protocol", I'll use it.
If the only acceptable solution is to newgroup them as moderated,
then I'm willing to jump through the hoops. The one thing I am _not_
willing to do is abandon usenet to the real abusers.
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[Posted and mailed. Also mailed to postm...@ripco.com]
On 2 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
> In article <5kbq6h$8...@news.orst.edu>,
> John Stanley <sta...@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
> >In article <5k9e18$cks$1...@gail.ripco.com>, David Richards <d...@ripco.com> wrote:
> >>Somebody has to do it- why not me?
> >
> >No, somebody doesn't have to do it.
>
> Yes, somebody does have to do it. Some of these newsgroups are frequented
> by children ( alt.tv.tiny-toon,alt.tv.tiny-toon.fandom and others), <...>
Children shouldn't be reading umoderated newsgroups, unfiltered by an
adult, *period*. If you want a place safe for children, create a moderated
newsgroup.
You have no authority to retromoderate alt.tv.tiny-toon.* .
<...>
> I have nothing against adult material, but I will not tolerate advertisements
> for sites selling pictures of naked people in newsgroups that are clearly
> not intended for that.
The newsgroup was intended to be *unmoderated*. You won't *tolerate*
certain kinds of posts? How *dare* you?...the newsgroup isn't *yours*.
It belongs to the news administrators who run Usenet.
Ripco Postmaster: this user of yours claims to issue cancel messages for
articles in unmoderated newsgroups merely because he personally finds them
off-topic. Please ensure that he ceases from doing so immediately and
sanction him appropriately in accordance with your Acceptable Use Policy
(AUP) and/or Terms of Service (TOS).
Stan
Stan Kalisch III
sjk...@crl.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM2mUZpyiGl9g1kgJAQHXHQP/c/82kqsH+Lb8ciIhQ8XHYVosYJygqGMV
ZWPxnCDtLGpeCYxPiLs+5i8vH94U2V6z7g1nqaNNt63YsU+3qCRqDmhchaLcYymK
ki+IhDbSQ/IrBPmy5n6bO/HhI3Nq8IhNK/K6CgRAMwePBAL12z+mPo6S+XNHGO9N
8jqLc+MW7zE=
=34lA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rich Sauers
[cc'd to postm...@ripco.com]
On Thu, 1 May 1997 20:55:05 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>On 2 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
>
>> >Please stop now. Your cancels are generally frowned upon by news
>> >administrators. They don't want them.
>>
>> And the spam is specifically frowned on by me, and the other legitimate
>> users of the newsgroups.
>
>You're not talking about spam. You're talking about posts you personally
>deem off-topic. The only binding definition of spam is at
>http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/spam.html .
This is a FAQ. FAQs are NOT "binding".
This particular FAQ simply reports the characteristics of messages that THEY
(the mega-cancellors) will cancel.
>Meanwhile, you're abusing the very Usenet you claim to be protecting.
?????
>Are you still cancelling posts that don't fit the standard definition of
>spam?
Looks like alt.tv.tiny-toon and alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex are following the
"novel concept" of insisting that posts to those two newsgroups be related in
some way to "tiny-toon".
Imagine that, messages in a newsgroup actually related to the title of the
newsgroup.
Rich.
Rich Sauers
[cc'd to postm...@ripco.com]
On Thu, 1 May 1997 16:35:12 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>On 1 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
>
>> In article <861958941.748450@cabal>,
>> David Formosa <dfor...@st.st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>> I wrote:
>> >: If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
>> >: STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
>> >: here, please post and I will.
>> >
>> >I do, STOP now. How dare you look at my posts and consider weather or not
>> >thay should be posted.
>>
>> Somebody has to do it- why not me?
>
>Because you're not the moderator, and it's an unmoderated group.
Apparently the participants are tired of the crap in their newsgroup Stan
.. not one PARTICIPANT wants the "filtering" to end.
>> As long as your posts to the a.t-t.* hierarchy have some distant relationship
>> to TTA, you are in no danger from my manually issued cancels.
>
>The problem is it isn't your place to determine what is on-topic and what
>isn't in an unmoderated newsgroup. You're simply usurping what little of
>the creation process there is in alt.* .
>
>Please stop now. Your cancels are generally frowned upon by news
>administrators. They don't want them.
I believe the cancels have distinguishing characteristics for which ISPs
could retain the crap on their news servers. Looks like none have elected to
do so. Perhaps they like providing their paying customers with another
crap-LESS newsgroup.
Rich.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
d...@ripco.com (David Richards) writes:
>In article <861958941.748450@cabal>,
>David Formosa <dfor...@st.st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>I wrote:
>>: If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
>>: STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
>>: here, please post and I will.
>>
>>I do, STOP now. How dare you look at my posts and consider weather or not
>>thay should be posted.
>Somebody has to do it- why not me?
So your not stoping even though I as a reader and pertispent have asked
you? If I can't trust you to carry out your word how can I trust you to
check my posts?
>As long as your posts to the a.t-t.* hierarchy have some distant relationship
>to TTA, you are in no danger from my manually issued cancels.
I am working on a NoCeM bot, I will forward it to you if you stop
issueing these cancels. Also are you following the s$alz convention?
In addtion you are acting against the charter of this news group to quote.
>This group is for discussion of all subject matter relating to
>the TV show "Tiny Toon Adventures." It is not moderated.
The charter planly states that it is not moderated, by moderating it you
are voilating the charter as much as the spammers.
David Richards
Unlike certain people here, I am not a control freak- I don't LIKE
canceling other people's messages. I don't want to be the sole abitrator
of what is "allowed" in the alt.tv.tiny-toon newsgroups. What myself and
the other legitimate users of these groups want is freedom from blatant
outside abuse.
Most of these users are on news servers that accept third-party cancels,
servers that do not run any of the convoluted anti-spam protocols. In
public posts and private mail, people are happy to see something, ANYTHING,
done to reduce the noise.
In article <dformosa....@lancelot.st.nepean.uws.edu.au>,
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>d...@ripco.com (David Richards) writes:
>>In article <861958941.748450@cabal>,
>>David Formosa <dfor...@st.st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>>I wrote:
>>>: If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
>>>: STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
>>>: here, please post and I will.
>>>
>>>I do, STOP now. How dare you look at my posts and consider weather or not
>>>thay should be posted.
>
>>Somebody has to do it- why not me?
>
>So your not stoping even though I as a reader and pertispent have asked
>you? If I can't trust you to carry out your word how can I trust you to
>check my posts?
Because you're offensive, threatening, and care more about usenet 'protocol'
than about doing something about blatant spam.
AUTHOR PROFILE: dfor...@st.st.nepean.uws.edu.au (David Formosa)
67 unique articles posted.
Number of articles posted to individual newsgroups (slightly skewed by
cross-postings):
16 alt.fan.furry
15 news.admin.net-abuse.misc
5 alt.config
4 alt.tv.animaniacs
3 alt.fan.ducks
3 news.admin.net-abuse.email
2 alt.duck.quack.quack.quack
2 comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
2 rec.birds
2 sci.agriculture.poultry
1 alt.animation.warner-bros
1 alt.fan.furry.muck
1 alt.fan.sailor-moon
1 alt.freedom.of.information.act
1 alt.test
1 alt.tv.taz-mania
1 alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex
1 alt.usenet.kooks
1 aus.flame.gareth-powell
1 misc.legal
1 news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
1 rec.arts.animation
1 rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc
>>As long as your posts to the a.t-t.* hierarchy have some distant relationship
>>to TTA, you are in no danger from my manually issued cancels.
>
>I am working on a NoCeM bot, I will forward it to you if you stop
>issueing these cancels. Also are you following the s$alz convention?
The problem with NoCeM is that it is only effective on sites that care
enough to support it, while cancels are primarily effective on sites
that don't care enough to bother disabling automatic acceptance of
third-party cancelation.
Any effective "filtering" needs to work on these latter sites too.
>In addtion you are acting against the charter of this news group to quote.
>
>>This group is for discussion of all subject matter relating to
>>the TV show "Tiny Toon Adventures." It is not moderated.
>
>The charter planly states that it is not moderated, by moderating it you
>are voilating the charter as much as the spammers.
So we change the charter.
I'm willing to work within the system, but I am not willing to let these
newsgroups go to hell in the meantime. Make these groups moderated, I don't
care _who_ "controls" them (as long as it isn't Fluffy), or how the control
is implemented- I just want my backwater corner of the 'net to be clear of
obvious spam.
Tim Skirvin
d...@ripco.com (David Richards) writes:
>>So your not stoping even though I as a reader and pertispent have asked
>>you? If I can't trust you to carry out your word how can I trust you to
>>check my posts?
>Because you're offensive, threatening, and care more about usenet 'protocol'
>than about doing something about blatant spam.
Would it help any if I weighed in against your retromoderation,
too?
>>The charter planly states that it is not moderated, by moderating it you
>>are voilating the charter as much as the spammers.
>So we change the charter.
You can't change the charter of alt.* groups, pretty much.
Kill the spam that's already hit a BI of 20 - you'll probably
recognize it. That's about all I can really support. Other than that,
please stop your content-based retromoderation of alt.tv.tiny-toon.*; if
you're really concerned about the groups, either make a moderated Big-8
forum or alt.tv.tiny-toon.moderated (the former would be better,
probably).
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a> <*>
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/daemons/">The Dungeon</a>
Anthony DeRobertis
> Looks like alt.tv.tiny-toon and alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex are following the
> "novel concept" of insisting that posts to those two newsgroups be related in
> some way to "tiny-toon".
> Imagine that, messages in a newsgroup actually related to the title of the
> newsgroup.
For some, particuarly anyone who comes from *.cyberpromo.com, that's very
objectionable.
>
> Rich.
--
Owner of the League of Draenor (WarII League)
The BEST League for WarII Players
http://www.erols.com/derobert/draenor/
news:alt.games.warcraft.draenor
Originator of The Following Newsgroups:
alt.games.warcraft.draenor
alt.binaries.games.squaresoft
A health warning to anyone at Erol's (server=winter.erols.com):
WARNING: SITTING, STANDING, OR BEING NEAR THIS SERVER MAY RESULT IN HEALTH
PROBLEMS DUE TO THE SECOND-HAND MARIJANA AND COCAINE SMOKE THIS SERVER
EMMITS.
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Rich Sauers wrote:
> [cc'd to postm...@ripco.com]
Likewise, but any future responses will only be posted, not Cced--I'm not
going to start bombarding Ripco with mail.
> On Thu, 1 May 1997 20:55:05 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
> >
> >> >Please stop now. Your cancels are generally frowned upon by news
> >> >administrators. They don't want them.
> >>
> >> And the spam is specifically frowned on by me, and the other legitimate
> >> users of the newsgroups.
> >
> >You're not talking about spam. You're talking about posts you personally
> >deem off-topic. The only binding definition of spam is at
> >http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/spam.html .
>
> This is a FAQ. FAQs are NOT "binding".
You moron. FAQs can *catalogue* what is binding...
> This particular FAQ simply reports the characteristics of messages that THEY
> (the mega-cancellors) will cancel.
Support your claim.
<...>
> >Are you still cancelling posts that don't fit the standard definition of
> >spam?
>
> Looks like alt.tv.tiny-toon and alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex are following the
> "novel concept" of insisting that posts to those two newsgroups be related in
> some way to "tiny-toon".
> Imagine that, messages in a newsgroup actually related to the title of the
> newsgroup.
How do you know if they're related to the title of the newsgroup?
Besides, Rich, you post messages unrelated to newsgroups' titles all the
time.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM2pIspyiGl9g1kgJAQFXrwQAovCIw7TM6e6BvSGG7aMgmc3nngff5i64
IUQBSRMbL6tp21LZnopnln/qHFJWCGA3Z0wvnCWrkPWJfleLMy8+HhVbV3rNnuKX
H9gvJTZyscVNt77x7MRiLF5oLBF3lWDA/oT0CYc9mWXGoYl+Q9DFALLQL5bxsk4x
9Hpv2ata1oY=
=GVty
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3.97...@crl6.crl.com>,
> Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
> >> >Are you still cancelling posts that don't fit the standard definition of
> >> >spam?
> >>
> >> Looks like alt.tv.tiny-toon and alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex are following the
> >> "novel concept" of insisting that posts to those two newsgroups be related in
> >> some way to "tiny-toon".
> >> Imagine that, messages in a newsgroup actually related to the title of the
> >> newsgroup.
> >
> >How do you know if they're related to the title of the newsgroup?
> >Besides, Rich, you post messages unrelated to newsgroups' titles all the
> >time.
>
> So explain to me again why something like the post below should not be
> removed? (and yes, I complained to the sender, and the admins of the two
> sites involved)
I never said the post below shouldn't be removed; it's a binary in an
non-binary newsgroup.
> From: "AV-Experts" <av...@vol.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.tv.star-trek.voyager,alt.tv.swamp-thing,alt.tv.swatkats,alt.tv.tales-crypt,alt.tv.talkshows.daytime,alt.tv.talkshows.late,alt.tv.the-critic,alt.tv.the-jihad,alt.tv.the-state,alt.tv.the-tick,alt.tv.tiny-toon,alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex,alt.tv.trad
> Subject: Are You Getting Value For Money On Your Japanese Equipment Purchases?
> Date: 2 May 1997 18:23:29 GMT
> Organization: The Audio Video Experts
> Lines: 17
> Message-ID: <01bc5724$18ad9700$f33352ca@mine>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-51-243.dialup.hkstar.com
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
>
>
> begin 600 message.txt
> M0G5Y('=H870@2F%P86X@<V5L;',@26X@07-I82X@22!C86X@87-S=7)E('EO
<...>
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM2qjcJyiGl9g1kgJAQGNWgP7BubEUCkmBkJvBaEasl1R105c3iT0+yF3
b4gKZQ85mfYk/T7KljbaCgXhr8Dj9GRMhqGyzPRnOvXqzFxVxvz3KiGsXKcCdSyd
MdKYCqjKtGg+3bnm4qgkZHrAHnVpCcJpQTcyMgBUNhxHLYY3Lut//L8Ka+oqZo3W
vs3gzQw7Qrc=
=fwFe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rich Sauers
On Fri, 2 May 1997 13:03:57 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 2 May 1997, Rich Sauers wrote:
>
>> [cc'd to postm...@ripco.com]
>Likewise, but any future responses will only be posted, not Cced--I'm not
>going to start bombarding Ripco with mail.
[posted only]
>> On Thu, 1 May 1997 20:55:05 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2 May 1997, David Richards wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Please stop now. Your cancels are generally frowned upon by news
>> >> >administrators. They don't want them.
>> >>
>> >> And the spam is specifically frowned on by me, and the other legitimate
>> >> users of the newsgroups.
>> >
>> >You're not talking about spam. You're talking about posts you personally
>> >deem off-topic. The only binding definition of spam is at
>> >http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/spam.html .
>>
>> This is a FAQ. FAQs are NOT "binding".
>
>You moron.
Ahhh yes. The name calling so typical with the pundits.
>FAQs can *catalogue* what is binding...
Here we go again. More of this "consensus" stuff.
The FAQ provides the position of the mega-cancellors who will only cancel
messages that are posted in excess of BI 20.
(That is, unless you count those who unilaterally cancel ALL posts from
specific domains ;>)
>> This particular FAQ simply reports the characteristics of messages that THEY
>> (the mega-cancellors) will cancel.
>
>Support your claim.
The lack of any references providing documentation of the BI 20
implementation.
>> >Are you still cancelling posts that don't fit the standard definition of
>> >spam?
>>
>> Looks like alt.tv.tiny-toon and alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex are following the
>> "novel concept" of insisting that posts to those two newsgroups be related in
>> some way to "tiny-toon".
>> Imagine that, messages in a newsgroup actually related to the title of the
>> newsgroup.
>
>How do you know if they're related to the title of the newsgroup?
Has anyone complained that their "on topic" message was cancelled?
Did you notice, Stan, that the spammers aren't complaining? ... heck, they
don't even read the "tiny-toon" newsgroups or any other for that matter ...
no, the only complaints are coming from the pundits in the n.a.n-a.*
newsgroups.
>Besides, Rich, you post messages unrelated to newsgroups' titles all the
>time.
Now that's a new one.
Anyway, good move, divert attention.
Rich.
Jeremy
David Richards <d...@ripco.com> wrote:
>So explain to me again why something like the post below should not be
>removed? (and yes, I complained to the sender, and the admins of the two
>sites involved)
I'm probably going to regret jumping into this thread, but, well, near
as I can tell that post qualifies for a BI>20 spamcancel...
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
"Who's scruffy-looking?" --Han Solo
Hume Smith
In article <cancel-att...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, tski...@uiuc.edu says...
>
>d...@ripco.com (David Richards) writes:
>
>>>So your not stoping even though I as a reader and pertispent have asked
>>>you? If I can't trust you to carry out your word how can I trust you to
>>>check my posts?
>
>>Because you're offensive, threatening, and care more about usenet 'protocol'
>>than about doing something about blatant spam.
>
> Would it help any if I weighed in against your retromoderation,
>too?
and how about if i come in *for* it? even though spam is pretty much the only
traffic left in the TTA groups as it is... at least on my machine.
David Richards
In article <5ked1c$g...@news.istar.ca>,
Are you running the latest INN?
Set it up to accept my cancels for those groups and the tide will turn.
Assuming I ever finish the programming jobs that I'm getting paid for, I'll
get around to set up a (manual) cancel generator that adds the PGP signature,
special path entries, and the like.
Joshua Kramer
Wait, are you not using $alz and !retromod?
STOP NOW. YOU MUST READ THE CANCEL FAQ.
This is more serious than the intitial requests to stop - now you are
not only rogue, but out of protocol.
Welcome to the goddam slippery slope, folks. I'll start retromoderating
alt.config and alt.religion.scientology tommorow.
Hell - it's all, I can do what I want, right?
java Cleanse alt.religion.scientology
java Cleanse alt.config
That would just suck.
--
Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College.
Remove nospam from my address to reply.
Do not post and mail copies.
Adam Magie
NO MOre Non Topic Spams
David Richards <d...@ripco.com> wrote in article
<5jchqt$3q5$1...@gail.ripco.com>...
> alt.tv.tiny-toon is for the discussion of the cartoon series, and
> alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex is for less "in character" (ab)uses of the
characters
> from said series.
>
> Guess which of the two gets hit with more (widely crossposted) spam,
> to the point that the group is USELESS for it's stated topic?
>
> If anybody who actually reads the a.t-t.* newsgroups would like me to
> STOP canceling off topic advertising and non-cartoon images that appear
> here, please post and I will.
>
>
> On the other hand, if you think Mr. Kramer is a puppet of the spammers
> with too much time on his hands, please send him mail asking that he
> find something better to do:
> jkra...@nospamswarthmore.edu
>
>
>
> Come on, this jerk won't even accept mail responses to his posts:
>
> >Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College. Mail to this account with
> >a "Newsgroups: *" header will be bounced for technical reasons.
>
>
>
> In article
<jkramer1-200...@res100.parrish-dorm01.swarthmore.edu>,
> Joshua Kramer <jkra...@nospamswarthmore.edu> wrote:
> >In article <5jc1a5$l7k$1...@gail.ripco.com>, d...@ripco.com (David Richards)
wrote:
> >
> >>Path:
>
>news.cc.swarthmore.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!news3.cac.psu.edu!howland.erols.net
!feed1.news.erols.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!europa.
clark.net!newsfeed2!news.wwa.com!gail.ripco.com!dr
> >>From: d...@ripco.com (David Richards)
> >>Newsgroups: alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex
> >>Subject: cancel
> >>Control: cancel <5ir9gq$pd8$2...@its.hooked.net>
> >>Date: 20 Apr 1997 03:07:49 GMT
> >>Organization: Ripco Communications Inc.
> >>Lines: 6
> >>Message-ID: <5jc1a5$l7k$1...@gail.ripco.com>
> >>NNTP-Posting-Host: rci.ripco.com
> >>
> >>
> >><5ir9gq$pd8$2...@its.hooked.net> is excessively silly.
> >>--
> >>David Richards Ripco, since
Nineteen-Eighty-Three
> >>My opinions are my own, Public Access in Chicago
> >>But they are available for rental
Shell/SLIP/PPP/UUCP/ISDN/Leased
> >>d...@ripco.com (773) 665-0065 !Free
Usenet/E-Mail!
> >
> >There are 20+ of these in my control.cancel file, all with different
> >subject headings.
> >
> >Please stop your rogue cancels, now.
> >
> >--
> >Joshua Kramer, Student, Swarthmore College. Mail to this account with
> >a "Newsgroups: *" header will be bounced for technical reasons.
> >Remove nospam to reply.
> >Any opinions expressed herein represent only those of Joshua Kramer
> >and should not be taken to represent the views of any organization
> >or any other individual living or dead.
>
>
Rich Sauers
>Wait, are you not using $alz and !retromod?
>
>STOP NOW. YOU MUST READ THE CANCEL FAQ.
>
>This is more serious than the intitial requests to stop - now you are
>not only rogue, but out of protocol.
May I suggest that you need to redirect your efforts to demand conformity by
confronting those online services, most of whom issue "non-standard" cancels?
>Welcome to the goddam slippery slope, folks.
The arbitrary BI threshold opened that door long ago.
Rich.
Jeremy
Rich Sauers <rsa...@enter.net> wrote:
>May I suggest that you need to redirect your efforts to demand conformity
>by confronting those online services, most of whom issue "non-standard"
>cancels?
They issue non-standard cancels for posts from their own system. They
have an absolute right to cancel anything which comes from their system,
and they don't need to use the conventions. When I cancel spams that were
posted on my own system I don't use "cyberspam" in the path.
Though it would be nice if they at least used "<cancel.".
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Fight spam! http://spam.abuse.net
Follower of the Clawed Albino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <5kbkgo$sdb$1...@gail.ripco.com>,
d...@ripco.com (David Richards) carved on the cave wall:
> In article <Pine.SUN.3.96L-rev3.97...@crl9.crl.com>,
> Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
> >The problem is it isn't your place to determine what is on-topic and what
> >isn't in an unmoderated newsgroup. You're simply usurping what little of
> >the creation process there is in alt.* .
> >
> >Please stop now. Your cancels are generally frowned upon by news
> >administrators. They don't want them.
>
> And the spam is specifically frowned on by me, and the other legitimate
> users of the newsgroups.
Then *create a moderated newsgroup*.
Really--it *is* that simple.
Create it in alt.* (alt.tv.tiny-toon.moderated), have a vote for
rec.arts.tv.tiny-toon (moderated)--we honestly don't care which.
FWIW, the Big-8 group will probably get more propogation anyways.
If you see a spam on the group that has a higher BI than 20, *THEN* you
can nuke it (with your sysadmin's permission) or ask someone who operates
a cancelbot for spam to do it for you.
However, retromoderating the group will only lead to the slow death of
alt.* and Usenet as a whole. We *already* have rogue cancellers (like the
ARS cancelpoodles and, more recently, the Winternet frankencanceller)--we
can stand up now and state "they are NOT cancelling for spam, they are doing
a Bad Thing. Please stop them." If we allow retromoderation, we have to
allow the Winternet frankencanceller and the CoS gits trying to destroy alt.
religion.scientology do as they please.
If you absolutely MUST retromoderate, use NoCeM. All it takes is perl
(and yes, they've even Perl for Windows), PGP, and a way to gather and
post MoCeM messages. There are scripts available to do just this; NoCeM
even has a retromoderation protocol explicitly defined. You can also, as
of NoCeM v0.93, get NoCeM messages via the web, and PGP isn't required at
all; all that is needed is setting up a web page where you put your notices.
However, do NOT ask us to legitimise retromoderation-via-cancel for you.
We can't do it--it will open up the doors for those who would wantonly abuse
cancels.
On one note (your protest that children read the group and you want to
preserve them from seeing sex adverts)--no offense, but children should
NOT be allowed on the Internet and/or Usenet unsupervised, and especially
not at the target age range of "Tiny Toon Adventures". You can prescreen
the posts, or block out the offending posts with several programs
commercially available for doing same, or simply not allow your kid to
get on Usenet without you being there. If you cannot handle the
responsibility of acting as a parent and supervising your children (if
you fear they might get into something objectionable on Usenet), then
IMNSHO you really should reconsider the wisdom of allowing your children
Usenet and/or Internet access at all. If you cannot even handle THIS,
then IMNSHO you should seriously reconsider whether you, as a parent,
should be raising children and whether or not you should procreate further.
- --
- -Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
Fight the Woodside Literary Agency! Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP fund
<http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund> * Boycott Internet
Spam Now! <http://spam.abuse.net/spam> * <this space available to let>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM2+JPz0Jz30h6bOhAQEJqgP9EnS/AeEZZmH/n8WDS86wQK5Kko8eTlXk
KKira3OKHzQ1PonVIzXFuolXqVrxXBIar/q264eQbHZTjG3LsiuIR4tfaTxestpI
v0nbjOlTMRH/oTG4/yDiEjzonuxiegKGKLHVi68MjGxsDpmT9JqBDXCLZDTwzUFP
esrbbbIWVNQ=
=u7N9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
On 7 May 1997 01:14:47 -0400, afn2...@pop3.afn.org (Follower of the
Clawed Albino) wrote:
*snip*
>However, retromoderating the group will only lead to the slow death of
>alt.* and Usenet as a whole.
I'm sorry, but some large portions of the alt.* hierarchy are already
DEAD, and many more are headed that way.
I'm tired of hearing idiots pretend otherwise.
In particular the alt.sex.* hierarchy, which I propose be entirely
restructured as follows:
alt.sex.xxx-web-site-ads
alt.sex.phone-sex-ads
alt.sex.live-nude-girls-ads
alt.sex.misplaced-binaries
alt.sex.misplaced-binaries.ads
alt.sex.complaints-about-how-retromoderation-will-be-the-death-of-usenet
alt.sex.on-topic-posts-from-ordinary-users
On second thought, you can scratch that last group. I no longer
think there's enough traffic to justify it.
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[alt.spam removed because alt.spam is about the meat, not the metaphor]
On Wed, 7 May 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> On 7 May 1997 01:14:47 -0400, afn2...@pop3.afn.org (Follower of the
> Clawed Albino) wrote:
>
> *snip*
>
> >However, retromoderating the group will only lead to the slow death of
> >alt.* and Usenet as a whole.
>
> I'm sorry, but some large portions of the alt.* hierarchy are already
> DEAD, and many more are headed that way.
>
> I'm tired of hearing idiots pretend otherwise.
Em, she's not--what she's saying is that you will kill THE REST OF ALT.*.
I.e., your solution isn't GOOD ENOUGH.
Get it?
We're tired of hearing idiots pretend that retromoderation bears no
consequences.
If you were left as the pallbearer of retromoderation, the debate would
die today, and the attempt to revive it would surely fail.
Fortunately, there are less naive people debating the issue, and thus the
debate might prove to be useful.
Keep screaming like an idiot in news.admin.net-abuse.*, and almost
everyone will simultaneously start to ignore you.
["Note followups."]
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM3Dtp5yiGl9g1kgJAQG/ewP/XH2QwjHMjALxmTswHZz+2jzDVEGzyZFo
+aECW0JRH2UadJGO9m/A2N887t355nOfbw+2H6gzhwTYxiSYRUPt9qRf65TmJ1rV
mfljIxd28II0jJ4ubf79iJOMHP4fRus+DxRM/kJ2WlqeDFWHRjXt2A+ixsYVkUTI
wypJIdNCAH8=
=6Zgt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
["Note followups"]
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Rich Sauers wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 1997 13:03:57 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
<...>
> >You moron.
>
> Ahhh yes. The name calling so typical with the pundits.
(Well, yes, pundits *are* quite the opposite of morons)
Does it matter if it's typical?
Why does it matter that I've called you a name? A name is a "word by
which a person or thing is known". And calling you a "moron", as a moron
is a "mentally deficient person", is quite accurate. Furthermore, it's
not my fault that you refuse to properly educate yourself so that you do
not exist as a moron. Some people are much larger morons than you are,
Rich, so much so that they shouldn't even be expected to take
responsibility for their moronity. But the fact that you're
semi-intelligent and don't take the opportunity to listen to what people
say to you, which could rid you of your moronism, should not be excused.
Taking such a capricious attitude toward the important issues of
net-abuse, and then trying to affect how the world works by applying that
attitude is, quite simply, dangerous.
Someone has to look out for danger. It's certainly not you in this
case--you're telling us there are no dangers with the retromoderation you
want--but you don't explain exactly how something is determined to be
off-topic. And, no, Rich, the answer "It's obvious" isn't good enough.
Walk us by the hand and show us how incredibly obvious it is.
> >FAQs can *catalogue* what is binding...
>
> Here we go again. More of this "consensus" stuff.
It *is* consensus. You're told to go seek out discussions from the
Canter/Siegel era. You don't. Why not?
> The FAQ provides the position of the mega-cancellors who will only cancel
> messages that are posted in excess of BI 20.
It is *consensus*. You're told to go seek out discussions from the
Canter/Siegel era. You don't. Why not?
> (That is, unless you count those who unilaterally cancel ALL posts from
> specific domains ;>)
>
> >> This particular FAQ simply reports the characteristics of messages that THEY
> >> (the mega-cancellors) will cancel.
> >
> >Support your claim.
>
> The lack of any references providing documentation of the BI 20
> implementation.
There *are* references. You're told to go seek out discussions from the
Canter/Siegel era. You don't. Why not?
> >> >Are you still cancelling posts that don't fit the standard definition of
> >> >spam?
> >>
> >> Looks like alt.tv.tiny-toon and alt.tv.tiny-toon.sex are following the
> >> "novel concept" of insisting that posts to those two newsgroups be related in
> >> some way to "tiny-toon".
> >> Imagine that, messages in a newsgroup actually related to the title of the
> >> newsgroup.
> >
> >How do you know if they're related to the title of the newsgroup?
>
> Has anyone complained that their "on topic" message was cancelled?
Yes. Me. rec.autos.sport.indy.
You also saw an example of an on-topic posting that Dick Depew's proposed
ARMM bot for alt.sex.cthulhu would have cancelled.
> Did you notice, Stan, that the spammers aren't complaining?
Did you notice, Rich, that the spammers almost always don't complain about
moderated groups? About on-topic postings? About RFCs? About FYIs?
About FAQs? About charters?
> ... heck, they don't even read the "tiny-toon" newsgroups or any other for
> that matter ... no, the only complaints are coming from the pundits in the
> n.a.n-a.* newsgroups.
How would you know? You haven't asked all the other people in thousands
of other newsgroups. Of course, if they want to comment on this issue,
they're supposed to come *here*, aren't they?
But if they did, and started posting, that would make them part of the
elite Cabal of pundits who usurp the will of the people, right, Rich?
> >Besides, Rich, you post messages unrelated to newsgroups' titles all the
> >time.
>
> Now that's a new one.
> Anyway, good move, divert attention.
How can I be diverting attention when I'm pointing out that, by your
rationale, some of your articles should be cancelled for being
"off-topic"?
Well, it's actually what I perceive to be your rationale. My point is
that you really don't have one.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM3FHmJyiGl9g1kgJAQFYdgP/X+KdhXgGq734yoLOT33iZTIvP081Exrx
xTYtPhIPL1HrcRr6Vw0npZq9xBQaK78YY5zpC76wLKWIy76DT2zLPN9bgQ799IgN
5X/KCL7LrIUpxvCGguVjiZcAQYrFcQKhCfnS45rpm9udGob7aI0XrGjQ25yZ9J5a
gTnL41wDV6A=
=pf76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rich Sauers
On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:05:48 +0200 (MET DST), nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
wrote:
>On 7 May 1997 01:14:47 -0400, afn2...@pop3.afn.org (Follower of the
>Clawed Albino) wrote:
>>However, retromoderating the group will only lead to the slow death of
>>alt.* and Usenet as a whole.
>
>I'm sorry, but some large portions of the alt.* hierarchy are already
>DEAD, and many more are headed that way.
Isn't it funny how the pundits keep telling us that ISPs don't want
incessant spamming taking up their disk space. Then, the mention is made of
cancelling this "off topic" crap outright and then the pundits tell us you
can't do that.
>I'm tired of hearing idiots pretend otherwise.
Welcome to the "net-abuse" newsgroups.
Movement here is measured in geological time.
;>)
>In particular the alt.sex.* hierarchy, which I propose be entirely
>restructured as follows:
>
>alt.sex.xxx-web-site-ads
>alt.sex.phone-sex-ads
>alt.sex.live-nude-girls-ads
>alt.sex.misplaced-binaries
>alt.sex.misplaced-binaries.ads
>alt.sex.complaints-about-how-retromoderation-will-be-the-death-of-usenet
>alt.sex.on-topic-posts-from-ordinary-users
>
>On second thought, you can scratch that last group. I no longer
>think there's enough traffic to justify it.
I posted a few messages several months ago regarding "newsgroup-focussed"
spammers in the misc.invest.* newsgroups, most notably misc.invest.futures.
At the time it was running about 60% spamvertisements, but the cross-posted
messages from the "net-abuse" pundits provided the spammers with alot of
encouragement and that particular newsgroup is now comprised of 80%
spamvertisements.
Spammers take great comfort in the BI numbers game being peddled by the
"net-abuse" crowd.
Rich.
MycroftBunny
Everybody else seems to be throwing in their opinions, why not me? =:)
First off, I have absolutely no idea what these technical terms mean
(technical to me at least).
To state my position, I'll have to say that I really don't like seeing
spam in one of my favorite newsgroups. But neither do I like one
person, acting on his own, deciding what gets posted and what doesn't.
This isn't about that person's character, I don't care if he won the
Most Trustworthy Person In The World award for the past 50 years. I
don't like people telling me what I can and cannot do.
A few people have brought up the idea of creating a moderated
newsgroup. Correct me if I'm wrong, but would this mean that one person
would not only be controlling spam, but also be doing it without
protest? Would that mean we could start talking about, oh, say,
_TINY_TOONS_, and not have to cope with people whining because they
don't like cancellations, or because somebody didn't like their
cancellations, or because they actually wanted to call that new 900
number? (how am I doing so far?) Well, let's pack up our bits and do
it then!
-MycroftBunny
--
[TTA Code Begin]
1.2.0 K- T+ F CbBpcfs E178 S"Anvil Chorus" D+/++++ H45/2 $0
Uf N- M+F PL TAPE Pm
[TTA Code End]
[Furry Code Begin]
FLRf3ad A C- D H M- P+ R--- T+++ W Z? Sm RLU~- a- cd++~++++
d- e-/* f- h* i+ p+ sm#
[Furry Code End]
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:05:48 +0200 (MET DST), nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>wrote:
[...]
> Isn't it funny how the pundits keep telling us that ISPs don't want
>incessant spamming taking up their disk space. Then, the mention is made of
>cancelling this "off topic" crap outright and then the pundits tell us you
>can't do that.
An off topic post takes up as much room as a on topic post. Spam (i.e.
bi>20) takes up much more space then a single post.
NoCeM is the correct resonce to off topic posts, Kill files are the
correct responce to off topic posts. Cancels are the correct responce to
bi>20 and binaires.
Andrew Nellis
Stan Kalisch III (sjk...@crl.com) writes:
>> >However, retromoderating the group will only lead to the slow death of
>> >alt.* and Usenet as a whole.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but some large portions of the alt.* hierarchy are already
>> DEAD, and many more are headed that way.
>>
>> I'm tired of hearing idiots pretend otherwise.
>
> Em, she's not--what she's saying is that you will kill THE REST OF ALT.*.
>
> I.e., your solution isn't GOOD ENOUGH.
>
> Get it?
Got another solution, Stan? I hear a lot of soapbox-standing about the
evils of retromoderation, but all I hear by way of alternate solutions is
a lot of hurrumphing about moderated newsgroups and kill files. Stan,
have a look around alt.sex.* some time. BI 20 *IS* *NOT* *WORKING*! The
whole hierarchy is *dead* Stan! The despammers are giving mouth-to-mouth
to a corpse. In the end it wasn't the law or the religious right that
killed the child porn groups -- it was spam.
What are we risking by trying retromoderation? There's not much left to
risk. News admins are starting to wake up to the fact that they're using
a larger and larger proportion of their resources to store pure spam.
Already, I would say that the majority of ISPs carry very few or no
alt.sex.* groups for this very reason. How long until so few are carrying
alt.* that it effectively ceases to exist? I would say we're very close
to that point as it stands.
> We're tired of hearing idiots pretend that retromoderation bears no
> consequences.
>
> If you were left as the pallbearer of retromoderation, the debate would
> die today, and the attempt to revive it would surely fail.
You're fighting in a burning building, Stan. You're fiddling "censorship"
while alt.* burns. There are consequences to *everything*. BI 20 is not
a magic formula. If retromoderation is censorship, so is BI 20 spam
cancelling. My arguement is the same as yours: the end justifies the
means (at least in this case).
> Fortunately, there are less naive people debating the issue, and thus the
> debate might prove to be useful.
>
> Keep screaming like an idiot in news.admin.net-abuse.*, and almost
> everyone will simultaneously start to ignore you.
People are "screaming" in news.admin.net-abuse.* because that's where the
power has been concentrated. For good or ill, when someone (like us
alt.sex.cthulhu-ites) wants to do something "to" the 'net as opposed to
"on" the net, if we don't hotfoot it down to the nana* groups, we end up
with postmaster complaints, UDPs, and machine-gun toting Bravers holding
our families for ransom. Erm, okay, maybe not that last one. ;-)
I *really* don't like the idea that if someone expresses an opinion
sufficiently different from the groupthink concensus they will get ignored
and shunned. Especially since this shunning does not extend to their
activities, just their defence of their activities.
--
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ ....Necessity is the plea for every........
| Andrew Nellis | . infringement of human freedom. It .
| bs...@freenet.carleton.ca | . is the argument of tyrants; it is .
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ ....the creed of slaves. [William Pitt]....
Rich Sauers
On Thu, 08 May 1997 00:35:24 GMT, chi...@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) wrote:
>On Wed, 07 May 1997 22:00:38 GMT, rsa...@enter.net (Rich
>Sauers) wrote:
>
>: Isn't it funny how the pundits keep telling us that ISPs don't want
>:incessant spamming taking up their disk space. Then, the mention is made of
>:cancelling this "off topic" crap outright and then the pundits tell us you
>:can't do that.
>
>Define off-topic.
Here we go yet again. ;>)
>So that nothing get censored.
Censorship exists only if *ALL* posts on *ALL* topics by any individual is
cancelled.
There is a newsgroup that constitutes the appropriate forum for every
message so it is not a matter of censorship, its just insisting that misplaced
messages be posted to that appropriate forum.
>Then come
>back, and everyone will be happy to implement it.
Guess you missed the growing "consensus" and, in some cases, limited
implementation of retromoderation in several newsgroups.
Rich.
Rich Sauers
On 8 May 1997 00:48:07 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
<dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>
>>On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:05:48 +0200 (MET DST), nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Isn't it funny how the pundits keep telling us that ISPs don't want
>>incessant spamming taking up their disk space. Then, the mention is made of
>>cancelling this "off topic" crap outright and then the pundits tell us you
>>can't do that.
>
>An off topic post takes up as much room as a on topic post. Spam (i.e.
>bi>20) takes up much more space then a single post.
You seem to be missing the point. Nobody is arguing about the differences
in news server space, though it just may be that the cumulative "off-topic"
crap takes up a significant amount of its own.
What is needed is to take the current UseLESSnet and return it to the former
Usenet ... and retromoderation is being put forward as a "temporary emergency
mesasure" in the same manner as the mega-cancellors have elected to issue
cancel messages.
>NoCeM is the correct resonce to off topic posts,
Laughable. You can count the number of ISPs using NoCeM's on one hand. Most
ISPs are unable to properly configure their software now.
>Kill files are the
>correct responce to off topic posts.
Killfiles do not work when spammers constantly change identifying
characteristics of their messages.
>Cancels are the correct responce to
>bi>20 and binaires.
The correct response is for news administrators to immediately change their
news servers to operate solely on NoCeM's, leaving the cancel-route for
authors cancelling their own messages.
Rich.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Nellis) writes:
>Stan Kalisch III (sjk...@crl.com) writes:
[...]
>What are we risking by trying retromoderation?
The global disabling of cancels.
Cancel wars.
Content based censorship.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>On Thu, 08 May 1997 00:35:24 GMT, chi...@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) wrote:
[...]
>>So that nothing get censored.
> Censorship exists only if *ALL* posts on *ALL* topics by any individual is
>cancelled.
So if every post I make about say, how sexy Shirly Mcloon is, are
cancelled I'm not being censored?
What if DRR starts posting again? Will he be canceled?
Rich Sauers
On 8 May 1997 13:20:35 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
<dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>
>>On Thu, 08 May 1997 00:35:24 GMT, chi...@ix.netcom.com (Jeff Vinocur) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>So that nothing get censored.
>
>> Censorship exists only if *ALL* posts on *ALL* topics by any individual is
>>cancelled.
>
>So if every post I make about say, how sexy Shirly Mcloon is, are
>cancelled I'm not being censored?
Do you mean that out of the tens of thousands of newsgroups there isn't a
single one in which your opinion of Shirly Mcloon's sexiness could not be
discussed.
And that since you can't find one you think it appropriate to post it to
newsgroups like alt.arts.origami (paper-folding), or alt.invest.penny-stocks
(stocks under $5 a share), or alt.comp.shareware (download software then pay
if you like it).
I've got an idea ...
WHY DON'T YOU POST IT HERE IN NEWS.ADMIN.NET-ABUSE.USENET.
Rich.
Rich Sauers
On 8 May 1997 13:08:12 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
<dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Nellis) writes:
>
>
>>Stan Kalisch III (sjk...@crl.com) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>What are we risking by trying retromoderation?
>
>The global disabling of cancels.
ISPs will immediately place purchase orders for hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of new servers so that they can efficiently maintain a complete
collection of crap.
>Cancel wars.
ISPs may finally learn how to configure their news software and switch to
NoCeM's, a means of selectively accepting third-party cancels which are
already riddled with abuse.
>Content based censorship.
There is NO censorship. A small percentage simply insist that it is their
right to post ANY message on ANY topic to ANY newsgroup they want.
Rich.
Mike Beebe
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} (dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au) wrote:
: The global disabling of cancels.
: Cancel wars.
: Content based censorship.
Death of the Usenet -- Film at 11:00
Mike Beebe
--
Rocky: Now here's a man who makes you think, Mr. Know-It-All!
Bullwinkle: And I know what you're thinking, too . . . Same to you!!
Sir Fluffy d'Meow
This is a Policy Issue. Followups have been set accordingly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <3371ea25...@news.enter.net>, rsa...@enter.net (Rich
Sauers) wrote:
: On 8 May 1997 13:08:12 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
: <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
:
: >bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Nellis) writes:
: >
: >
: >>Stan Kalisch III (sjk...@crl.com) writes:
: >
: >[...]
: >
: >>What are we risking by trying retromoderation?
: >
: >The global disabling of cancels.
:
: ISPs will immediately place purchase orders for hundreds of millions of
: dollars worth of new servers so that they can efficiently maintain a complete
: collection of crap.
ISPs may continue to maintan ever larger Servers, but what about the
University and other not-for-Profit Sites that still handle much of the
News Traffic? WIll they care to or be able to continue financing their
News Service?
: >Cancel wars.
:
: ISPs may finally learn how to configure their news software and switch to
: NoCeM's, a means of selectively accepting third-party cancels which are
: already riddled with abuse.
Why not direct your Efforts to making News Sites aware of the Benefits of
that Mechanism? Oh yes, 'tis easier to criticize than to act.
: >Content based censorship.
:
: There is NO censorship. A small percentage simply insist that it is their
: right to post ANY message on ANY topic to ANY newsgroup they want.
Winternet's Cancels are not Censorship? The Bogus Pseudosite Cancels were
not Censorship? Grubor's Cancels in the news.admin.* Newsgroups were not
Censorship? Celeste's Cancels in the unmoderated Adoption Newsgroups were
not Censorship? Hawaiian Heat's prohibited-keyword Cancels were not
Censorship?
Liar. Retromoderation by Hand in unmoderated Newsgroups is Wrong.
Mw.,
F.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv
Comment: Public Key http://world.std.com/~flufster/pgp-pubkey.asc
iQCVAwUBM3IOy8bziQAzdTzZAQFiWwQAzsbv4BxXSKXOg0cOQorGEbvXENuS3pQJ
AP1rhM3+lExJop8c6DugXkrjxU5/LUVlvcWSUou/vFpdNxPfczq6J1mHpph+5w7Q
LzQflv50Mj4eYHGQHj0PBDYHhGn9LlPj7JMjTReHMPr6AfeXMz2KkvQs5RwFE31F
sggyy+n5CeI=
=i/cz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gems - harmless and highly amusing! -Gareth Gee, on Meowers
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>On 8 May 1997 13:20:35 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
><dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
[...]
>>> Censorship exists only if *ALL* posts on *ALL* topics by any individual is
>>>cancelled.
>>
>>So if every post I make about say, how sexy Shirly Mcloon is, are
>>cancelled I'm not being censored?
> Do you mean that out of the tens of thousands of newsgroups there isn't a
>single one in which your opinion of Shirly Mcloon's sexiness could not be
>discussed.
Thats not what I said, if someone set up a bot to cancel every one of my
posts about Shirley McLoon by your resoning about I would not be being
sensored.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>On 8 May 1997 00:48:07 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
><dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>>
>>>On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:05:48 +0200 (MET DST), nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
>>>wrote:
[...]
> What is needed is to take the current UseLESSnet and return it to the former
>Usenet ... and retromoderation is being put forward as a "temporary emergency
>mesasure" in the same manner as the mega-cancellors have elected to issue
>cancel messages.
"temporary emergency mesasures" normaly become perminit.
>>NoCeM is the correct resonce to off topic posts,
> Laughable. You can count the number of ISPs using NoCeM's on one hand.
Well lobly your ISP, buy NoCeM compatable newsreaders.
> Most ISPs are unable to properly configure their software now.
Unfortunately this is true.
>>Kill files are the correct responce to off topic posts.
> Killfiles do not work when spammers constantly change identifying
>characteristics of their messages.
Well, make the on-topic posts have constent identifying charactistics.
>>Cancels are the correct responce to bi>20 and binaires.
> The correct response is for news administrators to immediately change their
>news servers to operate solely on NoCeM's, leaving the cancel-route for
>authors cancelling their own messages.
On this point we aggrey.
Rich Sauers
On 9 May 1997 00:02:33 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
<dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>
>>On 8 May 1997 13:20:35 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>><dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Censorship exists only if *ALL* posts on *ALL* topics by any individual is
>>>>cancelled.
>>>
>>>So if every post I make about say, how sexy Shirly Mcloon is, are
>>>cancelled I'm not being censored?
>
>> Do you mean that out of the tens of thousands of newsgroups there isn't a
>>single one in which your opinion of Shirly Mcloon's sexiness could not be
>>discussed.
>
>Thats not what I said, if someone set up a bot to cancel every one of my
>posts about Shirley McLoon by your resoning about I would not be being
>sensored.
Then we we misunderstand each other.
Certainly if all your messages on a particular topic were cancelled no
matter what newsgroup they were posted to, it would be censorship.
I am saying that there is certainly a newsgroup for which a message on any
topic is applicable and appropriate; in all other newsgroups it is "off-topic"
and would be subject to cancellation if posted to those newsgroups that
elected to implement retromoderation.
Rich.
Chris Baird
David Richards,
> As long as your posts to the a.t-t.* hierarchy have some distant relationship
> to TTA, you are in no danger from my manually issued cancels.
alt.tv.tiny-toon.fandom accepts topics that're only cursorily
connected to animation. Levitalone.
Anyone remember Paul Hendry? And the big fsckup when he started to
retromod these newsgroups back in '94?
--
Chris
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>On 8 May 1997 13:08:12 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
><dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
[...]
>>>What are we risking by trying retromoderation?
>>
>>The global disabling of cancels.
> ISPs will immediately place purchase orders for hundreds of millions of
>dollars worth of new servers so that they can efficiently maintain a complete
>collection of crap.
No thay will just incress the expires rate. Meany prominate newservers
(airnews for example) have alread done this for this reson. I infact
would shift to a so called site of virtue if there was one in my area and
thay didn't throttel NoCeMs.
[...]
>>Content based censorship.
> There is NO censorship. A small percentage simply insist that it is their
>right to post ANY message on ANY topic to ANY newsgroup they want.
Ok what happens when DRR starts posting his 'lititure' to
alt.tv.tiny-toon.* ? Is it on topic, possably. Will he be welcom, not
likely. Will peaple demand that he be canceneled definitly. Is he being
censored most likely.
David Richards
In article <863144207.970723@cabal>,
>> There is NO censorship. A small percentage simply insist that it is their
>>right to post ANY message on ANY topic to ANY newsgroup they want.
>
>Ok what happens when DRR starts posting his 'lititure' to
>alt.tv.tiny-toon.* ? Is it on topic, possably. Will he be welcom, not
>likely. Will peaple demand that he be canceneled definitly. Is he being
>censored most likely.
As long as he posts each section once and only once, I won't have any
problem with his material. in the .sex group, anyway.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>On 9 May 1997 00:02:33 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
><dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
[...]
> I am saying that there is certainly a newsgroup for which a message on any
>topic is applicable and appropriate; in all other newsgroups it is "off-topic"
>and would be subject to cancellation if posted to those newsgroups that
>elected to implement retromoderation.
And how dose one "elect" it seems that retromoderation was fusted apon
us.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
d...@ripco.com (David Richards) writes:
>In article <863144207.970723@cabal>,
>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
[...]
>>Ok what happens when DRR starts posting his 'lititure' to
>>alt.tv.tiny-toon.* ? Is it on topic, possably.
[...]
>As long as he posts each section once and only once, I won't have any
>problem with his material. in the .sex group, anyway.
Then what about .fandom? And I don't see why you are treating .sex as
real.
Rich Sauers
On 10 May 1997 02:44:11 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
<dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>
>>On 9 May 1997 00:02:33 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
>><dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> I am saying that there is certainly a newsgroup for which a message on any
>>topic is applicable and appropriate; in all other newsgroups it is "off-topic"
>>and would be subject to cancellation if posted to those newsgroups that
>>elected to implement retromoderation.
>
>And how dose one "elect" it seems that retromoderation was fusted apon
>us.
This is why when putting forward this proposal months ago I suggested a
weekly "posting guidelines" to be posted in those newsgroups that have elected
to implement retromoderation. These guidelines would be specific for that
particular newsgroup ... e.g., alt.comp.shareware may cancel all messages
request "cracks" that others use to deny shareware authors of their
registration fees.
I also envision something of an actual vote, though somewhat less stringent
than what is required to form a misc.* newsgroup, with a retromoderator (or
retromoderators -- note the plural -- if needed).
I was attacked on these very subjects then, and now there is unfortunately a
more chaotic approach in motion as several newsgroups are trying to take them
back from the spammers.
Rich.
Tim Skirvin
bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andrew Nellis) writes:
>Got another solution, Stan? I hear a lot of soapbox-standing about the
>evils of retromoderation, but all I hear by way of alternate solutions is
>a lot of hurrumphing about moderated newsgroups and kill files.
So?
I don't know how many people understand this, but lots of us put
the survival of Usenet above the survival of alt.sex.*. Maybe alt.sex is
dead - oh well, that won't justify the death of the rest of Usenet to us,
which is what allowing retromoderation of existing newsgroups would cause.
Lots of us support stricter rules, yes - I'm in favor of alt.sex.
cancel type newsgroups, where they're created pseudo-moderated and
*everything* is cancelled from them. I'm in favor of switching over to
the SBI, which would restrict crossposts much more heavily while still
allowing them to be useful. But I also think that the best short-term
solution to your problems is to make some new moderated newsgroups - hell,
make sex.* if you'd like, all robomoderated to make them spam-free.
What are we risking by retromoderation, you ask? The loss of
usefulness for cancels everywhere. A loss of the utility of spam cancels.
Possibly the destruction of the usefulness of moderated newsgroups, if
enough sites turn off cancels that moderators can't control their own
groups. And, of course, the more cancels we allow the closer we get to
Usenet Ragnarok, which, while Usenet would only really be down for a few
days, would change its face forever.
And those are just the major risks - nevermind the more subtle
'kikecancel' stuff...
Also, a simple return question: what are we going to *gain* by
retromoderation? Do you really think you'll be able to win alt.sex.*
back? Of course not - most of the spam in alt.sex.* is being cancelled
_now_, but the tide isn't being stopped because there's so much of it.
There isn't much you can do there that couldn't be done with a moderated
group that wouldn't involve a whole bunch of very broad and dangerous
auto-cancels.
Summary: you aren't going to save alt.sex.* with retromod. All
you're going to do is make life more challenging for the rest of Usenet,
which is not a Good Idea. Therefore, DON'T DO IT.
Got it?
(Note followups).
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a> <*>
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/daemons/">The Dungeon</a>
Rick Pikul
In article <5l1cok$b9e$1...@gail.ripco.com>, d...@ripco.com (David Richards) wrote:
{Alt.sex removed, at3.fandom added.}
>In article <863232245.273886@cabal>,
>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>>
{Foomph...}
>>>and would be subject to cancellation if posted to those newsgroups that
>>>elected to implement retromoderation.
>>
>>And how dose one "elect" it seems that retromoderation was fusted apon
>>us.
>
>By popular vote of the long-term users of the particular newsgroup involved?
And just how do you intend to determine who those are?
>
>
>>--
>>Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my
header.
>>Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. /\ /\ /\ Buy easter
>>Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ( X X ) bilbies.
>>I can't walk but I can fly. It's lucky to be ducky \/ \/ \/
>
>
Phoenix, FALH
David Richards
In article <863232245.273886@cabal>,
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>
>
>> I am saying that there is certainly a newsgroup for which a message on any
>>topic is applicable and appropriate; in all other newsgroups it is "off-topic"
>>elected to implement retromoderation.
>
>And how dose one "elect" it seems that retromoderation was fusted apon
>us.
By popular vote of the long-term users of the particular newsgroup involved?
>--
>Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
>Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. /\ /\ /\ Buy easter
>Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ( X X ) bilbies.
>I can't walk but I can fly. It's lucky to be ducky \/ \/ \/
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>On 10 May 1997 02:44:11 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
><dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
[...]
>>And how dose one "elect" it seems that retromoderation was fusted apon
>>us.
> This is why when putting forward this proposal months ago I suggested a
>weekly "posting guidelines" to be posted in those newsgroups that have elected
But alt.tv.tiny-toon didn't elect to have retromoderation, some person
just decided to implement it. We don't know what his guidlines are. He
is not basing it on the charter because the charter says that this
newsgroup is unmoderated.
Rich Sauers
On 11 May 1997 00:21:30 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
<dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>> This is why when putting forward this proposal months ago I suggested a
>>weekly "posting guidelines" to be posted in those newsgroups that have elected
>
>But alt.tv.tiny-toon didn't elect to have retromoderation, some person
>just decided to implement it. We don't know what his guidlines are. He
>is not basing it on the charter because the charter says that this
>newsgroup is unmoderated.
Sad to say, but the "experts" here in _net-abuse_ stated in several other
threads in recent months that newsgroup charters are NOT enforceable.
Rich.
MycroftBunny
> ><dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >>And how dose one "elect" it seems that retromoderation was fusted apon
> >>us.
>
> >weekly "posting guidelines" to be posted in those newsgroups that have elected
>
> But alt.tv.tiny-toon didn't elect to have retromoderation, some person
> just decided to implement it. We don't know what his guidlines are. He
> is not basing it on the charter because the charter says that this
> newsgroup is unmoderated.
I completely agree. If this guy outright asked if he could cancel spam
- and specify what he considers spam - I might possibly have voted for
it. But since said person just did it, without consideration for
others, I seriously doubt he could run a.t.t-t.* with the same kind of
consideration.
Stan Kalisch III
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
[alt.spam, which exists for discussion of the Hormel product, removed]
On Sun, 11 May 1997, Rich Sauers wrote:
> On 11 May 1997 00:21:30 GMT, ? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
> <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>
> >> This is why when putting forward this proposal months ago I suggested a
> >>weekly "posting guidelines" to be posted in those newsgroups that have elected
> >
> >But alt.tv.tiny-toon didn't elect to have retromoderation, some person
> >just decided to implement it. We don't know what his guidlines are. He
> >is not basing it on the charter because the charter says that this
> >newsgroup is unmoderated.
>
> Sad to say, but the "experts" here in _net-abuse_ stated in several other
> threads in recent months that newsgroup charters are NOT enforceable.
Charters are only enforceable if they have provisions for enforcement.
alt.sex.cancel is a good example of this.
Stan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key
iQCVAwUBM3bJ+pyiGl9g1kgJAQEWDgP/a0cYyYthnJ7oRcJdxFdcl4lXW0ANcepD
amW3POP5frzpsrracwOhul7btQwru6WrcK9FZmII5QY0u2FLx40shEX7hr+Yes6l
0TU1Z848k6X2vzmkk2IprJNeEhHRLuiIyQkPGmKibgj+4XvlSkUKErT+SJnn253g
7t41BBYCOMg=
=DU5E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
James Julian Thompson
Distribution:
Look, y not create a new group alt.tv.tiny-toon.moderated?
then, those who want *shit* could stay here, and those who care could
move to the moded group...
- A Life in Hell
David Richards
In article <863325761.460302@cabal>,
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>>>On Sat, 10 May 1997, Rich Sauers wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 May 1997 17:21:34 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>> Stan, Stan, Stan ...
>> I notice how you conveniently left out the fact that you cc'd a message here
>>in "net-abuse.usenet" to the postmaster of ripco.com in an effort to have
>>David Richards account cancelled.
>
>So what, David Richards is a net abuser and must be stopped. In fact I
>am going to sent email to his postmaster as well.
Feel free. I talk to my postmaster just about every day- when this started
up, I stopped by the office and mentioned what was going on.
Let's just say that he recognized some of the names of people involved :-)
>> I can only conclude that you actively support the concept that every
>>unmoderated newsgroup MUST include piles of crap in the form of EMP, MMF and
>>(unwanted) binaries in the BI < 20 category.
>
>We don't want crap as much as you do, but we dissagry on how this is
>achived. Its not the ends we dissagry on, its the means. And in most
>casers its the means that are more inportent.
And I'll gladly use any additional more acceptable means to eliminate the
crap, but I have no intention of abandoning these groups to spammers.
>>>> The folks in alt.tv.tiny-toon.* have had enough.
And when you get tired of people dumping their crap in your neighborhood,
and nobody wants to do anything about it, you should just move out and
found a new, safer neighborhood?
Bullshit.
(Sure, it sounds like a bad Bronson movie, but that doesn't make it wrong.)
>>>So *WHAT*? You support *tyranny* *of* *the* *majority*?
>
>> I support the concept of individual newsgroup's establishing guidelines of
>>what is acceptable in their newsgroup.
>
>So how do you satisfy this case where some of the members of the newsgroup
>don't whant it?
Funny how the same names keep cropping up here again and again, while the
people who actually use the newsgroups are just happy to see less spam.
For all the innocent bystanders care, the ends _DO_ justify the means.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
[Followups set]
d...@ripco.com (David Richards) writes:
>In article <863325761.460302@cabal>,
>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
[...]
>Let's just say that he recognized some of the names of people involved :-)
Infermy at last.
[...]
>>We don't want crap as much as you do, but we dissagry on how this is
>>achived. Its not the ends we dissagry on, its the means. And in most
>>casers its the means that are more inportent.
>And I'll gladly use any additional more acceptable means to eliminate the
>crap,
I have made repeated offers to help you migrate to NoCeMs.
[...]
>>So how do you satisfy this case where some of the members of the newsgroup
>>don't whant it?
>Funny how the same names keep cropping up here again and again, while the
>people who actually use the newsgroups are just happy to see less spam.
I am a person who actually uses alt.tv.tiny-toon.* I have been a poster
to att-t since I got onto the net. I web host the alt.tv.tiny-toon.fandom
FAQ.
Mycroftbunny and others have come out against you. You said you
would stop if one person asked you to stop, three have done so, so why
arn't you following your own rules.
>For all the innocent bystanders care, the ends _DO_ justify the means.
This line speeks for itself.
Rich Sauers
On 14 May 1997 05:40:23 GMT, d...@ripco.com (David Richards) wrote:
>In article <863325761.460302@cabal>,
>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote:
>>rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) writes:
>>>On Fri, 9 May 1997 20:25:36 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 10 May 1997, Rich Sauers wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 9 May 1997 17:21:34 -0700, Stan Kalisch III <sjk...@crl.com> wrote:
>>> Stan, Stan, Stan ...
>>> I notice how you conveniently left out the fact that you cc'd a message here
>>>in "net-abuse.usenet" to the postmaster of ripco.com in an effort to have
>>>David Richards account cancelled.
>>So what, David Richards is a net abuser and must be stopped. In fact I
>>am going to sent email to his postmaster as well.
>Feel free. I talk to my postmaster just about every day- when this started
>up, I stopped by the office and mentioned what was going on.
Glad to hear that.
>Let's just say that he recognized some of the names of people involved :-)
Their activities certainly do meet the dictionary's definition of c-a-b-a-l,
but we won't say that word aloud. ;>)
>>> I can only conclude that you actively support the concept that every
>>>unmoderated newsgroup MUST include piles of crap in the form of EMP, MMF and
>>>(unwanted) binaries in the BI < 20 category.
>>We don't want crap as much as you do, but we dissagry on how this is
>>achived. Its not the ends we dissagry on, its the means. And in most
>>casers its the means that are more inportent.
>And I'll gladly use any additional more acceptable means to eliminate the
>crap, but I have no intention of abandoning these groups to spammers.
Actually, a BI 10 would eliminate alot of it.
Richard Depew has reported that spam that doesn't quite reach a BI 20
threshold comprises a significant amount of Usenet traffic.
That thread ended rather quickly.
>>>>> The folks in alt.tv.tiny-toon.* have had enough.
>And when you get tired of people dumping their crap in your neighborhood,
>and nobody wants to do anything about it, you should just move out and
>found a new, safer neighborhood?
>Bullshit.
I quite agree.
ISP's news servers are already filled with crap, they cannot support the
creation of more newsgroups.
They are making decisions now ... dropping newsgroups, expiring binary
newsgroups after an hour or two ... just trying to cope with the flood of
crap.
>>>>So *WHAT*? You support *tyranny* *of* *the* *majority*?
>>> I support the concept of individual newsgroup's establishing guidelines of
>>>what is acceptable in their newsgroup.
>>So how do you satisfy this case where some of the members of the newsgroup
>>don't whant it?
>Funny how the same names keep cropping up here again and again, while the
>people who actually use the newsgroups are just happy to see less spam.
>For all the innocent bystanders care, the ends _DO_ justify the means.
Actually, there is something wrong with the web browsers used by some of the
"pundits" that somehow flips gif images, so when they check the CancelMoose
website and look at the chart they actually believe spam is on the decline.
And then they pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
Rich.
MycroftBunny
? the platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:
>
> 091...@bud.swin.edu.au (James Julian Thompson) writes:
>
> >Look, y not create a new group alt.tv.tiny-toon.moderated?
>
> would have my full support.
Yes! Put me down as a supporter too!
Now that that's voted on, who's gonna do it? Who's gonna run it? What
will be the first thread we're gonna talk about? TTBS'y stuff allowed,
or alt.tv.tiny-toon.(fandom|sex).moderated created? What's for lunch?
Wha- *WHAM* ow, thanks. =:)
Brian Sassounian
What's up?
Hey, I got a new webpage, it has some cool stuff, like:
* Music - Wavs, Midis, Guitar, Links
* Sex - Picts, Gifs, Jpgs, Movies, Links
* Hacking/Phreaking/Virus/Anarchy
* Free Stuff (really, free products)
Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
Follower of the Clawed Albino
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
(Note followups)
In article <3370fa31...@news.enter.net>,
rsa...@enter.net (Rich Sauers) carved on the cave wall:
> On Wed, 7 May 1997 21:05:48 +0200 (MET DST), nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
> wrote:
>
> >On 7 May 1997 01:14:47 -0400, afn2...@pop3.afn.org (Follower of the
> >Clawed Albino) wrote:
>
> >>However, retromoderating the group will only lead to the slow death of
> >>alt.* and Usenet as a whole.
> >
> >I'm sorry, but some large portions of the alt.* hierarchy are already
> >DEAD, and many more are headed that way.
>
> Isn't it funny how the pundits keep telling us that ISPs don't want
> incessant spamming taking up their disk space. Then, the mention is made of
> cancelling this "off topic" crap outright and then the pundits tell us you
> can't do that.
Rich, I and others have patiently tried to explain it to you before, and you
still do not get it...
Hence, I'll explain why Retromoderation Is A Really Bad Thing to our friend
at luc...@dhp.com as well as others involved in this, as it is very possible
they might not understand WHY this is a Bad Thing.
Basically, if you let one person retromoderate, you have to let everyone
retromod. And, UNLIKE FORMALLY MODERATED GROUPS, there are *no* formal
procedures--not in Usenet convention, not in the NNTP protocol--to insure
this cannot be abused by malicious parties.
To explain a bit for those who may be unfamiliar with some of the inner
workings of Usenet:
There are two main kinds of Usenet newsgroups, unmoderated and moderated.
With moderated groups, the posts go to a central address before ever being
posted on Usenet, and the spam and off-topic stuff is filtered out. These
posts will have an Approved: header, and no sites will accept posts to a
moderated group that don't have that header in them.
Usually with moderated groups, they pick the moderator in a vote. If the
moderator does Bad Things like blocking on-topic posts from folks he
simply doesn't agree with, he soon will find himself out of the job of
moderating (yes, there are provisions for dealing with moderator abuse).
In retromoderation, there are NO safeguards. Even assuming retromod
cancels must follow standard pseudosite conventions like spam cancels
(most spam cancels have something like !spamcancel at the end of the Path so
sites that don't like spam cancels don't have to take them), there is no
guarantee that someone will not start cancelling posts he doesn't like
for arbitrary reasons.
Even worse--and this is a risk that I've not seen anyone who supports
retromod cancels address--if retromod cancels are allowed, it legitimises
cancel abuse by malicious persons.
Right now, third-party cancellation is allowed if and ONLY if they follow
the rule that they only cancel stuff that is the same thing lots and lots
of times. This is a pretty good protection against persons abusing cancels;
it makes it easy to point out persons making malicious cancels as well.
If retromod cancels are allowed, this legitimises the abuses of several folks
who are abusing cancels now. For instance, the alt.religion.scientology
Cancelpoodles (which have cancelled anti-Scientology posts) can claim they
are merely "retromoderating" alt.religion.scientology; the unknown person
posing as mfra...@winternet.com who is cancelling every single article
in the entire news.* hierarchy on occasion can claim he is merely
retromoderating news.*.
Also, whose standards are to be used in retromoderation? You could very
easily get into serious cancellation wars among groups with controversial
subjects. (I do not want to think about what would happen if two different
groups decided to retromoderate, say, talk.abortion.) Which groups'
standards apply? (If someone crossposted a bit of adult fanfic about
Babs Bunny to alt.tv.tiny-toon and alt.sex.tiny-toon, does it stay? Keep
in mind the original poster DID state his intention to retromod all adult
material OUT of alt.tv.tiny-toon.) Whose FAQ would apply on what is
allowable? (To give a good example--there are no less than *seven* FAQs
for news.admin.net-abuse.misc alone. Groups under "meow brigade" type
invasions may have a spoof-FAQ done by the invading group. At least one
group I read prohibits .sigs over four lines--does this mean five-line
.sigs are cancellable?)
Lastly, what are your guarantees retromod cancels will work? If you use
a !retromod pseudosite, it is very likely that sites WILL alias out the
retromod cancels because of all the problems associated with retromoderation.
There are MUCH better solutions to the problem, which I will detail below.
> >In particular the alt.sex.* hierarchy, which I propose be entirely
> >restructured as follows:
> >
> >alt.sex.xxx-web-site-ads
> >alt.sex.phone-sex-ads
> >alt.sex.live-nude-girls-ads
> >alt.sex.misplaced-binaries
> >alt.sex.misplaced-binaries.ads
> >alt.sex.complaints-about-how-retromoderation-will-be-the-death-of-usenet
> >alt.sex.on-topic-posts-from-ordinary-users
> >
> >On second thought, you can scratch that last group. I no longer
> >think there's enough traffic to justify it.
FWIW, there are three or four different tactics to follow.
1) Use NoCeM. NoCeM is a "spam killfile" scheme devised originally to be
a replacement for Usenet spam cancellation, invented by the original
Usenet spam canceller at that. Among other things, it can be run on
ANY computer that has a perl client (perl is available for Windows)
and explicitly includes a retromoderation protocol. It can also be
applied to a news spool, if you maintain an ISP; you may want to strongly
consider this.
2) Form moderated (NOT retromoderated) groups. This *is* possible in alt.*,
and may well be a better solution, especially if combined with 3) or 3a).
3) Seriously consider moving the group. Most groups can find an equivalent
hierarchy in the "big 8". (As for the alt.sex.* groups, I'd expect
probably somewhere in rec.*, some in soc.* as well. There has been some
controversy regarding "adult" groups in the Big 8, however; it may well
be good to strongly consider the idea of a ninth major hierarchy named
adult.*.)
4) Start your own hierarchy. Yes, you can do this. :) It'd be trivial to
start a sex.* hierarchy; the trick will be getting other sites to carry
it. (If you go this route, you may want a centralised NNTP server to
remain open so folks can get a feed for sex.*. Several furry fans have
taken a similar tack, formed a furry.* hierarchy that is moderated, and
provide two servers for a feed for the group.)
Each has its advantages and disadvantages. 4), you'll be able to make
your own rules, but getting sites to carry it may be a problem. 2) and
3) may be easiest and best in the long run (you'll also get more "real"
traffic--many sites don't accept alt.* newgroups, and shy away from alt.
sex.* altogether because of its controversial nature). 1) will work
immediately, but you'll need to provide sources for clients or give
instructions on how to get sites to install NoCeM-on-spool.
> I posted a few messages several months ago regarding "newsgroup-focussed"
> spammers in the misc.invest.* newsgroups, most notably misc.invest.futures.
> At the time it was running about 60% spamvertisements, but the cross-posted
> messages from the "net-abuse" pundits provided the spammers with alot of
> encouragement and that particular newsgroup is now comprised of 80%
> spamvertisements.
> Spammers take great comfort in the BI numbers game being peddled by the
> "net-abuse" crowd.
1) We explained to you just WHY retromoderation is a Bad Thing. (FWIW,
Rich has refused to listen--even when shown examples--and continues to
beat a dead horse.)
2) If the majority of admins thought retromoderation was workable, we'd
have had it a long time ago.
3) Please show evidence that "spammers take comfort in the BI".
FWIW to the alt.sex.* folks--last I checked (a long time ago :), there were
~100+ alt.sex.* groups. I would be willing to bet that a fair amount of
stuff there is ALREADY over BI, and is not being detected for some reason
or another by spam-cancellers. (Many have noted to me that their feed of
alt.* is not the best in the world.)
A possible solution may be to find someone on the net.abuse groups or in
the alt.sex.* hierarchy who is reasonably familiar with net.abuse issues
AND has a full feed. (Several sites, such as airnews.net and alt.net,
suffice very nicely for this at low cost.) Advise those folks to talk to
the major spam-cancellers about possibly lending a hand on nuking spam in
the alt.sex.* hierarchy, or possibly even all of alt.*.
> Rich.
- --
- -Windigo The Feral (NYAR!)
Fight the Woodside Literary Agency! Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP fund
<http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund> * Boycott Internet
Spam Now! <http://spam.abuse.net/spam> * <this space available to let>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBM3o1Oz0Jz30h6bOhAQHAsgQAsGDVvDeMMwiHi4Ar8ayXbs4Iadx5TYM/
GTxBkzg0rnxWnaApAL1ZFG1lKoeM3Xuz5SedJJhDADFPXSUYRgALZJvngYvCkCNs
BRzdnliLx8MtrYJP+TcFZbIO2qVqKt+BlyLrS6RezS7A87NJoWVuW5gwVH10chLP
H2mr8MOW3rQ=
=V2YD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chris Baird
David Formosa,
>> Ok what happens when DRR starts posting his 'lititure' to
>> likely. Will peaple demand that he be canceneled definitly. Is he being
>> censored most likely.
David Richards,
> As long as he posts each section once and only once, I won't have any
> problem with his material. in the .sex group, anyway.
Already has. It was welcomed to .fandom, archived on lisa, and funnily
enough, after we got Paul Hendry to stop going "huh!huh!cancel!cancel!
hyperventilate!censor!censor!johnnycarson!fatcat!fatcat!arrgggghhhhhh!!!!!",
we never had any problems.
(Honestly/unfortunately, "The Mortimer Story" it's a better read than
90% of the other tta-fanfics out there... :/
--
Chris
Chris Baird
Shut the fuck up, Richards.
--
Chris
Steve and good ol' Bob Dole
Chris Baird wrote:
>
> Shut the fuck up, Richards.
Sorry. ;)
_____________________________________________________________________
Steve Allen Richards | Things you don't hear every day #29
<cawdor (at) sgi (dot) net> | "Nevermind, I *found* my virginity."
----------------------------/|\--------------------------------------
news:alt.fan.sailor-moon / \ (*****************************)
news:alt.tv.tiny-toon / ŚŹţ \ (***************************)