UUNet UDP In Force
Doug Mackall
In article <5ru11m$i...@feedme.news.iswest.net>, how...@iswest.com
says...
> Doktor DynaSoar Iridium (DynaSoar@@YGRI.net) wrote:
>
> : Effective immediately there is a Usenet Death Penalty (UDP) imposed on
> : UUNet originated traffic to usenet. All traffic coming from these sources
> : is to be canceled until further notice. Only traffic originating from
> : UUnet (including Alterdial) is being targeted for cancellation.
>
> Cancel bot configured and going strong! :) I am in full support of this
> UDP.
>
> Thanks Doktor!
>
> Howard
Uh, me too?
Don't know how else to show my support.
Not one, but _two_ bots sloggin away as I type.
Tireless little fellows, those bots.
Hey UU! Wake the fuck up!
You've hit 'snooze' once too often.
Doug (sick of 439) Mackall
--
mailto: spam...@pacbell.net
Howard K. Knight
Ricardo Hector Gonzales
Doktor DynaSoar Iridium (DynaSoar@@YGRI.net) wrote:
: Effective immediately there is a Usenet Death Penalty (UDP) imposed on
: UUNet originated traffic to usenet. All traffic coming from these sources
: is to be canceled until further notice. Only traffic originating from
: UUnet (including Alterdial) is being targeted for cancellation.
Usenet Death Penalty (UPD)!!!! Some people might wonder why you're
trying to kill Usenet though. Why not avoid forging cancel messages
that result in censoring useful traffic?
--
-Ric G.
Official FAQ Maintainer - news.admin hierarchy
"Of all the sins with which a man defiles himself in this world, this is the
sin with which he is most defiled." - M Shabbat 2:6
Lysander Spooner
On 1 Aug 1997 21:08:59 -0400, DynaSoar@@YGRI.net (Doktor DynaSoar
Iridium) wrote:
>Effective immediately there is a Usenet Death Penalty (UDP) imposed on
>UUNet originated traffic to usenet. All traffic coming from these sources
>is to be canceled until further notice. Only traffic originating from
>UUnet (including Alterdial) is being targeted for cancellation.
It's sad that it had to come to this.
I'll be actively supporting/enforcing the UDP with all the resources I
can muster. My bots are running as I type.
The true extent of UUnet's negligence boggles the mind!
-- Rick "Lysander Spooner" Buchanan
<buch...@gate.cybernex.net>
------------------------------------------------------------
** Spam IS Censorship! **
Unknown News Administrator
DynaSoar@@YGRI.net (Doktor DynaSoar Iridium) writes:
>If the complaints from all across the net are ignored, then it's only
>fair that UUNet be ignored all across the net. All traffic originating
>from UUNet will be canceled until they show a substantial improvement in
>reducing the amount of spam from their system.
This is fine by me. Speaking as a .gov newsadmin, I'm tired of wasting
our network bandwidth on indiscriminately posted ads by spammers. (As
one of the TV newscasters might say, "It's *your* bandwidth.")
I'm not issuing UDP cancels, but news.msfc.nasa.gov is now refusing
UUNet-originated posts.
If 200,000 junk posts *per day* from one site is not net abuse, what is?
--
J. Porter Clark, d/b/a
+--+
|oo| The Unknown News Administrator
| | ne...@news.msfc.nasa.gov
`^^'
Rahul Dhesi
The appended saved posting, describing Spread Spectrum UDP,
might be of interest.
|Date: 11 Feb 1997 07:23:27 GMT
|From: dh...@40510178.trackme.com (Rahul Dhesi)
|Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
|Message-Id: <5dp6pf$b...@samba.rahul.net>
|Subject: Re: Spam report: Superlink.net, 10 Feb 97 (557 posts, BI = 2298.27)
|
|In <howardkE...@netcom.com> how...@netcom.com (Howard Knight) writes:
|
|>Soon (maybe REAL soon) some brazen asshole out there will start
|>canceling each and every post from <site>...In each and every
|>newsgroup! The ultimate UDP!
|
|I am NOT proposing a UDP against any specific site in this posting.
|With this caveat, read on.
|
|A conventional cancel-based UDP makes the canceller an easy target of
|harassment, complaints, and lawsuits.
|
|Let me propose a mechanism to be called Spread Spectrum UDP, or SS-UDP.
|It's very simple and uses guerilla techniques.
|
|First pick a SS-UDP level, the level being a small integer between
|approximately 10 and 50. This integer should be roughly equal to the
|number of people issuing cancels. Call it L. For a very rogue site,
|you might have a level-50 SS-UDP involving about 50 people posting
|cancel messages.
|
|Each time we see an article from the rogue site we generate a random
|number, and send a cancel message with probability 1/L. So for a
|level-50 SS-UDP each person participating sends cancels for about 2% of
|the postings.
|
|There will be some duplication, which makes life interesting: It's now
|impossible to be sure exactly who canceled a specific posting where.
|(Yeah, he sent a cancel message, but the posting was already
|cancelled...)
|
|Who will they sue?
|--
|Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
|a2i communications, a quality ISP with sophisticated anti-junkmail features
|NEWSFLASH: netcom.general burst into flame! See: http://www.rahul.net/dhesi/
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Jeremy
Doug Mackall <spam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Cancel bot configured and going strong! :) I am in full support of this
>> UDP.
>
>Uh, me too?
>
>Don't know how else to show my support.
>Not one, but _two_ bots sloggin away as I type.
>Tireless little fellows, those bots.
I have only one, but luckily she can cancel much faster than UUNET
can spew. Thousands so far. I urge all admins to block all Usenet
traffic from UUNET.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
"Never tell me the odds." --Han Solo
Joe Greco
In news.admin.net-abuse.usenet article <rnn4zwW9...@YGRI.net>, un...@sputum.com wrote:
:Effective immediately there is a Usenet Death Penalty (UDP) imposed on
:UUNet originated traffic to usenet. All traffic coming from these sources
:is to be canceled until further notice. Only traffic originating from
:UUnet (including Alterdial) is being targeted for cancellation.
It's a shame it has to come to this. However, having watched the
escalation of spam in recent months, I am apparently not the only
one who is deeply concerned by it.
Usenet is a cooperative medium, and when someone stops cooperating,
there is a problem. UUNet used to be a major player in the Usenet
and Internet games, but recent events have suggested that they are
not interested in being a good neighbor anymore.
I am frustrated by all the bandwidth my transport servers consume
moving spam around. It takes equipment resources and network band-
width, commodities which cost real, hard money. I'm not complaining
about the one misplaced post by a well-intentioned-but-misguided
individual. That's fine, it's part of life and the Usenet learning
process. I'm talking about the major spammers who don't give a shit
about Usenet.
Let's see.
436558 Path: uunet!not-for-mail
309980 Path: uunet!not-for-mail
239116 Path: uunet!not-for-mail
60207 Path: uunet!not-for-mail
This is clearly ridiculous. Those are four different spams, all
consisting of apparently similar contents, and without even trying
hard I have over A MILLION messages logged as spam. I'm not going
to bother looking harder. One of the despammer gods has better stats,
I'm sure.
I am saddened that UUNet is unable to take responsibility for the
actions of its users. However, that is not an excuse. If I find
that I have a problem that I do not have a solution for, I am forced
to engineer a new solution. Making excuses does not cut it.
I personally found the attitude of "UUNET Customer Liaison" in
Message-ID: <8roc28$b...@news1.alterdial.uu.net> to be totally
unacceptable. Encouraging an outside party to do your dirty work
for you is very, very low. If you don't have the manpower and
resources to deal with the situation, that's a problem that can
be solved: hire more people and develop more resources.
I am convinced that UUNet is no longer interested in being a major
player and good neighbor. Profit is good, but at what cost?
I would like to reiterate (once again) how much I, as one of those
who actually have to keep things running do appreciate the efforts
of the despammers - and I'm sure I speak for other news admins too.
Please keep up the good work.
Joe Greco
sol.net Network Services
Milwaukee, WI
Jeffrey (Prime) Smith
On 2 Aug 1997 05:24:58 GMT, ric...@primus.paranoia.com (Ricardo
Hector Gonzales) wrote:
>Tell both of your friends and you might have three people issuing the
>Usenet Death Penalty (UPD)!!!! Some people might wonder why you're
>trying to kill Usenet though. Why not avoid forging cancel messages
>that result in censoring useful traffic?
I will not flame the idiot...I will not flame the idiot...
**** **** **** ****
Fight the Woodside Literary Agency!
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP fund
http://www.geocities.com/~hitchcockc/story.html#fund
If you like spam, you'll love neil...@swbell.net
Bill Haverberg
On 2 Aug 1997 05:17:29 GMT, c.c....@17.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi)
wrote:
>The appended saved posting, describing Spread Spectrum UDP,
>might be of interest.
>
>|Date: 11 Feb 1997 07:23:27 GMT
>|From: dh...@40510178.trackme.com (Rahul Dhesi)
>|Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>|Message-Id: <5dp6pf$b...@samba.rahul.net>
>|Subject: Re: Spam report: Superlink.net, 10 Feb 97 (557 posts, BI = 2298.27)
>|
>|In <howardkE...@netcom.com> how...@netcom.com (Howard Knight) writes:
>|
>|Each time we see an article from the rogue site we generate a random
>|number, and send a cancel message with probability 1/L. So for a
>|level-50 SS-UDP each person participating sends cancels for about 2% of
>|the postings.
>|
>|There will be some duplication, which makes life interesting: It's now
>|impossible to be sure exactly who canceled a specific posting where.
>|(Yeah, he sent a cancel message, but the posting was already
>|cancelled...)
>|
>|Who will they sue?
>|--
Everyone involved, using the market-share theory [the same one that
failed against the lead-paint producers but is succeeding against the
tobacco companies].
They could also nail you on conspiracy, and bring in RICO laws, which
were designed to go after criminal enterprises such as the mafia.
This assumes, of course, that cancel messages are found to be illegal.
Given the historical good they have served and generally responsible
usage I doubt this, but certain applications of them may well be. For
example, cancelling binaries in a non-binary newsgroup would likely be
found legal, but UDP may not be.
Join the coalition against Unsolicited Commercial EMail
http://www.cauce.org
Bob Code KPpd lw ECSTW!d++++ m1 CPIVW B6 Ou Lp SC++++ T+ A6L H6o b2 D0
Jeffrey (Prime) Smith
On 1 Aug 1997 21:08:59 -0400, DynaSoar@@YGRI.net (Doktor DynaSoar
>Effective immediately there is a Usenet Death Penalty (UDP) imposed on
>UUNet originated traffic to usenet. All traffic coming from these sources
>is to be canceled until further notice. Only traffic originating from
>UUnet (including Alterdial) is being targeted for cancellation.
<snip>
There is a Wired article on this at:
www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/5732.html
I wish the Usenet Gods the best of luck, and if UUNet is stupid enough
to sue I will gladly be willing to donate to the legal defense fund
A. Nonamus
In article <5s05co$t86$1...@earth.execpc.com>,
Joe Greco <jgr...@ns.sol.net> wrote:
>I am saddened that UUNet is unable to take responsibility for the
>actions of its users.
I came to this conclusion months ago, and am blacklisting (i.e., refusing
to accept) email with "ms.uu.net" and "wcom.uu.net" anywhere in the header.
I tried dealing with the UUNet customer support/spam people, and it was clear
that they're so overwhelmed they just don't care.
Reminds me of the frazzled mom with 4 kids that are all running roughshod
over everything, "Stop that!", and the kid goes on. "I told you, stop that!!"
and the kid ignores the mom. "Johnny, stop that, I mean it. Now!!!"
And the little bastid goes on, knocking things over, ignoring his mom.
This isn't just UUNET (although I think they established the pattern),
but also PSI, AOL, Compuserve, Worldnet.ATT.NET, etc. None of them either
can or want to do anything to stop the abuse.
Recently Ern...@Worldnet.ATT.NET tried to send me a bungled SPAM message,
with 1940 explicit Bcc: addresses. When I called ATT to complain, they told
me that Ernie63 had already racked up one warning, and they were sure gonna
give him a 2nd warning over this one, fer sure!
If these ISPs didn't have Luebner's Disease [reference to SNL skit with
Bill Murray and Jane Curtin, "Poor Mr. Luebner, he had no spine"],
the internet would be in wonderful shape, thank you..
What the ISPs need to start doing is growing a spine. When UUNet or PSI
or Compuserve or Worldnet.ATT.NET file their first few lawsuits against
subscribers for breach of contract regarding spamming, things will get
real quiet, real quick. But it takes an industry that wants to clean
itself up, and that isn't the case with the ISP industry today. They all
think they can compete with ISPAM.NET in providing service to spammers
while providing service to mainline users. We need to find ways to tell
them they must make a decision, and let them know that they can either be
with us or against us, but not both.
Recently another customer of my ISP (Monumental Network Systems) sent me
a junk mail message advertising their Initial Public (stock) Offering.
(Imagine that, they think I'm dumb enough to invest my money with someone
that STEALS my computer resources with junk mail advertising!).
At first MNS was reticent to do anything about it (they don't have any
policy against it, yadda, yadda), until I told them they were going to lose
a customer, one way or the other. Either me, or the spammer. They checked
their logs, and y'know what, he had been sending out quite a bit of junk mail.
I recently signed up for another six months, but during that time I
intend to lobby them for a clear statement of spammer policy, or else
I start looking.
We're not an ISP, and so I have a remarkable degree of freedom. I can
block mail from ms.uu.net and wcom.uu.net and worldnet.att.net and
compuserve.com, and it doesn't affect our bottom line in any way.
And so I do.
I realize I've been talking about junk mail and not junk news postings,
and I'm distressed by that, too. And the solution is the same.
Once a major ISP files a suit against one of its junk-posting customers,
then things will start getting better.
One other thing that bothers me about news is the spate of direct postings
to moderated newsgroups. Doesn't the news software enforce this anymore?
>
>I would like to reiterate (once again) how much I, as one of those
>who actually have to keep things running do appreciate the efforts
>of the despammers - and I'm sure I speak for other news admins too.
>Please keep up the good work.
Amen. As far as local ISPs that appear to be doing the right stuff,
I'd like to commend Digex and Clark..
Anon.
Edward A. Falk
In article <5s009n$t98$1...@news1.exit109.com>,
Jeremy <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>I have only one, but luckily she can cancel much faster than UUNET
>can spew. Thousands so far. I urge all admins to block all Usenet
>traffic from UUNET.
Seconded. Shunning is better than cancelling, because there's less
traffic that way. No spam arriving at your system followed by cancels.
For information on shunning, see
http://spam.abuse.net/spam/tools/newsblock.html
I hear from Best's admins that 1/3 of all netnews traffic is spam, 1/3
is spam cancels and 1/3 is legitimate traffic. My own numbers show
that uunet is half the total spam. If you alias out uunet and the
uunet udp cancels, you'll cut your network load by a third right there.
--
-ed falk -- fa...@falconer.vip.best.com ***************
If there's ever a nuclear holocaust, the only things *****#*********
left alive afterward will be cockroaches and spammers **#*#*********
-- Dan Gillmor, Mercury News ***F******!***
S.P.
You are certainly a slimy and pithy dinosaur, Doctor. My .sig is meant
for SPEWTUM SLIME such as you, you sorry son of a bitch and robot gaming
kook. Tell me where to find you, so that I may visit you, and we may
discuss our differences, you worthless nut of a man.
Dr. DynaSORE's .sig reads:
> --
> Unit 4, SubGenius Police, Usenet Tactical Units, Mobile (SPUTUM)
> SubGenius Tactical Online Message Poster (STOMP) Squadron
> This *IS* the Public Relations Department. Got a problem with that?
> "Give me a fast modem, for I intend to go in harm's way."
S.P.'s .sig is meant for bores like Dr. DynaSORE:
--
"I hate and shun the profane crowd.
Be silent! I, priest of the Muses,
sing for maidens and youths
songs never heard before."
Mark Tarka
In article <33E540...@by.posting.please>, "S.P." <re...@by.posting.please> writes:
>You are certainly a slimy and pithy dinosaur, Doctor. My .sig is meant
>S.P.'s .sig is meant for bores like Dr. DynaSORE:
>--
>"I hate and shun the profane crowd.
>Be silent! I, priest of the Muses,
>sing for maidens and youths
>songs never heard before."
If you base the argument on .sigs...
...you're a _NUT_ lil' buddy :-)
Hey..._you_ chose the context!
Mark gmt...@msu.oscs.montana.edu msu-bozeman USA
(Just what is this all about, anyway?)
Keith M. Lucas
In article <33e41e68...@news.visi.com>,
You are assuming that the people and machines involved are in the
US.. and if UDP is declared illegal, then the US government will
simply be removing its citizens ability to defend themselves --
they'll then have to step in and make the ISPs behave responsibly, or
the US will be dropped off net by the rest of the world as being,
internetedly, a land without law or legal right of reply.
----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
"It's not a personality.. it's a bulldozer" | Current project: Computer
sillywiz at excession dot demon dot co dot uk | wargaming's next generation...
----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
IQ test in my email address. Humans can solve it to reply, spambots can't (yet)
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
For best results, view this with Linux. | Support death penalty for spammers !
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
David Bromage
Doktor DynaSoar Iridium (DynaSoar@@YGRI.net) wrote:
>Effective immediately there is a Usenet Death Penalty (UDP) imposed on
>UUNet originated traffic to usenet.
A rather belated followup, but necessary to say thanks to those involved
in the active UDP. I haven't seen a single alterdial sex spam since the
weekend. Keep up the good work!
David
David Ross
You have truly shown the way. But which way?
You have set an example of suppressing newsgroup messages over which you
have no legal authority, not merely messages that are inappropriate but
all messages from a particular ISP. Next year (an elections year), we
might see another group launch a UDP against an ISP that seems to have
an excess of Democrats or (alternatively) Republicans. How about a UDP
by Moslems against an ISP the carries a significant amount of Israeli
traffic? How about an ISP secretly recruiting hooligans like you to
launch a UDP against a competing ISP?
Sure, you are only attacking commercial spam. But you have shown others
how top attack anything they don't like, how to interfere with the rest
of us who want to choose for ourselves what we read in these newsgroups.
--
David E. Ross
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6727
(I keep changing it, so visit again.)
Spark The Heretic
Dave Hayes wrote:
>
> Keith M. Lucas wrote:
> > You are assuming that the people and machines involved are in the
> > US.. and if UDP is declared illegal, then the US government will
> > simply be removing its citizens ability to defend themselves --
[...]
> In fact, this is not the case.
>
> As long as you see Spam as an attack, you will be doomed to fight
> your wars until your death. If you remove the effect of Spam on
> your psyche, it will not bother you.
I'd prefer to remove the spam.
It is a bother, a pain in the ass, and a doorway for businesses to
sodomize your time and mass storage space.
If spammers are willing to PAY EVERY LAST SERVER to have their "message"
propagated throughout the 'net, I wouldn't have an objection. As it is,
you haven't a right to demand access to everyone's servers, just the one
server you did pay to get access to. With the UUNet UDP, you still get
all the access to uu.net you want; no one's restricting that. You just
don't get anywhere else until everyone else is satisfied that UUNet
really wants to clean up their act.
Ever wonder why folks prefer DSS over regular TV? One great big hint:
Commercials. That's what attraced people to cable when it first came out
too...there wasn't any commercials.
> For the record, I have never seen this many Cabal people strive
> to control something they cannot.
I dunno...the spam has literally fallen off the face of the earth as far
as many groups are concerned....sounds mighty successful to me.
Market forces at work and all that...try not to cry when it turns
against you.
> I do not think...
That covers a spammer's raison d'etre nicely.
--
http://www.spark.org/
----------------------------------------------------
"I have no sexual relations"
-Big Daddy Zeus in <33DE96...@ix.netcom.com>
Jay Denebeim
>You have set an example of suppressing newsgroup messages over which you
>have no legal authority, not merely messages that are inappropriate but
>all messages from a particular ISP. Next year (an elections year), we
>might see another group launch a UDP against an ISP that seems to have
>an excess of Democrats or (alternatively) Republicans. How about a UDP
>by Moslems against an ISP the carries a significant amount of Israeli
>traffic? How about an ISP secretly recruiting hooligans like you to
>launch a UDP against a competing ISP?
This is *NOT* the first UDP that has been issued.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim, Moderator, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
Dan Goodman
>
>have no legal authority, not merely messages that are inappropriate but
>all messages from a particular ISP. Next year (an elections year), we
>might see another group launch a UDP against an ISP that seems to have
>an excess of Democrats or (alternatively) Republicans. How about a UDP
>by Moslems against an ISP the carries a significant amount of Israeli
>traffic? How about an ISP secretly recruiting hooligans like you to
>launch a UDP against a competing ISP?
How about most administrators having brains -- and using them to _decide_
whether to go along with someone's call for a UDP?
>Sure, you are only attacking commercial spam. But you have shown others
>how top attack anything they don't like, how to interfere with the rest
>of us who want to choose for ourselves what we read in these newsgroups.
So -- you're saying that if a UDP is called, every other ISP will
_automatically_ go along with it? No matter what the reason?
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Daniel Damouth
I think a more important point is that if a UDP was called on
Democrats and a lot of ISPs agreed and joined in, it would be perfectly
legal. Of course this is purely a thought experiment, since it
has no chance of ever happening.
If you're going to argue that it's illegal, you should quote the law
you think would be violated. One doesn't need 'legal authority'
over a machine to send a message to it. The receiver can decide
to accept messages from whatever sources it wants, and it can
also decide to follow or not follow the advice of any messages
it receives (such as cancels).
-Dan
John Schilling
David Ross <ros...@acm.org> writes:
>You have truly shown the way. But which way?
>You have set an example of suppressing newsgroup messages over which you
>have no legal authority, not merely messages that are inappropriate but
>all messages from a particular ISP. Next year (an elections year), we
>might see another group launch a UDP against an ISP that seems to have
>an excess of Democrats or (alternatively) Republicans. How about a UDP
>by Moslems against an ISP the carries a significant amount of Israeli
>traffic? How about an ISP secretly recruiting hooligans like you to
>launch a UDP against a competing ISP?
Not likely, at least "next year". This sort of thing takes a fair degree
of skill, organization, and resources to pull off, and usenet is not
exactly a likely breeding ground for *competent* political conspiracies.
In the long run? Yeah, sooner or later somene is going to try to pull
something like this. They might even get away with it. Once. For
maybe a week or two.
The "UDP", in its current form, works only because most sysadmins accept
unauthenticated cancels. Most sysadmins accept unauthenticated cancels
only because such are almost invariably either generated by the original
poster, or generated by somebody seeking to remove only those types of
posts the sysadmin strongly disapproves of - and about the only type
of post you can get any three sysadmins to agree justifies such cancellation
is spam.
The moment some hypothetical conspiracy tries to implement a UDP for
political reasons, sysadmins in general will stop accepting the kind
of unauthenticated cancels which make the UDP work in the first place.
Maybe not all of them, but enough. Which may pose a problem in that
it could eliminate the UDP in its current form as an anti-spam weapon,
but not in that it would enable continued censorship of usenet.
>Sure, you are only attacking commercial spam. But you have shown others
>how top attack anything they don't like, how to interfere with the rest
>of us who want to choose for ourselves what we read in these newsgroups.
They have shown others only a single mechanism, which is at present a
useful, if temporary, spam-fighting tool, and which ceases to work at
all as soon as it is misused for political censorship. In the long
term, more robust anti-spam measures will need to be considered. But
we don't have them now, and we do have the UDP v1.0 now, and the problem
with uunet exists now.
--
* John Schilling, Moderator, rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.cary.nc.us *
* personal contact address: schi...@spock.usc.edu *
Dave Hayes
David Ross wrote:
> Sure, you are only attacking commercial spam. But you have shown others
> how top attack anything they don't like, how to interfere with the rest
> of us who want to choose for ourselves what we read in these newsgroups.
Well said Sir!
I had been pointing this out -years- ago, but no one listened then. Apparently
it takes demonstration for humans to learn much...
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Reporter (n.) - 1. A cat waiting at a mousehole.
Dave Hayes
Spark The Heretic wrote:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
> > Keith M. Lucas wrote:
> > > You are assuming that the people and machines involved are in the
> > > US.. and if UDP is declared illegal, then the US government will
> > > simply be removing its citizens ability to defend themselves --
> > your wars until your death. If you remove the effect of Spam on
> > your psyche, it will not bother you.
> I'd prefer to remove the spam.
Of course you would. The question is, is it honorable and does this
set a precedent which will be used to the net's detriment in the future?
> It is a bother, a pain in the ass, and a doorway for businesses to
> sodomize your time and mass storage space.
I marvel at people addressing symptoms as a problem.
Have you ever thought about -why- the nature of businesses is to
attempt such things?
It's the same reason (ultimately) that religions seek to cancel each
other out...
> If spammers are willing to PAY EVERY LAST SERVER to have their "message"
> propagated throughout the 'net, I wouldn't have an objection.
I'm not so sure. Isn't your objection that you have to -see- this stuff?
If spammers paid for their spam, I'd suspect they'd have an issue with you
not seeing it.
> As it is, you haven't a right to demand access to everyone's servers, just the one
> server you did pay to get access to. With the UUNet UDP, you still get
> all the access to uu.net you want; no one's restricting that. You just
> don't get anywhere else until everyone else is satisfied that UUNet
> really wants to clean up their act.
This is Net.terrorism at its worst. What will you do when you support some
idea that several server admins vehemently oppose, and they UDP -you-?
My disagreement with the UDP is more based on the idea that a group of
Cabal type (see my FAQ for proper definition) admins can get together
and enforce their ideas of right and wrong by running cancelbots.
> > For the record, I have never seen this many Cabal people strive
> > to control something they cannot.
> I dunno...the spam has literally fallen off the face of the earth as far
> as many groups are concerned....sounds mighty successful to me.
So what will you have censored next?
> Market forces at work and all that...try not to cry when it turns
> against you.
It's not against -me-. I am insulated from such crap.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
Fool (n.) - 1. A person trying to be honest with the dishonest.
Fred Trottelhauer
Since Andy Gierth so kindly posted parts of my article along with replies
after it was eaten by the UDP-inspired cancellers, I thought I would post
the original so that the whole text is available - the partial material
left some things out. Newsgroups trimmed following the quite appropriate
indications of excessive crossposting.
In <33ea0fad...@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, jmr...@ix.netcom.com
(Joel Rubin) writes:
>Well, I have yet to see a post from an alterdial news server which was
>a legitimate attempt to add to discussion on a discussion newsgroup.
I post from alterdial, and my posts are _always_ on-topic.
This smells awfully like something inspired by the example (if not the
direct involvement) of those chickenfucking faggots(1) Grubor, Boursy and
Allisat in their unceasing attempts to lame UUnet and the other evil
Kaba1 Kompon3nts - amusing that their original beef was that thuh Kabal
wasn't impressed with their argument that they should be able to post any
flaccid, candyassed, I'll-suck-yours-if-you-suck-mine "reconstructed"
sociopolitical swill they felt like into any newsgroup they felt like
because it was socially fashionable (or, euphemistically, politically
correct - social fashionability is what it's really about there). The
original spam fags(1) are complaining about spam...
I don't frankly give a shit whether or not this was inspired by
Gruboursisat and/or the Connected cocksuckers they're lackeys of. There
has been no content so far substantiating the claims against UUnet; it'll
take a bunch to show that this is not just another pindicked political
maneuver by the sociopolitical "alternative" orthodoxy attempting to
infest the net to have their little pipsqueak voices heard. First posting
of mine that gets a cancel attempt wins the canceller(s) a few free phone
calls to people in Important Positions who Know How Things Work (don't
say that last phrase to the Gruboursisat crowd, it'll give them a
hardon).
And before you suggest that I change ISPs, go fuck yourself.
Chickenshit wannabees.
Cheers,
Fred
(1) faggot: used here without connotations of sexual orientation, in its
pure derogatory form to indicate someone who has unresolved dependency
issues with group-derived power. Or, as I put it more succinctly before,
someone who gets a little stiffie of their own while they're sucking the
shit out of their "daddy"'s asshole.
When I hear the words 'Connected', 'Trust' and 'Under Control',
I reach for my revolver.
If UNIX is the revenge of the nerds, the rest of the industry is the
football team and the cheerleading squad trying to produce a science
project, and expecting an 'A' because they're the football team and
the cheerleading squad.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jim Hill
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> David Ross wrote:
> > Sure, you are only attacking commercial spam. But you have shown others
> > how top attack anything they don't like, how to interfere with the rest
> > of us who want to choose for ourselves what we read in these newsgroups.
>
> Well said Sir!
>
> I had been pointing this out -years- ago, but no one listened then. Apparently
> it takes demonstration for humans to learn much...
That "well said" remark you quoted is false from start to finish,.
Jim
--
Jim Hill
jth...@netcom.com PGP 0x00AE8B09 / 6B8576D1 EFBA2C78 12258A5A BFF3377E
Keith M. Lucas
In article <33E6F2D2...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Keith M. Lucas wrote:
>> You are assuming that the people and machines involved are in the
>> US.. and if UDP is declared illegal, then the US government will
>> simply be removing its citizens ability to defend themselves --
>
>and 0s.
No. My freedom of speech is under attack. Once spam in a group gets
beyond a certain point, I can't afford to read the group. Without
being able to read it I cannot be an effective part of the
conversation in it.
Spam will ensure that only the rich can participate in Usenet. Nice
freedom.
Dave Hayes
Keith M. Lucas wrote:
> You are assuming that the people and machines involved are in the
> US.. and if UDP is declared illegal, then the US government will
> simply be removing its citizens ability to defend themselves --
You presume that people are being attacked by words encoded as 1s
and 0s.
In fact, this is not the case.
As long as you see Spam as an attack, you will be doomed to fight
your wars until your death. If you remove the effect of Spam on
your psyche, it will not bother you.
For the record, I have never seen this many Cabal people strive
to control something they cannot.
Has Usenet changed since I've been "away"? I think only in magnitude.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
I do not think, that is why I exist.
David Bromage
David Ross (ros...@acm.org) wrote:
>You have truly shown the way. But which way?
>
>You have set an example of suppressing newsgroup messages over which you
>have no legal authority,
And where is the legal REQUIREMENT to carry UUNet originated messages?
Cheers
David
Ina Faye-Lund
>>>>> "DR" == David Ross <ros...@acm.org> writes:
DR> You have truly shown the way. But which way?
DR> You have set an example of suppressing newsgroup messages over
DR> which you have no legal authority, not merely messages that are
DR> inappropriate but all messages from a particular ISP.
Well, any newsserver can choose _not_ to honour the UDP. It's up to
every ISP to make that choice. And don't come tell me that ISPs don't
have legal authority over their own newsservers.
DR> Next year (an elections year), we might see another group launch a
DR> UDP against an ISP that seems to have an excess of Democrats or
DR> (alternatively) Republicans. How about a UDP by Moslems against
DR> an ISP the carries a significant amount of Israeli traffic? How
DR> about an ISP secretly recruiting hooligans like you to launch a
DR> UDP against a competing ISP?
Do you truly think that a try like that would be honoured?
DR> Sure, you are only attacking commercial spam. But you have shown
DR> others how top attack anything they don't like, how to interfere
DR> with the rest of us who want to choose for ourselves what we read
DR> in these newsgroups.
And what about those who _doesn't_ want to read "COME AND SEE MY SEXY
GIRLS" in alt.sexual.abuse.recovery is ok? If spammers had stuck to
the proper groups, they wouldn't have been a problem. So, if you wish
to read that crap, go ahead and subscribe to groups made for that, or
create some groups for that.
--
IFL - Ina Faye-Lund
Computers have feelings too
John Hughes
In article <33E799E5...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>
>> As it is, you haven't a right to demand access to everyone's servers, just the one
>> server you did pay to get access to. With the UUNet UDP, you still get
>> all the access to uu.net you want; no one's restricting that. You just
>> don't get anywhere else until everyone else is satisfied that UUNet
>> really wants to clean up their act.
>
>This is Net.terrorism at its worst. What will you do when you support some
>idea that several server admins vehemently oppose, and they UDP -you-?
>
>My disagreement with the UDP is more based on the idea that a group of
>Cabal type (see my FAQ for proper definition) admins can get together
>and enforce their ideas of right and wrong by running cancelbots.
Yes. I suggest you bring your anti-censorship message to the broader
public by sending letters to all the newspapers and TV news programs
in North America. To make your message clearer, you ought to send a few
hundred copies of it to each, perhaps with slight edits, to ensure that
your message is heard as many times, by as many people, as possible.
It is your solemn right to be upset when they decide they don't want
to freely grant the resources to print and broadcast all your messages,
or when they blackball you with other media just for sending these
multiple messages. You may feel righteous in suing them for the damage
they have done to you and the public should they do so. Your right to
free speech and my responsibility to listen to you are at stake! I urge
you to do this immediately, and pray that every newspaper and TV news
program has the integrity to do their duty in this matter. Even if your
messages crowd out all other information on these broadcast media, I
will be happy to see you prevail, because I admire your stand against
this censorious elitism.
Good luck,
jah
Dave Hayes
Timothy E. Morgan wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >I'm not so sure. Isn't your objection that you have to -see- this stuff?
> >If spammers paid for their spam, I'd suspect they'd have an issue with you
> >not seeing it.
> my privacy and waste my time, has the right to do so?
Do you watch TV, listen to a radio, or see billboards?
_Advertisers_, are doing this every day. Are you going to sue them?
> Go to Hell!
I suspect I am already here...for Hell for me is a place with no free speech.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
People sell talking parrots for huge sums. They never pause to compare the
possible value of a thinking parrot. -Mulla Nasrudin
Dave Hayes
Keith M. Lucas wrote:
> Spam will ensure that only the rich can participate in Usenet. Nice
> freedom.
You have that backwards. Anti-spammers, who control servers owned by the
rich under their command, ensure that only their select people can participate
in Usenet.
It works both ways.
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.
Keith Henson
Spark The Heretic (her...@spark.org) wrote:
: Dave Hayes wrote:
snip
: > As long as you see Spam as an attack, you will be doomed to fight
: > your wars until your death. If you remove the effect of Spam on
: > your psyche, it will not bother you.
: I'd prefer to remove the spam.
: It is a bother, a pain in the ass, and a doorway for businesses to
: sodomize your time and mass storage space.
It is also a most interesting twist on the "tragedy of the commons."
It also has the flavor of "Tit for Tat" in The Evolution of Cooperation.
snip
: > For the record, I have never seen this many Cabal people strive
: > to control something they cannot.
: I dunno...the spam has literally fallen off the face of the earth as far
: as many groups are concerned....sounds mighty successful to me.
: Market forces at work and all that...try not to cry when it turns
: against you.
It is a nice piece of work. Keith Henson
Keith M. Lucas
In article <33EAC0C5...@jetcafe.org>,
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Timothy E. Morgan wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 1997, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>> >I'm not so sure. Isn't your objection that you have to -see- this stuff?
>> >If spammers paid for their spam, I'd suspect they'd have an issue with you
>> >not seeing it.
>> So, you think that some spammer, because they have paid to intrude on
>> my privacy and waste my time, has the right to do so?
>
>Do you watch TV, listen to a radio, or see billboards?
TV and radio advertisers subsidise the media -- the shows are funded by the adverts.
Billboards at least cost me nothing.
Email and news adverts cost me money, with no option to not get
them. Even if I use a killfile or a mailfilter, the stuff has still
traversed my net-link and therefore ALREADY cost me money.
sh0...@brief.edu.au
> >
> >have no legal authority, ...
>
> If you have a better idea, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. I'm
> sure we would all have loved to hear it weeks ago when "UDP" and "UUNet"
> were first used in the same sentence. Where were you?
>
> I heard a great item lately; in one of President Clinton's speaches he
> said the internet should police itself. That's exactly what we're seeing
> here.
>
> --
> -ed falk -- fa...@falconer.vip.best.com ***************
> If there's ever a nuclear holocaust, the only things *****#*********
> left alive afterward will be cockroaches and spammers **#*#*********
> -- Dan Gillmor, Mercury News ***F******!***
John S. Novak
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:46:29 -0700, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>Do you watch TV, listen to a radio, or see billboards?
>_Advertisers_, are doing this every day. Are you going to sue them?
I'm starting to remember why I unsubscribed from this group, a while
back: It's because of all the fucking morons who form an opinion and
then back-rationalize all evidence to fit that conclusion, rather than
examining evidence and forming an opinion.
In case you're too stupid to catch that, Dave, that was an insult.
I'm calling you a fucking moron.
Legitimate advertisers subsidize and directly fund those media in
which they advertise. Television as we know it, for instance, would
not exist without advertisers paying the broadcast stations for
air-time. Likewise broadcast radio. Magazines would be more
expensive without advertising. Some magazines are supported
_entirely_ by advertising, and are thus free to the reader.
FAX advertising, on the other had, does _not_ support the FAX media.
FAX advertising is nothing but a bunch of unscrupulous fuckfaces
deciding that they have some God given right to spew their unwanted,
unhelpful, unproductive pluggots through _my_ hardware, on _my_ time,
and take up _my_ paper.
If you are too stupid to understand that spam advertising on USENET
clearly falls into the latter category, that which might be called
pirate advertising, since the advertisemnt is totally unwanted and
must in part be _paid for_ by the recipient who wants no part of it,
and is thus qualititatively different from the first class, then
please, do he world a favor: Slice your dick off and shove it down
the garbage disposal, to ensure that your genes do not continue.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
The Humblest Man on the Net
Timothy Nelson
:>Do you watch TV
Yes, and I hit the remote if I am not interested in a commercial.
, listen to a radio
Yes, and I throw a tape in if I don't like the commercial.
, or see billboards?
Yes, but I am driving that way anyway, and I am not slowed down
because that billboard is there.
:>
:>_Advertisers_, are doing this every day. Are you going to sue them?
The above advertisers are not impeding my access to news, recreation,
or socialization. They have nothing in common with spammers.
Dave Hayes
John S. Novak wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:46:29 -0700, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
> >Do you watch TV, listen to a radio, or see billboards?
> back: It's because of all the fucking morons who form an opinion and
> then back-rationalize all evidence to fit that conclusion, rather than
> examining evidence and forming an opinion.
That's your presumption, not my mode of operation.
> In case you're too stupid to catch that, Dave, that was an insult.
> I'm calling you a fucking moron.
Did that make you feel better? I hope so, because otherwise it was
a waste of your energy.
> If you are too stupid to understand that spam advertising on USENET
> clearly falls into the latter category, that which might be called
> pirate advertising, since the advertisemnt is totally unwanted and
> must in part be _paid for_ by the recipient who wants no part of it,
> and is thus qualititatively different from the first class, then
> please, do he world a favor: Slice your dick off and shove it down
> the garbage disposal, to ensure that your genes do not continue.
This is the natural response of a human who feels that their opinions
are the One True and Right way. I suppose you cannot be faulted for
wanting your genes to be dominant, but I fear for the human race if
that happens.
> John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
> The Humblest Man on the Net
The sad thing is that this is quite probably true...
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
I do not think, that is why I exist.
Dave Hayes
Keith Henson wrote:
> It is also a most interesting twist on the "tragedy of the commons."
The only tragedy of the commons occurs with those who, deluded by this and
other confused writings, take over public places in the name of "protection".
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation
by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the
illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and
demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter (circa A.D. 60)
Dave Hayes
Timothy Nelson wrote:
> :>Do you watch TV
> Yes, and I hit the remote if I am not interested in a commercial.
Then why do you not hit "delete" if you are not interested in a spam?
--
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - da...@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
People sell talking parrots for huge sums. They never pause to compare the
John S. Novak
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997 17:40:16 -0700, Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>This is the natural response of a human who feels that their opinions
>are the One True and Right way. I suppose you cannot be faulted for
>wanting your genes to be dominant, but I fear for the human race if
>that happens.
Davey, the insults and slams were just for fun. I enjoy insulting
morons. Keeps my blood pressure down.
I do note with keen interest, however, that you have managed to
completely ignore all the actual _points_ I made in my post, namely,
illustration of the qualitative differences between legitimate forms of
advertisement, and spam of any stripe.
I'm afraid I have to take this as a concession that you have no real
point. Further, I must take this as a concession that you _know_ you
have no point, that you cannot effectively reply to any argument I
have made, and that you are, in fact, full of nothing but piss and
wind. You are a tempest in a toilet bowl, and nothing more.
>> John S. Novak, III j...@cris.com
>> The Humblest Man on the Net
>The sad thing is that this is quite probably true...
Congratulations. You are customer number six thousand, seven hundred
and three of the .sig file. You win no prizes, other than the moron
sign you get to wear on your forehead.
--
Timothy Nelson
:>Timothy Nelson wrote:
:>> :>Do you watch TV
:>> Yes, and I hit the remote if I am not interested in a commercial.
:>
:>Then why do you not hit "delete" if you are not interested in a spam?
I do, but first I have to wait for the spam to download. The moment
I see the commercial I can hit the remote. I don't have to pay to wait
to see what the commercials are. However, I do have to pay to wait to
see what the spams are.
J Durbin
Dave Hayes <da...@jetcafe.org> wrote:
>John S. Novak wrote:
>> If you are too stupid to understand that spam advertising on USENET
>> clearly falls into the latter category, that which might be called
>> pirate advertising, since the advertisemnt is totally unwanted and
>> must in part be _paid for_ by the recipient who wants no part of it,
>> and is thus qualititatively different from the first class, then
>> please, do he world a favor: Slice your dick off and shove it down
>> the garbage disposal, to ensure that your genes do not continue.
>
>This is the natural response of a human who feels that their opinions
>are the One True and Right way. I suppose you cannot be faulted for
>wanting your genes to be dominant, but I fear for the human race if
>that happens.
It's sad that Dave Hayes uses hypocrisy as a form of debate by
practicing in his responses exactly what he accuses others of and, not
only that, believes it to be affective.
jd
--
jason durbin
slot...@poisson.com
stop reading here <---