info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Abusive cancel
468 views
Skip to first unread message
llp
Dec 27, 2023, 4:44:36 PM12/27/23
to
Hi
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
paganini.org server.
Path: "
paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spewcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail "
From: antiflood anti...@miakinen.net
X-Cancelled-by: antiflood <anti...@miakinen.net>
A pseudo-vote was held on the fr hierarchy but no *consensus* was
reached for these cancellations, which can therefore be described
as abusive.
I know that most servers already refuse cancellations of this type
(too many abuses have been made in the past) and now only accept
cancellations from authenticated sources.
But I wanted to bring this information to your attention in case
your server is not currently protected from these cancel.
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
"flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
paganini.org server.
Path: "
paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spewcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail "
From: antiflood anti...@miakinen.net
X-Cancelled-by: antiflood <anti...@miakinen.net>
A pseudo-vote was held on the fr hierarchy but no *consensus* was
reached for these cancellations, which can therefore be described
as abusive.
I know that most servers already refuse cancellations of this type
(too many abuses have been made in the past) and now only accept
cancellations from authenticated sources.
But I wanted to bring this information to your attention in case
your server is not currently protected from these cancel.
Sincerely,
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Ivo Gandolfo
Dec 27, 2023, 5:24:11 PM12/27/23
to
On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
[cut]
> Hi
>
> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
>
> Sincerely,
> Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Nope, you just don't like the outcome
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now, I
would never have offered space for a similar service. But since Olivier
has much more experience in the hierarchy than you, and above all much
more support, he also has my almost unconditional support. As I already
told you in the past, try to improve your service because every day
Usenet needs better services and don't worry about what happens outside
your server. I remind you that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
Sincerely
--
Ivo Gandolfo
llp < >
Dec 27, 2023, 5:35:14 PM12/27/23
to
Après mûre réflexion, Ivo Gandolfo a écrit :
dictator and impose their vision of "flood" through cancels.
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<5uoooi9cb92pg9626...@news.usenet.ovh>
> If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now, I would
> never have offered space for a similar service. But since Olivier has much
> more experience in the hierarchy than you, and above all much more support,
> he also has my almost unconditional support.
I understand that you support these abusive cancellations.
> As I already told you in the past, try to improve your service
> because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
> about what happens outside your server. I remind you
> that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
flood cancels on other servers.
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
>> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
> [cut]
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Admin of news.usenet.ovh
>
> Nope, you just don't like the outcome
I'm not the only one who doesn't like people who want to be little
>> Hi
>>
>> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
>> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
> [cut]
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Admin of news.usenet.ovh
>
> Nope, you just don't like the outcome
dictator and impose their vision of "flood" through cancels.
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<5uoooi9cb92pg9626...@news.usenet.ovh>
> If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now, I would
> never have offered space for a similar service. But since Olivier has much
> more experience in the hierarchy than you, and above all much more support,
> he also has my almost unconditional support.
> As I already told you in the past, try to improve your service
> because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
> about what happens outside your server. I remind you
> that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
flood cancels on other servers.
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Nigel Reed
Dec 27, 2023, 5:44:11 PM12/27/23
to
canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. It
shouldn't but you never know.
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23
llp >
Dec 27, 2023, 5:51:19 PM12/27/23
to
Nigel Reed vient de nous annoncer :
Two examples:
<Cancel.mn.bae27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.b53cdf39-92eb-4...@googlegroups.com>
<Cancel.mn.bae27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.b53cdf39-92eb-4...@googlegroups.com>
Ivo Gandolfo
Dec 27, 2023, 6:11:41 PM12/27/23
to
On 27/12/2023 23:35, llp wrote:
>
> I'm not the only one who doesn't like people who want to be little
> dictator and impose their vision of "flood" through cancels.
And who knows why the only complaints I see come from users who have
>
> I'm not the only one who doesn't like people who want to be little
> dictator and impose their vision of "flood" through cancels.
made the abuse of Usenet their watchword...
> I understand that you support these abusive cancellations.
necessary evil.
> I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
> flood cancels on other servers.
>
in the past and continue to do so (after having been kicked out of other
servers for their abuse on other's hyerarchies for example it.*, and
having joined several blacklists such as Aioe which issued cancel and
nocem for aforementioned people and other guy's setup cleanfeed or other
method to filter this shit), but I didn't complain to you about it. On
your server you are free to do whatever you want, but don't expect that
shit to pass (or remain) on my server, there is already too much shit on
usenet (and thank goodness that GG is closing) to add one other.
P.S. and if you're wondering, the aforementioned users have also tried
to use my server, taking advantage of the policy that I'm an
"open-server", too bad my filter works very well, and the little shit
that manages to escape them is reported to me and I refine the filter so
that it no longer passes. Apparently this put them off and they no
longer use it.
The impression I get is that you want things done the way you want,
period. What I'm trying to make you understand is that "your" vision of
the world is not exactly what others see. It's clear that you don't like
certain discussions, especially before you even opened a news server,
but as has been pointed out to you several times, having become a
newsadmin doesn't mean that everyone has to listen to you or do exactly
what you want.
Sincerely
--
Ivo Gandolfo
llp
Dec 27, 2023, 6:30:05 PM12/27/23
to
Ivo Gandolfo a exprimé avec précision :
>> I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
>> flood cancels on other servers.
>>
>
> (...) On your server you are free to do whatever you want,
your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.
I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
You should think about it and only publish nocems.
I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.
> P.S. and if you're wondering, the aforementioned users have also tried to use
> my server, taking advantage of the policy that I'm an "open-server", too bad
> my filter works very well, and the little shit that manages to escape them is
> reported to me and I refine the filter so that it no longer passes.
> Apparently this put them off and they no longer use it.
But Olivier use your serveur to do abusive cancel.
> The impression I get is that you want things done the way you want, period.
> What I'm trying to make you understand is that "your" vision of the world is
> not exactly what others see. It's clear that you don't like certain
> discussions, especially before you even opened a news server, but as has been
> pointed out to you several times, having become a newsadmin doesn't mean that
> everyone has to listen to you or do exactly what you want.
Not every server administrator has the same idea of what flood is.
Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
seem to be a good thing for usenet.
Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
of the sort on other server administrators.
Sincerely
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> On 27/12/2023 23:35, llp wrote:
>> I understand that you support these abusive cancellations.
>
> I can't stand any cancel or nocem. But in some cases they
> are a necessary evil.
Not here.
>> I understand that you support these abusive cancellations.
>
> I can't stand any cancel or nocem. But in some cases they
> are a necessary evil.
>> I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
>> flood cancels on other servers.
>>
>
> but don't expect that shit to pass (or remain) on my server,
> there is already too much shit on usenet (and thank
> goodness that GG is closing) to add one other.
You can do what you like on your server, but don't insist on imposing
> there is already too much shit on usenet (and thank
> goodness that GG is closing) to add one other.
your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.
I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
You should think about it and only publish nocems.
I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.
> P.S. and if you're wondering, the aforementioned users have also tried to use
> my server, taking advantage of the policy that I'm an "open-server", too bad
> my filter works very well, and the little shit that manages to escape them is
> reported to me and I refine the filter so that it no longer passes.
> Apparently this put them off and they no longer use it.
> The impression I get is that you want things done the way you want, period.
> What I'm trying to make you understand is that "your" vision of the world is
> not exactly what others see. It's clear that you don't like certain
> discussions, especially before you even opened a news server, but as has been
> pointed out to you several times, having become a newsadmin doesn't mean that
> everyone has to listen to you or do exactly what you want.
Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
seem to be a good thing for usenet.
Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
of the sort on other server administrators.
Sincerely
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Adam H. Kerman
Dec 27, 2023, 6:58:38 PM12/27/23
to
Ivo Gandolfo <use...@bofh.team> wrote:
>>. . .
>I can't stand any cancel or nocem. But in some cases they are a
>necessary evil.
Oh for heaven's sake. Spam countermeasures are not "necessary evils".
They are critical to presenting Usenet to users in a way that's
readable. Cancels, in and of themselves, shouldn't be issued as spam
countermeasures. Because of past use of cancels as network abuse, no one
at all should accept third-party cancels, not even as spam
countermeasures.
If you issue a cancel to counter an article injected through your server
as a spam countermeasure or to counter some other form of abuse
committed through your server, you're the second party and that cancel
should be honored. Similarly, the user himself, as first party, issuing
a cancel against his own article should be honored (if in a reasonable
amount of times, say minutes later, not years later).
I know people have explained to me in the past when this has come up why
fr.* uses cancels as spam countermeasures, but it's never made any sense
to me.
NoCeMs do not have the same history of abuse that cancels do, and
because they aren't control messages, cannot be part of a denial of
service attack.
I'm sure I said all of this last time, and probably the time before
that, so I'm being repetitious.
What is this I've intruded into, a decades-old flame war?
>>. . .
>I can't stand any cancel or nocem. But in some cases they are a
>necessary evil.
They are critical to presenting Usenet to users in a way that's
readable. Cancels, in and of themselves, shouldn't be issued as spam
countermeasures. Because of past use of cancels as network abuse, no one
at all should accept third-party cancels, not even as spam
countermeasures.
If you issue a cancel to counter an article injected through your server
as a spam countermeasure or to counter some other form of abuse
committed through your server, you're the second party and that cancel
should be honored. Similarly, the user himself, as first party, issuing
a cancel against his own article should be honored (if in a reasonable
amount of times, say minutes later, not years later).
I know people have explained to me in the past when this has come up why
fr.* uses cancels as spam countermeasures, but it's never made any sense
to me.
NoCeMs do not have the same history of abuse that cancels do, and
because they aren't control messages, cannot be part of a denial of
service attack.
I'm sure I said all of this last time, and probably the time before
that, so I'm being repetitious.
What is this I've intruded into, a decades-old flame war?
D
Dec 27, 2023, 9:24:30 PM12/27/23
to
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:51:15 +0100, llp <con...@usenet.ovh>> wrote:
>Nigel Reed vient de nous annoncer :
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:35:10 +0100 llp <<con...@usenet.ovh> > wrote:
>>> Apres mure reflexion, Ivo Gandolfo a ecrit :
>Nigel Reed vient de nous annoncer :
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:35:10 +0100 llp <<con...@usenet.ovh> > wrote:
snip
>>>> As I already told you in the past, try to improve your service
>>>> because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
>>>> about what happens outside your server. I remind you
>>>> that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
>>> flood cancels on other servers.
>>> Sincerely.
>>> --
>>> Admin of news.usenet.ovh
>>
>> Can you share the message-id of some suspected messages that have been
>> canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. It
>> shouldn't but you never know.
>
>Two examples:
><Cancel.mn.bae27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
><Cancel.b53cdf39-92eb-4...@googlegroups.com>
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
>>>> because every day Usenet needs better services and don't worry
>>>> about what happens outside your server. I remind you
>>>> that Usenet itself was born as democratic anarchy.
>>>
>>> I don't see anything democratic in trying to impose non-consensual
>>> flood cancels on other servers.
>>> Sincerely.
>>> --
>>> Admin of news.usenet.ovh
>>
>> Can you share the message-id of some suspected messages that have been
>> canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. It
>> shouldn't but you never know.
>
>Two examples:
><Cancel.mn.bae27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
><Cancel.b53cdf39-92eb-4...@googlegroups.com>
disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
Julieta Shem
Dec 27, 2023, 9:36:45 PM12/27/23
to
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
> 56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
> disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
> put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
> taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
> blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for
another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate
only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they
were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible
for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a
company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from
them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have,
possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against
providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
[...]
> 56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
> disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
> put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
> taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
> blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate
only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they
were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible
for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a
company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from
them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have,
possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against
providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
The Doctor
Dec 28, 2023, 12:01:17 AM12/28/23
to
--
Member - Liberal International This is doc...@nk.ca Ici doc...@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com
The Doctor
Dec 28, 2023, 12:02:29 AM12/28/23
to
In article <87edf7aw...@yaxenu.org>,
>
>We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have,
>possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
>right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against
>providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
>Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
Interesting , Maam!
Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>D <J@M> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> 56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
>> disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
>> put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
>> taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
>> blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
>
>You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for
>another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate
>only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
>
>When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they
>were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
>that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible
>for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a
>company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
>them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from
>them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
>we cannot let them destroy the commune.
>
>We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>them and nothing else.
We still should!!
>D <J@M> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> 56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
>> disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
>> put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
>> taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
>> blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
>
>You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for
>another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate
>only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
>
>When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they
>were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
>that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible
>for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a
>company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
>them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from
>them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
>we cannot let them destroy the commune.
>
>We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>them and nothing else.
>
>We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have,
>possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
>right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against
>providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
>Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
Eric M
Dec 28, 2023, 3:47:33 AM12/28/23
to
Le 27/12/2023 à 22:44, llp a écrit :
> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
> paganini.org server.
Note, the only reason why llp is pissed is because flood was coming out of
> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
> paganini.org server.
his server because he let an abuser use it and refused to delete his
account.
There is a part of the log so everyone can judge.
From: antiflood <anti...@miakinen.net>
Path:
..!pasdenom.info!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spewcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail
<Cancel.mn.92c37e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92c37e7cfc...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92c57e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92c57e7c24...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92c87e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92c87e7c3a...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92cb7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92cb7e7c20...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92d67e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92d67e7c98...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.23057e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.23057e7ced...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.62da7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.62da7e7c0b...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.6c2c7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.6c2c7e7c07...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.dada7e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.dada7e7beb...@live.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.eab07e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.eab07e7b88...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.62897e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.62897e7cc6...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.72717e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.72717e7c3c...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.82747e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.82747e7c7b...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.dae57e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.dae57e7bd9...@live.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.dae77e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.dae77e7bb2...@live.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.5af87e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5af87e7c30...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.63fa7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.63fa7e7c5b...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.da847e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.da847e7c37...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8af07e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8af07e7c01...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.a26d7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.a26d7e7cb3...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.cc587e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.cc587e7c18...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.dc427e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.dc427e7b24...@live.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.e2627e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.e2627e7b59...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.1abd7e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.1abd7e7c8d...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.2a997e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.2a997e7c2d...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.2aa67e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.2aa67e7c70...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.2aa07e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.2aa07e7c25...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.3a5a7e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.3a5a7e7c83...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.3c417e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.3c417e7c0d...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.3c417e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.3c417e7c00...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.443f7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.443f7e7cb3...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.7a527e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.7a527e7c1b...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.7c497e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.7c497e7c97...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.7c547e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.7c547e7cc3...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ab77e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ab77e7c84...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ab97e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ab97e7c33...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8abf7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8abf7e7c84...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ac17e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ac17e7c5f...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92c97e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92c97e7c5e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.bae07e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.bae07e7c68...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92df7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92df7e7c10...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92e37e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92e37e7c8c...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.bae77e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.bae77e7c9e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.cc577e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.cc577e7cc2...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.d29f7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.d29f7e7c23...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.da887e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.da887e7c72...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ccc7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ccc7e7cb2...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.d2e17e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.d2e17e7bc4...@live.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.daee7e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.daee7e7b9d...@live.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.ead27e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.ead27e7b8a...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.12727e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.12727e7c7e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.22d77e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.22d77e7ce9...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.22e87e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.22e87e7c6f...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.22ea7e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.22ea7e7ca9...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.5ae37e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5ae37e7c47...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.5ae47e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5ae47e7cbd...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.22ec7e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.22ec7e7c5e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.5adf7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5adf7e7c72...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.5ae27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5ae27e7ca3...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.5ae67e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5ae67e7ce8...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.5af27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5af27e7c42...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.725b7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.725b7e7cf6...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.725c7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.725c7e7c73...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.7c497e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.7c497e7c00...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ab37e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ab37e7cf8...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ac47e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ac47e7c4b...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ad37e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ad37e7c19...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8adf7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8adf7e7cc6...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8af07e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8af07e7c24...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92d57e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92d57e7c90...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92de7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92de7e7c6a...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.a2707e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.a2707e7c5d...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.b42c7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.b42c7e7c9d...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.badf7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.badf7e7c9d...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.baef7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.baef7e7c67...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.d2a77e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.d2a77e7c1c...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.d2a87e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.d2a87e7c90...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.d2c67e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.d2c67e7cc6...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.d2c87e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.d2c87e7c47...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.da797e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.da797e7c33...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.da7c7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.da7c7e7c84...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.da857e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.da857e7ccc...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.3a617e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.3a617e7c93...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.5af17e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5af17e7c73...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.44407e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.44407e7c43...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.628b7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.628b7e7c34...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.6a5c7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.6a5c7e7cc7...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.6c287e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.6c287e7c2b...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.7a757e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.7a757e7cad...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.d4577e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.d4577e7c4c...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.d2c37e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.d2c37e7b0f...@live.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.dae47e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.dae47e7b71...@live.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.3a637e...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.3a637e7c5f...@livet.msn.com.invalid>
<Cancel.mn.443d7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.443d7e7cee...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.5af37e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.5af37e7c15...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.6a6a7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.6a6a7e7ce6...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.72597e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.72597e7c59...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ac27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ac27e7c44...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8acb7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8acb7e7c1e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8acc7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8acc7e7cd6...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8ace7e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8ace7e7cae...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8af57e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8af57e7cdb...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.8af27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.8af27e7cbb...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.92e47e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.92e47e7c1a...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.b2d67e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.b2d67e7c7d...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.bae27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
Message-id: <mn.bae27e7cdd...@zorro.eu.invalide>
<Cancel.mn.daed7e...@live.msn.com.invalid>
Message-id: <mn.daed7e7b70...@live.msn.com.invalid>
llp
Dec 28, 2023, 4:48:23 AM12/28/23
to
Eric M avait prétendu :
But Eric M. is the most famous troll in the French heiarchy !
Are you planning to troll here too?
Is your stalker pack coming too?
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> Le 27/12/2023 à 22:44, llp a écrit :
>
>> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
>> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
>> paganini.org server.
>
> Note, the only reason why llp is pissed is because flood was coming out of
> his server because he let an abuser use it and refused to delete his account.
I remove proven abuse, not vendetta against other users.
>
>> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
>> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
>> paganini.org server.
>
> Note, the only reason why llp is pissed is because flood was coming out of
> his server because he let an abuser use it and refused to delete his account.
But Eric M. is the most famous troll in the French heiarchy !
Are you planning to troll here too?
Is your stalker pack coming too?
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Eric M
Dec 28, 2023, 6:06:20 AM12/28/23
to
Le 28/12/2023 à 10:48, llp a écrit :
> I remove proven abuse, not vendetta against other users.
A person who copies posts from one forum to another with followup to a
> I remove proven abuse, not vendetta against other users.
third one without adding anything but sometimes an insult (I'm not even
sure of that, he's hard to understand) is an abuser, wether you like it or
not, even if it's your friend.
> But Eric M. is the most famous troll in the French heiarchy !
> Are you planning to troll here too?
> Is your stalker pack coming too?
opponents.
Eric M
Dec 28, 2023, 6:08:48 AM12/28/23
to
Le 28/12/2023 à 10:48, llp a écrit :
> I remove proven abuse, not vendetta against other users.
A person who copies posts from one forum to another with followup to a
third one without adding anything but sometimes an insult (I'm not even
sure of that, he's hard to understand) is an abuser, wether you like it or
not, even if it's your friend.
third one without adding anything but sometimes an insult (I'm not even
sure of that, he's hard to understand) is an abuser, wether you like it or
not, even if it's your friend.
> But Eric M. is the most famous troll in the French heiarchy !
> Are you planning to troll here too?
> Is your stalker pack coming too?
Calm down, here your anonymous friends won't come to insult your
> Are you planning to troll here too?
> Is your stalker pack coming too?
opponents.
D
Dec 28, 2023, 8:44:38 AM12/28/23
to
to usenet servers, and if that happens might other non-google servers
pick up the slack to help fill the predictable spam void in gg's wake?
but as for the immense gg archive, there are probably other resources
available to essentially rebuild it from scratch, thus letting google
off the hook: is a comprehensive usenet archive really that important?
as many have pointed out, news articles have always been ephemeral by
nature, not really intended for permanent reference beyond those that
saved them; in a perfect usenet world, there would be no crossposting
and no commercial advertising, so people can continue being imperfect;
newton, optics, photons, magnets, cubits, senet, etc., that's fun too
D
Dec 28, 2023, 9:34:47 AM12/28/23
to
On Thu, 28 Dec 2023 05:01:13 -0000 (UTC), doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote:
>In article <09e348f1f0604b63...@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>>On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:51:15 +0100, llp <con...@usenet.ovh>> wrote:
>>>Nigel Reed vient de nous annoncer :
>>>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:35:10 +0100 llp <<con...@usenet.ovh> > wrote:
>>>>> Apres mure reflexion, Ivo Gandolfo a ecrit :
snip
>In article <09e348f1f0604b63...@dizum.com>, D <J@M> wrote:
>>On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:51:15 +0100, llp <con...@usenet.ovh>> wrote:
>>>Nigel Reed vient de nous annoncer :
>>>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:35:10 +0100 llp <<con...@usenet.ovh> > wrote:
>>>>> Apres mure reflexion, Ivo Gandolfo a ecrit :
snip
>>>> Can you share the message-id of some suspected messages that have been
>>>> canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. It
>>>> shouldn't but you never know.
>>>Two examples:
>>><Cancel.mn.bae27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
>>><Cancel.b53cdf39-92eb-4...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>>56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
>>disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
>>put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
>>taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
>>blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
>
>What armageddon?
between those returning and leaving, but what that could mean in terms
>>>> canceled? I can check my server to see if the cancel got through. It
>>>> shouldn't but you never know.
>>>Two examples:
>>><Cancel.mn.bae27e...@zorro.eu.invalide>
>>><Cancel.b53cdf39-92eb-4...@googlegroups.com>
>>
>>56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
>>disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
>>put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
>>taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
>>blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
>
>What armageddon?
of google's disconnection from usenet, something like a generation gap
The Doctor
Dec 28, 2023, 9:43:11 AM12/28/23
to
Julieta Shem
Dec 28, 2023, 10:13:55 AM12/28/23
to
rendering moot the litigation.
Julieta Shem
Dec 28, 2023, 10:33:28 AM12/28/23
to
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
>>We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have,
>>possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
>>right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against
>>providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
>>Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
>
> seems likely that ~55 days from now, googlegroups will sever its ties
> to usenet servers, and if that happens might other non-google servers
> pick up the slack to help fill the predictable spam void in gg's wake?
> but as for the immense gg archive, there are probably other resources
> available to essentially rebuild it from scratch, thus letting google
> off the hook: is a comprehensive usenet archive really that important?
That's an important question. Should we archive everything? Let's ask
a similar one. Should scientific papers be archived? People talk about
them and reference becomes important. It's not the easiest thing to
point to scientific papers because archives are usually paid. USENET
archives are usually paid too, where price means overcoming some
difficulty. For instance, can you read the exact USENET post of the GNU
manifesto published in the eighties by Richard Stallman? We can define
that the price of reading it is the price of finding it.
Surely, most USENET posts are irrelevant. They could be deleted for
good. However, it's too hard to decide. Most scientific papers are
irrelevant. They could be deleted for good. But it's too hard to
decide.
Let's ask the question --- can we archive everything? Is that too
expensive? If if it's not too expensive, then it seems to pay off in
instances such as Daniel J. Bernstein's description of the self-pipe
trick at
https://cr.yp.to/docs/selfpipe.html,
where its history is traced through a sequence of USENET posts. We
could now see how expensive it is to find such posts by solving the
following exercises. (I have no idea how I would begin.)
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Exercise. Post a copy of Daniel J. Bernstein's description of the
self-pipe trick on 1991.06.16 in comp.unix.questions.
Exercise. Post a copy of all the articles mentioned in the document
https://cr.yp.to/docs/selfpipe.html.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
[...]
>>We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have,
>>possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
>>right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against
>>providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
>>Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
>
> seems likely that ~55 days from now, googlegroups will sever its ties
> to usenet servers, and if that happens might other non-google servers
> pick up the slack to help fill the predictable spam void in gg's wake?
> but as for the immense gg archive, there are probably other resources
> available to essentially rebuild it from scratch, thus letting google
> off the hook: is a comprehensive usenet archive really that important?
a similar one. Should scientific papers be archived? People talk about
them and reference becomes important. It's not the easiest thing to
point to scientific papers because archives are usually paid. USENET
archives are usually paid too, where price means overcoming some
difficulty. For instance, can you read the exact USENET post of the GNU
manifesto published in the eighties by Richard Stallman? We can define
that the price of reading it is the price of finding it.
Surely, most USENET posts are irrelevant. They could be deleted for
good. However, it's too hard to decide. Most scientific papers are
irrelevant. They could be deleted for good. But it's too hard to
decide.
Let's ask the question --- can we archive everything? Is that too
expensive? If if it's not too expensive, then it seems to pay off in
instances such as Daniel J. Bernstein's description of the self-pipe
trick at
https://cr.yp.to/docs/selfpipe.html,
where its history is traced through a sequence of USENET posts. We
could now see how expensive it is to find such posts by solving the
following exercises. (I have no idea how I would begin.)
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Exercise. Post a copy of Daniel J. Bernstein's description of the
self-pipe trick on 1991.06.16 in comp.unix.questions.
Exercise. Post a copy of all the articles mentioned in the document
https://cr.yp.to/docs/selfpipe.html.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
The Doctor
Dec 28, 2023, 10:55:43 AM12/28/23
to
Julieta Shem
Dec 28, 2023, 11:20:00 AM12/28/23
to
doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
[...]
>>>>We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>>>>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>>>>them and nothing else.
>>>
>>> We still should!!
>>
>>Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time,
>>rendering moot the litigation.
>
> But the damage is trackable.
As long as a court receives your petition, you can litigate. You'll
need to show you legally represent ``/the/ USENET''. (Or what are the
parties in the litigation?)
[...]
>>>>We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>>>>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>>>>them and nothing else.
>>>
>>> We still should!!
>>
>>Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time,
>>rendering moot the litigation.
>
> But the damage is trackable.
need to show you legally represent ``/the/ USENET''. (Or what are the
parties in the litigation?)
Andrew
Dec 28, 2023, 12:49:44 PM12/28/23
to
immibis
Dec 28, 2023, 1:43:49 PM12/28/23
to
On 12/28/23 06:02, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <87edf7aw...@yaxenu.org>,
> Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>
>> We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>> USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>> them and nothing else.
>
> We still should!!
>
Funny how someone who supports Usenet being a dumping ground for their
> In article <87edf7aw...@yaxenu.org>,
> Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>
>> We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
>> USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
>> them and nothing else.
>
> We still should!!
>
literal piles of shit now want to sue someone else for making it a
dumping ground for their literal piles of shit.
immibis
Dec 28, 2023, 1:46:09 PM12/28/23
to
On 12/28/23 12:06, Eric M wrote:
> Le 28/12/2023 à 10:48, llp a écrit :
>
>> I remove proven abuse, not vendetta against other users.
>
> A person who copies posts from one forum to another with followup to a
> third one without adding anything but sometimes an insult (I'm not even
> sure of that, he's hard to understand) is an abuser, wether you like it
> or not, even if it's your friend.
>
Will you start cancelling all of The Doctor's messages now?
> Le 28/12/2023 à 10:48, llp a écrit :
>
>> I remove proven abuse, not vendetta against other users.
>
> A person who copies posts from one forum to another with followup to a
> third one without adding anything but sometimes an insult (I'm not even
> sure of that, he's hard to understand) is an abuser, wether you like it
> or not, even if it's your friend.
>
Grant Taylor
Dec 28, 2023, 2:57:25 PM12/28/23
to
On 12/28/23 09:33, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Should we archive everything?
That's up to each individual archivist.
They should properly clarify what they do and do not archive.
--
Grant. . . .
> Should we archive everything?
That's up to each individual archivist.
They should properly clarify what they do and do not archive.
--
Grant. . . .
Frank Slootweg
Dec 28, 2023, 3:40:27 PM12/28/23
to
llp <con...@usenet.ovh> wrote:
> Ivo Gandolfo a exprimé avec précision :
[...]
> Ivo Gandolfo a exprimé avec précision :
> You can do what you like on your server, but don't insist on imposing
> your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.
doesn't show the Path for the cancels for which you gave the message-ids),
they are not "your cancels", but those of one of his users.
> I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
> But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
> server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
> You should think about it and only publish nocems.
> I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
> how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.
are a non-issue. They already were when I was running a (real) server
two decades ago, and they still are. Just drop any you get and live
happily ever after.
[...]
> Not every server administrator has the same idea of what flood is.
>
> Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
> with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
> seem to be a good thing for usenet.
only reinforces them being a non-issue.
> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
> of the sort on other server administrators.
P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,
but his server, his rules.
llp
Dec 28, 2023, 4:59:25 PM12/28/23
to
Frank Slootweg a écrit :
from Ivo's server.
>
>> I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
>> But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
>> server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
>> You should think about it and only publish nocems.
>> I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
>> how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.
>
> As noel explained, there's no such thing as "abusive cancels". Cancels
> are a non-issue. They already were when I was running a (real) server
> two decades ago, and they still are. Just drop any you get and live
> happily ever after.
Yes, I do that.
> [...]
>
>> Not every server administrator has the same idea of what flood is.
>>
>> Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
>> with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
>> seem to be a good thing for usenet.
>
> The very fact that these cancels are unauthenticated (non-Approved:)
> only reinforces them being a non-issue.
You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
>> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
from its server.
> P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,
When Ivo asked for a feed, I answered his call.
I have nothing against him
> but his server, his rules.
Not when its actions have consequences for an other server and users.
The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
to impose these cancels. I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't
accept these unauthenticated cancels like most servers.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> llp <con...@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>> Ivo Gandolfo a exprimé avec précision :
> [...]
>
>> You can do what you like on your server, but don't insist on imposing
>> your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.
>
> If I understand the situation correctly (<http://al.howardknight.net/>
> doesn't show the Path for the cancels for which you gave the message-ids),
> they are not "your cancels", but those of one of his users.
Yes. A user who can issue the cancels he wants on the messages he wants
>> Ivo Gandolfo a exprimé avec précision :
> [...]
>
>> You can do what you like on your server, but don't insist on imposing
>> your cancels and your vision of flooding in this way.
>
> If I understand the situation correctly (<http://al.howardknight.net/>
> doesn't show the Path for the cancels for which you gave the message-ids),
> they are not "your cancels", but those of one of his users.
from Ivo's server.
>
>> I talk about it all the more freely as I publish nocems for flood.
>> But a Nocem is never "imposed". Without the active involvement of a
>> server administrator, a nocem does nothing.
>> You should think about it and only publish nocems.
>> I think you've already asked Olivier to do this, but he doesn't know
>> how to do it and you continue to produce these abusive cancels.
>
> As noel explained, there's no such thing as "abusive cancels". Cancels
> are a non-issue. They already were when I was running a (real) server
> two decades ago, and they still are. Just drop any you get and live
> happily ever after.
> [...]
>
>> Not every server administrator has the same idea of what flood is.
>>
>> Wanting to impose *your* vision of things, as is currently the case
>> with these unauthenticated cancels coming from your server, doesn't
>> seem to be a good thing for usenet.
>
> The very fact that these cancels are unauthenticated (non-Approved:)
> only reinforces them being a non-issue.
>> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
from its server.
> P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,
I have nothing against him
> but his server, his rules.
The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
to impose these cancels. I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't
accept these unauthenticated cancels like most servers.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
The Doctor
Dec 28, 2023, 5:56:37 PM12/28/23
to
Adam H. Kerman
Dec 28, 2023, 7:21:30 PM12/28/23
to
llp <con...@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>>. . .
>You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
You sound like yads and "spamtrolling".
You don't get to win an argument because you're hyping your position.
There is no abuse taking place despite that you've declared the cancels
"abusive". They're just third-party cancels that aren't being issued as
a denial-of-service attack (which truly would be abusive).
Your user is committing abuse ON Usenet with contentless followups and
posting followups or setting Followup-To to other newsgroups. If he
morphs frequently, then YOU are expected to kick him off your server. If
he never morphs, then the user is expected to kill file him.
If the canceller issuing them is doing so for a clearly-stated reason
to counter abuse ON Usenet (not abuse OF Usenet), it's not abusive.
There are unlikely to be any servers willing to process those cancel
messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable. He should
be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.
>>>Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>of the sort on other server administrators.
>>And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>from its server.
There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
imposed on other News administrators.
>>P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,
>When Ivo asked for a feed, I answered his call.
>I have nothing against him
>>but his server, his rules.
>Not when its actions have consequences for an other server and users.
bonk
YOUR actions have consequences for your fellow News administrators. You
made the choice not to TOS your user despite his immature behavior.
>The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>to impose these cancels.
Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.
>I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>cancels like most servers.
Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
abuse OF Usenet.
>>. . .
>You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
You don't get to win an argument because you're hyping your position.
There is no abuse taking place despite that you've declared the cancels
"abusive". They're just third-party cancels that aren't being issued as
a denial-of-service attack (which truly would be abusive).
Your user is committing abuse ON Usenet with contentless followups and
posting followups or setting Followup-To to other newsgroups. If he
morphs frequently, then YOU are expected to kick him off your server. If
he never morphs, then the user is expected to kill file him.
If the canceller issuing them is doing so for a clearly-stated reason
to counter abuse ON Usenet (not abuse OF Usenet), it's not abusive.
There are unlikely to be any servers willing to process those cancel
messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable. He should
be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.
>>>Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>of the sort on other server administrators.
>>And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>from its server.
administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
imposed on other News administrators.
>>P.S. I'm no particular fan of the average user of paganini.bofh.team,
>When Ivo asked for a feed, I answered his call.
>I have nothing against him
>>but his server, his rules.
>Not when its actions have consequences for an other server and users.
YOUR actions have consequences for your fellow News administrators. You
made the choice not to TOS your user despite his immature behavior.
>The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>to impose these cancels.
>I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>cancels like most servers.
party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
abuse OF Usenet.
Adam W.
Dec 28, 2023, 7:49:40 PM12/28/23
to
Why would he? The Doctor doesn't make it hard to killfile him, if one
wishes so.
wishes so.
Ivo Gandolfo
Dec 28, 2023, 7:52:12 PM12/28/23
to
On 29/12/2023 01:21, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> cut
You summed up my line of thinking perfectly. I tried to explain it to
him several times but unfortunately "there is no worse deaf person than
someone who doesn't want to hear".
An abusive service will never exist on my server, I would be the first
to prevent it. If I have trusted a person it is because I have my
reasons for doing so, and moreover I have received many thanks for what
I am doing.
By now I have given up on making him understand some concepts, because
he seems convinced that things should be done only as his vision
dictates. Unfortunately he didn't understand that Usenet doesn't work
like that. If you can convince him, you will have my eternal gratitude.
Unfortunately on Usenet lately it has been working in "factions", and
all this makes me very sad. Usenet was born from collaboration, and not
from eternal and endless wars.
I hope that we can return to a period of pacifism, given that the main
source of disputes is about to abandon usenet soon.
Sincerely
--
Ivo Gandolfo
> cut
You summed up my line of thinking perfectly. I tried to explain it to
him several times but unfortunately "there is no worse deaf person than
someone who doesn't want to hear".
An abusive service will never exist on my server, I would be the first
to prevent it. If I have trusted a person it is because I have my
reasons for doing so, and moreover I have received many thanks for what
I am doing.
By now I have given up on making him understand some concepts, because
he seems convinced that things should be done only as his vision
dictates. Unfortunately he didn't understand that Usenet doesn't work
like that. If you can convince him, you will have my eternal gratitude.
Unfortunately on Usenet lately it has been working in "factions", and
all this makes me very sad. Usenet was born from collaboration, and not
from eternal and endless wars.
I hope that we can return to a period of pacifism, given that the main
source of disputes is about to abandon usenet soon.
Sincerely
--
Ivo Gandolfo
Julieta Shem
Dec 28, 2023, 10:24:28 PM12/28/23
to
What would be your clarification? :-)
Grant Taylor
Dec 29, 2023, 1:05:57 AM12/29/23
to
On 12/28/23 21:24, Julieta Shem wrote:
> Suppose you are an invididual archivist. Should you archive everything?
> What would be your clarification? :-)
As I said before ...
> Suppose you are an invididual archivist. Should you archive everything?
> What would be your clarification? :-)
On 12/28/23 13:57, Grant Taylor wrote:
> That's up to each individual archivist.
Olivier Miakinen
Dec 29, 2023, 3:45:32 AM12/29/23
to
On 29/12/2023 01:21 (+0100), Adam H. Kerman answered llp :
> [...]
Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
details.
1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
2) My cancels are very easily identifiable (by From and X-Cancelled-by)
and difficult to counterfeiting (by the Path), so that news admins can
easily accept or refuse them as they want.
'From' for a spam cancel: miakibot <miak...@miakinen.net>
'From' for a flood cancel: antiflood <anti...@miakinen.net>
Example 'Path':
...!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spamcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail
(with possibly 'bysubject' instead of 'byfrom', 'mmfcancel' or
'spewcancel' instead of 'spamcancel', but the beginning and the end
are always the same).
3) There is no controversy about canceled spams. About the canceled
flood, only llp and a few others complain, but the cancellation follows
a positive vote with the users of the affected newsgroups. Of course
this positive vote for cancel is because of all the abuses of the
targeted user.
4) My cancels respect all traditional conventions, including the one
(specific to the fr.* hierarchy) that a report shall be posted to the
specific newsgroup fr.usenet.abus.rapports.
5) And before someone asks, yes it would be good if I also issued
NoCeMs, but the cancels are indeed very useful for some very old
news servers (such as e.g. news.free.fr and cabale.usenet-fr.net)
where spam can only be fought by cancel articles.
Best Regards,
--
Olivier Miakinen
> [...]
Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
details.
1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
2) My cancels are very easily identifiable (by From and X-Cancelled-by)
and difficult to counterfeiting (by the Path), so that news admins can
easily accept or refuse them as they want.
'From' for a spam cancel: miakibot <miak...@miakinen.net>
'From' for a flood cancel: antiflood <anti...@miakinen.net>
Example 'Path':
...!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!byfrom!spamcancel!cyberspam!not-for-mail
(with possibly 'bysubject' instead of 'byfrom', 'mmfcancel' or
'spewcancel' instead of 'spamcancel', but the beginning and the end
are always the same).
3) There is no controversy about canceled spams. About the canceled
flood, only llp and a few others complain, but the cancellation follows
a positive vote with the users of the affected newsgroups. Of course
this positive vote for cancel is because of all the abuses of the
targeted user.
4) My cancels respect all traditional conventions, including the one
(specific to the fr.* hierarchy) that a report shall be posted to the
specific newsgroup fr.usenet.abus.rapports.
5) And before someone asks, yes it would be good if I also issued
NoCeMs, but the cancels are indeed very useful for some very old
news servers (such as e.g. news.free.fr and cabale.usenet-fr.net)
where spam can only be fought by cancel articles.
Best Regards,
--
Olivier Miakinen
llp
Dec 29, 2023, 4:24:23 AM12/29/23
to
Olivier Miakinen a présenté l'énoncé suivant :
> 1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
> are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
> especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
Surely you have something in writing from a free.fr administrator to
back up your claims? You know it's not the true. It's common knowledge
in the fr hierarchy.
And for users who are victims (or not) of your cancels at Free,
they are now using servers that use cancels-key/cancels_lock.
So their messages aren't deleted on other servers.
>[cut]
> 3) There is no controversy about canceled spams.
You probably inadvertently forgot to mention your 3600 cancellations
of Paul Aubrin's messages (i have the mids if you want).
A French user of "free.fr" (on E-S for now) whose messages were
perfectly in theme on the groups where they had been posting for
a long time. A year's worth of messages cancelled in one go!
> About the canceled flood, only llp and a few others complain,
> but the cancellation follows a positive vote with the users [cut]
But there is no vote on "fr" hierarchy since 2008.
Only consensus, and there is no censensus for that.
A precision: 13 voters (and not all for)
Like many others, I didn't take part in the vote. Tired of Olivier's
maneuvers to impose his views on the French hierarchy.
But we indicated our opposition and the absence of consensus.
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> On 29/12/2023 01:21 (+0100), Adam H. Kerman answered llp :
>> [...]
>
> Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
>
> As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
> details.
Your rights
>> [...]
>
> Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
>
> As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
> details.
> 1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
> are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
> especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
back up your claims? You know it's not the true. It's common knowledge
in the fr hierarchy.
And for users who are victims (or not) of your cancels at Free,
they are now using servers that use cancels-key/cancels_lock.
So their messages aren't deleted on other servers.
>[cut]
> 3) There is no controversy about canceled spams.
of Paul Aubrin's messages (i have the mids if you want).
A French user of "free.fr" (on E-S for now) whose messages were
perfectly in theme on the groups where they had been posting for
a long time. A year's worth of messages cancelled in one go!
> About the canceled flood, only llp and a few others complain,
But there is no vote on "fr" hierarchy since 2008.
Only consensus, and there is no censensus for that.
A precision: 13 voters (and not all for)
Like many others, I didn't take part in the vote. Tired of Olivier's
maneuvers to impose his views on the French hierarchy.
But we indicated our opposition and the absence of consensus.
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
llp
Dec 29, 2023, 5:02:53 AM12/29/23
to
Le 29/12/2023, Adam H. Kerman a supposé :
cancels. And I fully subscribe to their reasons.
> He should be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.
No worries if he issues cancels on this subject.
I'm even willing to help him with that.
>>>> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
>>> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>
>> And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>> from its server.
>
> There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
> administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
>
> You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
> imposed on other News administrators.
I published this initial message because, contrary to what you
seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.
>[cut]
>> I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>> cancels like most servers.
>
> Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
> party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
> of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
> explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
> abuse OF Usenet.
What do you think of a personal reputation of a an issuer who make
3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user (Paul
Aubrin). I have the mids if you want.
> llp <con...@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
>[cut]
>
>>> . . .
>
>> You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
> There are unlikely to be any servers willing to process those cancel
> messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
> maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable.
Some newsmasters have made it clear that they will never accept these
> messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
> maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable.
cancels. And I fully subscribe to their reasons.
> He should be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.
I'm even willing to help him with that.
>>>> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
>>> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>
>> And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>> from its server.
>
> There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
> administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
>
> You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
> imposed on other News administrators.
seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.
>[cut]
>> The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>> abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>> they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>> systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>> (a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>> by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>> it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>> to impose these cancels.
>
> Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.
You're right, of course.
>> abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>> they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>> systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>> (a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>> by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>> it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>> to impose these cancels.
>
> Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.
>> I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>> cancels like most servers.
>
> Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
> party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
> of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
> explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
> abuse OF Usenet.
3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user (Paul
Aubrin). I have the mids if you want.
llp
Dec 29, 2023, 5:05:29 AM12/29/23
to
(supersedes <umm384$3mpm2$1...@news.usenet.ovh>)
Olivier Miakinen a présenté l'énoncé suivant :
> 1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
> are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
> especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
Olivier Miakinen a présenté l'énoncé suivant :
> On 29/12/2023 01:21 (+0100), Adam H. Kerman answered llp :
>> [...]
>
> Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
>
> As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
> details.
Your rights
>> [...]
>
> Thank you for your complete and accurate answer.
>
> As the originator of the cancels that llp criticizes, I shall add some
> details.
> 1) The administrator and users of the main French server news.free.fr
> are generally very happy that my bot cancels those unwanted messages,
> especially all the spam coming from Google groups.
Surely you have something in writing from a free.fr administrator to
back up your claims? You know it's not the true. It's common knowledge
in the fr hierarchy.
And for users who are victims (or not) of your cancels at Free,
they are now using servers that use cancels-key/cancels_lock.
So their messages aren't deleted on other servers.
>[cut]
back up your claims? You know it's not the true. It's common knowledge
in the fr hierarchy.
And for users who are victims (or not) of your cancels at Free,
they are now using servers that use cancels-key/cancels_lock.
So their messages aren't deleted on other servers.
>[cut]
> 3) There is no controversy about canceled spams.
You probably inadvertently forgot to mention your 3600 cancellations
of Pierre Arribaut's messages (i have the mids if you want).
A French user of "free.fr" (on E-S for now) whose messages were
perfectly in theme on the groups where they had been posting for
a long time. A year's worth of messages cancelled in one go!
perfectly in theme on the groups where they had been posting for
a long time. A year's worth of messages cancelled in one go!
> About the canceled flood, only llp and a few others complain,
> but the cancellation follows a positive vote with the users [cut]
But there is no vote on "fr" hierarchy since 2008.
Only consensus, and there is no censensus for that.
A precision: 13 voters (and not all for)
Like many others, I didn't take part in the vote. Tired of Olivier's
maneuvers to impose his views on the French hierarchy.
But we indicated our opposition and the absence of consensus.
But there is no vote on "fr" hierarchy since 2008.
Only consensus, and there is no censensus for that.
A precision: 13 voters (and not all for)
Like many others, I didn't take part in the vote. Tired of Olivier's
maneuvers to impose his views on the French hierarchy.
But we indicated our opposition and the absence of consensus.
llp
Dec 29, 2023, 5:05:57 AM12/29/23
to
(supersedes <umm5gb$3mvvm$1...@news.usenet.ovh>)
Le 29/12/2023, Adam H. Kerman a supposé :
Le 29/12/2023, Adam H. Kerman a supposé :
> llp <con...@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
>[cut]
>
>>> . . .
>
>> You're right about most servers: they ignore abusive cancels.
> There are unlikely to be any servers willing to process those cancel
> messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
> maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable.
> messages, but if the canceller doesn't destroy his own reputation, then
> maybe a News administrator would consider them to be valuable.
Some newsmasters have made it clear that they will never accept these
cancels. And I fully subscribe to their reasons.
cancels. And I fully subscribe to their reasons.
> He should be issuing NoceMs, but that's a separate issue.
No worries if he issues cancels on this subject.
I'm even willing to help him with that.
I'm even willing to help him with that.
>>>> Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
>>> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>
>> And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>> from its server.
>
> There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
> administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
>
> You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
> imposed on other News administrators.
>>>> of the sort on other server administrators.
>
>>> And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>
>> And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>> from its server.
>
> There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
> administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
>
> You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
> imposed on other News administrators.
I published this initial message because, contrary to what you
seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.
>[cut]
seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
misunderstood what you were saying).
But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.
>[cut]
>> The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>> abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>> they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>> systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>> (a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>> by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>> it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>> to impose these cancels.
>
> Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.
>> abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>> they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>> systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>> (a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>> by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>> it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>> to impose these cancels.
>
> Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.
You're right, of course.
>> I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>> cancels like most servers.
>
> Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
> party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
> of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
> explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
> abuse OF Usenet.
>> cancels like most servers.
>
> Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
> party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
> of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
> explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
> abuse OF Usenet.
What do you think of a personal reputation of a an issuer who make
3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user
(Pierre Arribaut). I have the mids if you want.
3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user
Adam H. Kerman
Dec 29, 2023, 10:27:48 AM12/29/23
to
llp <con...@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>(supersedes <umm5gb$3mvvm$1...@news.usenet.ovh>)
>Le 29/12/2023, Adam H. Kerman:
>(supersedes <umm5gb$3mvvm$1...@news.usenet.ovh>)
>>llp <con...@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>>>>. . .
>>>>. . .
>>>>>Of course, I could be wrong, but at least I don't impose anything
>>>>>of the sort on other server administrators.
>>>>And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>>>And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>>>from its server.
>>There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
>>administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
>>You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
>>imposed on other News administrators.
>I published this initial message because, contrary to what you
>seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
>configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
>misunderstood what you were saying).
>But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
>configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.
INN is complicated and requires a whole lot of configuration. It's
>>>>>of the sort on other server administrators.
>>>>And neither does Ivo Gandolfo.
>>>And yet it does so by issuing cancels for messages that do not come
>>>from its server.
>>There is no central administration! This is Usenet. Every News
>>administrator decides for himself whether to process these cancels!
>>You are being ignored because the rule you just made up cannot be
>>imposed on other News administrators.
>I published this initial message because, contrary to what you
>seem to think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
>configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
>misunderstood what you were saying).
>But I'm reassured: the other admins have also modified their
>configuration to avoid unwanted or unauthenticated cancels.
unlikely that there are going to be no defaults that require changing. A
new News administrator has to consider carefully the implications of
allowing various types of control messages to be processed
automatically, and recall the long-standing problem of denial of service
attacks. It's unlikely that automatically processing newgroup messages
in free.* and alt.* and other unadministered hierarchies, which is a
default setting, is desireable either.
Again, I renew my objection to raising the issue of UNAUTHENTICATED
cancels, which is irrelevant to third-party cancels. Cancel-lock was
never implemented to authenticate third-party cancels.
>>[cut]
>>>The main French server (news.free.fr) is not protected against these
>>>abusive cancels: anyone has always been able to delete the messages
>>>they want on this server. And yet there was little abuse. But these
>>>systematic cancels from Ivo's server are designed to impose a vision
>>>(a censorship) on this server, which is almost no longer well managed
>>>by its admins, but which is still widely used in France. I don't think
>>>it's right to proceed in this way and take advantage of this deficiency
>>>to impose these cancels.
>>Tell the News administrator, not the Usenet community.
>You're right, of course.
>>>I'm not a party to this: my server doesn't accept these unauthenticated
>>>cancels like most servers.
>>Oh, give me a break. There's no such thing as an AUTHENTICATED third
>>party cancel. Unauthenticated third-party cancels aren't abusive, in and
>>of themselves. It depends on the issuer's personal reputation as I
>>explained above. Cancels as a denial-of-service attack are very serious
>>abuse OF Usenet.
>What do you think of a personal reputation of a an issuer who make
>3600 cancel (a full year of messages in one go) of a french user
>(Pierre Arribaut). I have the mids if you want.
party cancel isn't being issued soon after the article intended for
cancellation, it shouldn't be issued at all. It cannot have an effect.
The articles have already been seen if not read by everybody.
Richard Kettlewell
Dec 29, 2023, 10:39:41 AM12/29/23
to
llp <con...@usenet.ovh> writes:
> I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
> think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
> configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
> misunderstood what you were saying).
This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now
> I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
> think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
> configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
> misunderstood what you were saying).
ignored by default.
https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/blob/main/doc/pod/inn.conf.pod#user-content-docancels
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Andrew
Dec 29, 2023, 10:49:00 AM12/29/23
to
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> llp <con...@usenet.ovh> writes:
>> I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
>> think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
>> configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
>> misunderstood what you were saying).
>
> This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now
> ignored by default.
As they absolutely should be, or do you want me to issue a couple of
> llp <con...@usenet.ovh> writes:
>> I published this initial message because, contrary to what you seem to
>> think, these cancels are accepted by default in inn2's basic
>> configuration (english is not my native language and perhaps I
>> misunderstood what you were saying).
>
> This was changed in (I think) INN 2.7. Unauthenticated cancels are now
> ignored by default.
hundred cancels spread over several newsgroups?
(This something I have no idea how to do and no intention of trying, but
we have a few people around who would love the opportunity).
>
> https://github.com/InterNetNews/inn/blob/main/doc/pod/inn.conf.pod#user-content-docancels
>
Julieta Shem
Dec 29, 2023, 12:06:43 PM12/29/23
to
your answer can be --- I prefer not to answer, which can be done
explicitly or implicitly (by not answering, say). To suppose you are an
archivist means that you have made your decisions and the problem is
asking you to describe them. It's silly to suppose x is an odd number
and say that x's parity depends on x. In other words, when you are the
archivist, your decisions are not up to each individual archivist ---
they're up to /you/ --- and these are fixed decisions because they all
belong to your past already.
llp
Dec 29, 2023, 4:03:46 PM12/29/23
to
Richard Kettlewell avait soumis l'idée :
Good news !
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Grant Taylor
Dec 29, 2023, 5:54:34 PM12/29/23
to
On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
> these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
No they are not.
> these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
As long as you can read your own archive, you can write out to a
different archive as you want to.
Similarly, you don't have to do the same thing as anyone else.
Each individual archivist archives what they want, how they want, where
they want, and when they want. It's up to each individual to decide
what they do.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 29, 2023, 6:12:24 PM12/29/23
to
In article <umkcfl$2597v$2...@paganini.bofh.team>,
Yes, but they also have bigger problems. It's a minimal amount of effort
for them to hand off a few tapes to people to ask for them, and it does
them no harm.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
for them to hand off a few tapes to people to ask for them, and it does
them no harm.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Julieta Shem
Dec 29, 2023, 9:27:27 PM12/29/23
to
Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
> On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
>
> No they are not.
Lol. You don't seem to know how to suppose or refuse to do so. Either
> On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
>> these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
>
> No they are not.
way is quite alright with me. No hard feelings.
Julieta Shem
Dec 29, 2023, 9:28:38 PM12/29/23
to
Andrew <Do...@hyperspace.vogon.gov> writes:
[...]
> They have bigger lawyers.
They don't have Ralph Nader.
[...]
> They have bigger lawyers.
They don't have Ralph Nader.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 30, 2023, 9:42:38 AM12/30/23
to
it will be lost, and that once it is lost it stays that way. So you need to
make the decision about what to archive before that happens.
If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is
so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days. But I would be very
interested in maintaining archives from the past. But, I didn't keep those
archives from the past, so they are now lost to me.
The Doctor
Dec 30, 2023, 10:05:17 AM12/30/23
to
In article <umpa8q$cpn$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
I wonder continue to archive US"Enetto the last post.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 30, 2023, 10:23:34 AM12/30/23
to
In article <umpbja$1gdq$3...@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
The Doctor <doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>In article <umpa8q$cpn$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <87mstsw...@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>>Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
>>>>> these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
>>>>
>>>> No they are not.
>>>
>>>Lol. You don't seem to know how to suppose or refuse to do so. Either
>>>way is quite alright with me. No hard feelings.
>>
>>I think the argument that is being made is that if you don't store something,
>>it will be lost, and that once it is lost it stays that way. So you need to
>>make the decision about what to archive before that happens.
>>
>>If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is
>>so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days. But I would be very
>>interested in maintaining archives from the past. But, I didn't keep those
>>archives from the past, so they are now lost to me.
>
>In article <umpa8q$cpn$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <87mstsw...@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>>>Grant Taylor <gta...@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
>>>>> these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
>>>>
>>>> No they are not.
>>>
>>>Lol. You don't seem to know how to suppose or refuse to do so. Either
>>>way is quite alright with me. No hard feelings.
>>
>>I think the argument that is being made is that if you don't store something,
>>it will be lost, and that once it is lost it stays that way. So you need to
>>make the decision about what to archive before that happens.
>>
>>If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is
>>so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days. But I would be very
>>interested in maintaining archives from the past. But, I didn't keep those
>>archives from the past, so they are now lost to me.
>
>I wonder continue to archive US"Enetto the last post.
That sentence no verb.
Julieta Shem
Dec 30, 2023, 3:37:37 PM12/30/23
to
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> In article <87mstsw...@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
[...]
> In article <87mstsw...@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
> If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is
> so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days. But I would be very
> interested in maintaining archives from the past. But, I didn't keep those
> archives from the past, so they are now lost to me.
archives are redundant so as to be always there in the future. Take the
Bitcoin network as an example. If you want to prove you thought
something up, you can store a proof of your thought on the network.
That's a ``publication right'' that you can't get by publishing on your
homepage, say. See, for example,
https://cr.yp.to/docs/selfpipe.html
and suppose that homepage gets destroyed without anyone archiving it ---
the author loses the evidence of publication. Scientists have lots of
private services to archive their publications, but regular people can
only count on the USENET.
The Bitcoin network is expensive for this the purpose of publication,
while the USENET is cheaper --- though not cheap enough given all the
work people put in here.
Andrew
Dec 30, 2023, 3:39:23 PM12/30/23
to
on what to do with the 6-figure number of Thai spam mails - and their
friends - which caused so many problems recently.
When I archived a couple of groups from the old Mozilla server I went
through the 150 000 messages in there, cutting the spam out. A lot of
that was by hand, although I did write some filters to handle part of
the job. That on a larger scale? Forget it, life's too short.
Computer Nerd Kev
Dec 30, 2023, 5:23:35 PM12/30/23
to
Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is
> so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days.
The posts that clueless Google Groups users reply to (as observed
> If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is
> so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days.
back when I still saw them) after stumbling onto ancient threads
are an insight into some of the things that might seem irrelevent
to a future audience but are obviously being searched for and read
decades later.
Personally I _do_ find old Usenet threads in search results fairly
often myself. Sometimes from Google Groups, sometimes Narkive,
and there used to be lots of other group-specific Usenet archives
disguised as web forums but either they've been dying or Duck Duck
Go is filtering them out.
I don't try to encourage Usenet results in those web searches. I
don't know why I read others in these recent discussions saying
this has never happened to them. It must just be the questions I
ask, or because I use Duck Duck Go. No not all such searches
are about very old computer hardware/software, some topics are
relatively timeless.
Anyway Narkive seems to be fueling the search engine indexes for
new Usenet threads, so if Google Groups keeps the old archives then
the situation shouldn't change. Maybe that Rocksolid archive will get
indexed and start showing up in results too, which might substitute
for some more of the Google Groups archive if they do eventually
remove that?
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _# | Note: I won't see posts made from Google Groups |
SugarBug
Dec 30, 2023, 5:57:19 PM12/30/23
to
On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
<snip>
> That sentence no verb.
> --scott
That grammar bad.
That syntax no sense.
Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
--
@fir...@neon.nightbulb.net | https://neon.nightbulb.net/firefly
Grand Garter General of the Imperial Baggy Jeans Mafia
klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
<snip>
> That sentence no verb.
> --scott
That syntax no sense.
Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
--
@fir...@neon.nightbulb.net | https://neon.nightbulb.net/firefly
Grand Garter General of the Imperial Baggy Jeans Mafia
Julieta Shem
Dec 30, 2023, 10:42:11 PM12/30/23
to
SugarBug <38...@sugar.bug> writes:
> On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> That sentence no verb.
>> --scott
>
> That grammar bad.
> That syntax no sense.
>
> Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
Lol!
> On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> That sentence no verb.
>> --scott
>
> That grammar bad.
> That syntax no sense.
>
> Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
Tell him as well that his signature violates section 4.3 of RFC 3676.
Frank Slootweg
Dec 31, 2023, 5:57:27 AM12/31/23
to
signature! :-)
SugarBug
Dec 31, 2023, 6:51:26 AM12/31/23
to
We must sign a free trollingsraum pact before all bazinga breaks loose.
--
General of the Baggy Jeans Mafia | https://neon.nightbulb.net/firefly
If your jeans don't have room for tools they
are not really jeans; they are denim leotards.
Scott Dorsey
Dec 31, 2023, 5:24:05 PM12/31/23
to
In article <20231231054917.4c5a5aaf@dev>, SugarBug <38...@sugar.bug> wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:42:08 -0300
>Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>
>> SugarBug <38...@sugar.bug> writes:
>>
>> > On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
>> > klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> That sentence no verb.
>> >> --scott
>> >
>> > That grammar bad.
>> > That syntax no sense.
>> >
>> > Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
>>
>> Lol!
>>
>> Tell him as well that his signature violates section 4.3 of RFC 3676.
>
>It's a deadly trio. Signzatsgruppen Sigzstaffel has entered the chat.
Perhaps, if you think I am out of line, then you could explain to me just what
>On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:42:08 -0300
>Julieta Shem <js...@yaxenu.org> wrote:
>
>> SugarBug <38...@sugar.bug> writes:
>>
>> > On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
>> > klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> That sentence no verb.
>> >> --scott
>> >
>> > That grammar bad.
>> > That syntax no sense.
>> >
>> > Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
>>
>> Lol!
>>
>> Tell him as well that his signature violates section 4.3 of RFC 3676.
>
>It's a deadly trio. Signzatsgruppen Sigzstaffel has entered the chat.
> I wonder continue to archive US"Enetto the last post.
Because it does not seem to be useful communication to me.
immibis
Jan 1, 2024, 9:25:15 PMJan 1
to
think that's encouragement for you to abusively cancel all their
messages - after all, it is no problem and not abuse, according to them.
llp
Jan 5, 2024, 4:57:32 PMJan 5
to
Ivo Gandolfo a formulé la demande :
> On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
>> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
> [cut]
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Admin of news.usenet.ovh
>
> Nope, you just don't like the outcome
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
>
> If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now, I would
> never have offered space for a similar service. But since Olivier has much
> more experience in the hierarchy than you, and above all much more support,
> he also has my almost unconditional support. [cut]
And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
See <un9ljj$16r4$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>
I quote:
"A false manipulation on the cancellation robot targeting
the anonymous Zorro has unfortunately cancelled many legitimate
articles [cut] between December 5, 2023 and January 5, 2024
(one month, therefore)."
Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
(I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
made over a year in one go).
> On 27/12/2023 22:44, llp wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I want to inform you that non-consensual global cancellations for
>> "flood" and concerning the "fr" hierarchy are being issued from the
> [cut]
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Admin of news.usenet.ovh
>
> Nope, you just don't like the outcome
>
> http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=<umh49a%24jtn%241%40cabale.usenet-fr.net>
>
> If it were truly abusive as you have been claiming for months now, I would
> never have offered space for a similar service. But since Olivier has much
> more experience in the hierarchy than you, and above all much more support,
> he also has my almost unconditional support. [cut]
And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
See <un9ljj$16r4$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>
I quote:
"A false manipulation on the cancellation robot targeting
the anonymous Zorro has unfortunately cancelled many legitimate
articles [cut] between December 5, 2023 and January 5, 2024
(one month, therefore)."
Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
(I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
made over a year in one go).
llp
Jan 5, 2024, 6:18:46 PMJan 5
to
llp a pensé très fort :
The mids of legitimate articles cancelled on few servers
via Paganini server:
<mn.2a047e7ca0...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.34a67e7c37...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.34ab7e7c06...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8ba57e7c64...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.bcb37e7c95...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.bd337e7cc2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c1c77e7c38...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c1ce7e7c3a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c21d7e7cb6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c2397e7ca9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c2bb7e7c82...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c2c27e7c1a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c3bb7e7c93...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d52f7e7cb1...@gmail.com>
<mn.2c117e7c80...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c887e7c6b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c897e7c34...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c9e7e7c8e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2ca07e7cbe...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2cc47e7c6f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2cc67e7c8c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2cfc7e7ca2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2d0e7e7cc7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.319c7e7c96...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.32897e7c47...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.32947e7c61...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.33c57e7c12...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.34357e7ca8...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.34b27e7c40...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.3b2e7e7c4e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.3c617e7c3f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.418f7e7c6b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.426e7e7ce9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.4b227e7cd7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.52697e7c57...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.54297e7ca6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.59d87e7cc2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.59eb7e7c6e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5bfc7e7c9e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5c247e7cbd...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5c8d7e7cab...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5c9c7e7c7a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d067e7c89...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d087e7c1a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d0a7e7c68...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d0d7e7c4f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d1a7e7cd5...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d2c7e7c5a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.651b7e7cdb...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6a767e7c67...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6b057e7cf9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6b3a7e7cef...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6b4d7e7c48...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6b527e7c8b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6be47e7c33...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6be97e7c66...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6bfb7e7c6b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6c0d7e7c97...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6ca77e7c35...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6cc17e7c36...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6d187e7c85...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6d237e7c56...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.71a87e7cc6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.71aa7e7cea...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.71fc7e7ce6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.72877e7c2e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.728c7e7cd1...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.74167e7ccc...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.74c27e7c05...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.74eb7e7c6f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.79fe7e7cf0...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.7c387e7cda...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.7c5c7e7c2d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.83f37e7c6a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.85357e7c99...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.85377e7cc2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8a157e7c62...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8a267e7c68...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8a7c7e7c49...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8a897e7c65...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8ab17e7c4e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8b957e7c6d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8b9f7e7c6c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8ba97e7c10...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.91a17e7c8d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c1e7e7c9f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c287e7c9e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c2b7e7c4d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c517e7c34...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c817e7c6e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c837e7cab...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c877e7cf2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9d167e7c05...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9d2c7e7ce6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9d2d7e7cbb...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a1997e7c9b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a3297e7cae...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a5227e7c87...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a5277e7ce6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a53c7e7c2a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a99f7e7cd8...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a9a37e7c43...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.abe37e7c30...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.abe67e7c55...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ad1f7e7c53...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ad227e7ce7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3907e7c29...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3997e7c61...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b39e7e7c6e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3a27e7cef...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3a67e7c4c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3a97e7cd2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3af7e7c93...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3b57e7c50...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3bc7e7c22...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3c27e7c0e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4117e7cde...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4577e7c15...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4647e7c7d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4897e7c57...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4ad7e7c17...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4af7e7ca9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4b07e7c74...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b52b7e7cff...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b5367e7c03...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b9867e7cbc...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b9d07e7c62...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.bb827e7cde...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c1997e7c97...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c3047e7c62...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.cabe7e7c22...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.cb247e7c11...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d26c7e7cf2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d2747e7c7e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d3fe7e7ca5...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d4067e7c55...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da217e7c87...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da7f7e7c49...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da887e7cc1...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da8a7e7c7b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da8d7e7c5e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.dd137e7c9a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.dd177e7c34...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e2577e7c43...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e2a87e7c7c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e2a87e7ce8...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e2aa7e7c84...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e3d37e7c2f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e3dd7e7c0a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e41a7e7c5c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e9ab7e7c62...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eabe7e7cca...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eb1d7e7ca9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eb2c7e7c01...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eb317e7c0a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eb837e7c4b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ed0d7e7c77...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ed1f7e7cd0...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ed227e7c01...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f1987e7c2a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f2547e7c21...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f4007e7ce7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f42c7e7c0a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f9a57e7c0e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f9ac7e7c7c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fa1c7e7c6e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fa1f7e7c59...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fab57e7c04...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fabe7e7c7c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fac27e7c73...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fac37e7cfd...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fb257e7cfb...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fcb57e7c99...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fd277e7c65...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fd2b7e7cd9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0aae7e816f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0bec7e819f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0c007e81fe...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0d297e814f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0d2f7e8176...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.119f7e8110...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.138d7e81ee...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.13977e8127...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.15357e8116...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.1cdd7e8141...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.1cf07e812b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.1d1c7e8155...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.237f7e81f7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2a097e819f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c3d7e818d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c5f7e81b6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.83f17e7c2c...@free.fr>
<mn.29a77e7c9b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.400a7e7cd4...@free.fr>
<mn.4a767e7cf2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.4a9f7e7c41...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.4b207e7ce6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.4bdc7e7c11...@salard.com>
<mn.4bed7e7cab...@salard.com>
<mn.4bf67e7ccf...@salard.com>
<mn.4c577e7c01...@salard.com>
<mn.542e7e7c32...@salard.com>
<mn.7d227e7c9e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.81c67e7ca9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.84717e7ce0...@salard.com>
<mn.8c407e7c2...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.9cba7e7c47...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9d4c7e7c86...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ad177e7c2d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b1ef7e7c21...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b1f07e7c8f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b5067e7ce1...@salard.com>
<mn.b5307e7cae...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b99b7e7c04...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c3637e7ce...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.c9c07e7cf5...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ca467e7ca7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.cac27e7c32...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.cb1d7e7c5c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d9b47e7c81...@salard.com>
<mn.dc467e7c34...@salard.com>
<mn.e1927e7cda...@salard.com>
<mn.e3877e7c34...@salard.com>
<mn.19a47e810f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.1b8e7e81c1...@salard.com>
<mn.42987e7ca...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.5c2a7e7ce...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.62877e7c3...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.12287e8123...@free.fr>
<mn.34387e7c17...@free.fr>
<mn.34dc7e7cd4...@free.fr>
<mn.3c077e7cbe...@free.fr>
<mn.40087e7c54...@free.fr>
<mn.781e7e7c09...@free.fr>
<mn.b43d7e7c08...@free.fr>
<mn.d8197e7c53...@free.fr>
<mn.dabd7e7cc1...@free.fr>
<mn.dc377e7cba...@free.fr>
<mn.dc397e7c35...@free.fr>
<mn.0ca57e8170...@free.fr>
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
via Paganini server:
<mn.2a047e7ca0...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.34a67e7c37...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.34ab7e7c06...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8ba57e7c64...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.bcb37e7c95...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.bd337e7cc2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c1c77e7c38...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c1ce7e7c3a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c21d7e7cb6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c2397e7ca9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c2bb7e7c82...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c2c27e7c1a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c3bb7e7c93...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d52f7e7cb1...@gmail.com>
<mn.2c117e7c80...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c887e7c6b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c897e7c34...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c9e7e7c8e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2ca07e7cbe...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2cc47e7c6f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2cc67e7c8c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2cfc7e7ca2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2d0e7e7cc7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.319c7e7c96...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.32897e7c47...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.32947e7c61...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.33c57e7c12...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.34357e7ca8...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.34b27e7c40...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.3b2e7e7c4e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.3c617e7c3f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.418f7e7c6b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.426e7e7ce9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.4b227e7cd7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.52697e7c57...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.54297e7ca6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.59d87e7cc2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.59eb7e7c6e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5bfc7e7c9e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5c247e7cbd...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5c8d7e7cab...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5c9c7e7c7a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d067e7c89...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d087e7c1a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d0a7e7c68...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d0d7e7c4f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d1a7e7cd5...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.5d2c7e7c5a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.651b7e7cdb...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6a767e7c67...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6b057e7cf9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6b3a7e7cef...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6b4d7e7c48...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6b527e7c8b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6be47e7c33...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6be97e7c66...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6bfb7e7c6b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6c0d7e7c97...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6ca77e7c35...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6cc17e7c36...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6d187e7c85...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.6d237e7c56...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.71a87e7cc6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.71aa7e7cea...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.71fc7e7ce6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.72877e7c2e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.728c7e7cd1...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.74167e7ccc...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.74c27e7c05...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.74eb7e7c6f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.79fe7e7cf0...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.7c387e7cda...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.7c5c7e7c2d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.83f37e7c6a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.85357e7c99...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.85377e7cc2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8a157e7c62...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8a267e7c68...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8a7c7e7c49...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8a897e7c65...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8ab17e7c4e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8b957e7c6d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8b9f7e7c6c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.8ba97e7c10...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.91a17e7c8d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c1e7e7c9f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c287e7c9e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c2b7e7c4d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c517e7c34...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c817e7c6e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c837e7cab...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9c877e7cf2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9d167e7c05...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9d2c7e7ce6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9d2d7e7cbb...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a1997e7c9b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a3297e7cae...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a5227e7c87...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a5277e7ce6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a53c7e7c2a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a99f7e7cd8...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.a9a37e7c43...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.abe37e7c30...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.abe67e7c55...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ad1f7e7c53...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ad227e7ce7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3907e7c29...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3997e7c61...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b39e7e7c6e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3a27e7cef...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3a67e7c4c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3a97e7cd2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3af7e7c93...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3b57e7c50...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3bc7e7c22...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b3c27e7c0e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4117e7cde...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4577e7c15...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4647e7c7d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4897e7c57...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4ad7e7c17...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4af7e7ca9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b4b07e7c74...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b52b7e7cff...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b5367e7c03...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b9867e7cbc...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b9d07e7c62...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.bb827e7cde...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c1997e7c97...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c3047e7c62...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.cabe7e7c22...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.cb247e7c11...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d26c7e7cf2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d2747e7c7e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d3fe7e7ca5...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d4067e7c55...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da217e7c87...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da7f7e7c49...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da887e7cc1...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da8a7e7c7b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.da8d7e7c5e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.dd137e7c9a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.dd177e7c34...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e2577e7c43...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e2a87e7c7c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e2a87e7ce8...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e2aa7e7c84...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e3d37e7c2f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e3dd7e7c0a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e41a7e7c5c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.e9ab7e7c62...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eabe7e7cca...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eb1d7e7ca9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eb2c7e7c01...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eb317e7c0a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.eb837e7c4b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ed0d7e7c77...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ed1f7e7cd0...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ed227e7c01...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f1987e7c2a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f2547e7c21...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f4007e7ce7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f42c7e7c0a...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f9a57e7c0e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.f9ac7e7c7c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fa1c7e7c6e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fa1f7e7c59...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fab57e7c04...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fabe7e7c7c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fac27e7c73...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fac37e7cfd...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fb257e7cfb...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fcb57e7c99...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fd277e7c65...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.fd2b7e7cd9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0aae7e816f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0bec7e819f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0c007e81fe...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0d297e814f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.0d2f7e8176...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.119f7e8110...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.138d7e81ee...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.13977e8127...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.15357e8116...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.1cdd7e8141...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.1cf07e812b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.1d1c7e8155...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.237f7e81f7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2a097e819f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c3d7e818d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.2c5f7e81b6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.83f17e7c2c...@free.fr>
<mn.29a77e7c9b...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.400a7e7cd4...@free.fr>
<mn.4a767e7cf2...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.4a9f7e7c41...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.4b207e7ce6...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.4bdc7e7c11...@salard.com>
<mn.4bed7e7cab...@salard.com>
<mn.4bf67e7ccf...@salard.com>
<mn.4c577e7c01...@salard.com>
<mn.542e7e7c32...@salard.com>
<mn.7d227e7c9e...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.81c67e7ca9...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.84717e7ce0...@salard.com>
<mn.8c407e7c2...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.9cba7e7c47...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.9d4c7e7c86...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ad177e7c2d...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b1ef7e7c21...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b1f07e7c8f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b5067e7ce1...@salard.com>
<mn.b5307e7cae...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.b99b7e7c04...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.c3637e7ce...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.c9c07e7cf5...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.ca467e7ca7...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.cac27e7c32...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.cb1d7e7c5c...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.d9b47e7c81...@salard.com>
<mn.dc467e7c34...@salard.com>
<mn.e1927e7cda...@salard.com>
<mn.e3877e7c34...@salard.com>
<mn.19a47e810f...@invalid.pasdepub>
<mn.1b8e7e81c1...@salard.com>
<mn.42987e7ca...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.5c2a7e7ce...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.62877e7c3...@finvalid.fr>
<mn.12287e8123...@free.fr>
<mn.34387e7c17...@free.fr>
<mn.34dc7e7cd4...@free.fr>
<mn.3c077e7cbe...@free.fr>
<mn.40087e7c54...@free.fr>
<mn.781e7e7c09...@free.fr>
<mn.b43d7e7c08...@free.fr>
<mn.d8197e7c53...@free.fr>
<mn.dabd7e7cc1...@free.fr>
<mn.dc377e7cba...@free.fr>
<mn.dc397e7c35...@free.fr>
<mn.0ca57e8170...@free.fr>
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Ivo Gandolfo
Jan 5, 2024, 6:58:15 PMJan 5
to
On 05/01/2024 22:57, llp wrote:
> And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
> [cut]
> And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
>
> Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
> (I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
> server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
> made over a year in one go).
Absolutely, actually even more so now. And I don't even try to explain
> Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
> (I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
> server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
> made over a year in one go).
why, either you wouldn't understand it or you're so full of
preconceptions that you wouldn't want to understand it anyway.
But unlike Marc, I don't get offended if someone insults me, persecutes
me or does bad things against me, also because in 100% of cases I will
agree with them. And despite being 40 years old I still have enough
energy to manage something like usenet, in fact right now I'm working to
expand the service I offer, and Olivier is part of this future, whether
you like it or not.
Sincerely
--
Ivo Gandolfo
llp
Jan 6, 2024, 3:26:46 AMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024, Ivo Gandolfo a supposé :
supports a person who abuses from your server.
> [cut] And despite being 40 years old I still have enough energy to manage
> something like usenet,
Then I'm older than you.
Although I don't see what age has to do with it.
> in fact right now I'm working to expand the service I offer,
> and Olivier is part of this future, whether you like it or not.
When you complained about having only three feeds left, I answered your
call. But today I can't, in good conscience, continue to support you in
your action.
Sincerelery.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> On 05/01/2024 22:57, llp wrote:
>> And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
> > [cut]
>>
>> Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
>> (I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
>> server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
>> made over a year in one go).
>
>
> Absolutely, actually even more so now. And I don't even try to explain why,
> either you wouldn't understand it or you're so full of preconceptions that
> you wouldn't want to understand it anyway.
You're right, I can't understand a newsmaster who encourages and
>> And what did the guy who has your unconditional support do?
> > [cut]
>>
>> Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
>> (I remind you that the previous newsmaster of the defunct alphanet
>> server had covered the 3600 illegitimate and voluntary cancellations
>> made over a year in one go).
>
>
> Absolutely, actually even more so now. And I don't even try to explain why,
> either you wouldn't understand it or you're so full of preconceptions that
> you wouldn't want to understand it anyway.
supports a person who abuses from your server.
> [cut] And despite being 40 years old I still have enough energy to manage
> something like usenet,
Then I'm older than you.
Although I don't see what age has to do with it.
> in fact right now I'm working to expand the service I offer,
> and Olivier is part of this future, whether you like it or not.
call. But today I can't, in good conscience, continue to support you in
your action.
Sincerelery.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Olivier Miakinen
Jan 6, 2024, 5:09:09 AMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 00:58, Ivo Gandolfo responded to llp :
However, in order that I don't risk to cancel other legitimate posts,
for the anonymous hateful Zorro I will let you stop him to use your
server instead of me trying to cancel him afterwards.
Of course he uses a VPN so it is hard to stop him completely, but here
is the current list of posting-hosts he used on paganini :
posting-host="aJqRCYORex+qw7Hdj/favw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="ip1JLA9M/LlzVZplJtZivw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="ohsf5uaZzF4yAIVnImWjbA.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="zjSVH+s/XBbZv26RHT63rg.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="HFwRVUvzuKpUDkNDm25+uw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="anR4YpMNijul/+hpGOvYXQ.user.paganini.bofh.team"
Apparently his account on eternal-september was already closed because
he doesn't use it anymore :
posting-host="45f3c7331614b9331d54ef10c35a8af6"
posting-host="b5bd1cf56581709933727c2fa571223a"
posting-host="53d4efb9463f1aaa9f16b58464a4d0f9"
posting-host="565b5e449d6d29aa32502cade88af392"
posting-host="690e39402ab684ea861196540d64b30d"
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KqbzvDQgvg4GEFpnip8+nFWN5jvJ7UB4="
And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
Sincerely,
--
Olivier Miakinen
>>
>> Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
>
>> Will your server continue to withstand this abuse?
>
> Absolutely, actually even more so now.
Thank you.
However, in order that I don't risk to cancel other legitimate posts,
for the anonymous hateful Zorro I will let you stop him to use your
server instead of me trying to cancel him afterwards.
Of course he uses a VPN so it is hard to stop him completely, but here
is the current list of posting-hosts he used on paganini :
posting-host="aJqRCYORex+qw7Hdj/favw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="ip1JLA9M/LlzVZplJtZivw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="ohsf5uaZzF4yAIVnImWjbA.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="zjSVH+s/XBbZv26RHT63rg.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="HFwRVUvzuKpUDkNDm25+uw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="anR4YpMNijul/+hpGOvYXQ.user.paganini.bofh.team"
Apparently his account on eternal-september was already closed because
he doesn't use it anymore :
posting-host="45f3c7331614b9331d54ef10c35a8af6"
posting-host="b5bd1cf56581709933727c2fa571223a"
posting-host="53d4efb9463f1aaa9f16b58464a4d0f9"
posting-host="565b5e449d6d29aa32502cade88af392"
posting-host="690e39402ab684ea861196540d64b30d"
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+KqbzvDQgvg4GEFpnip8+nFWN5jvJ7UB4="
And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
Sincerely,
--
Olivier Miakinen
Olivier Miakinen
Jan 6, 2024, 7:04:28 AMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 11:09, Olivier Miakinen a écrit :
>
> However, in order that I don't risk to cancel other legitimate posts,
> for the anonymous hateful Zorro I will let you stop him to use your
> server instead of me trying to cancel him afterwards.
>
> Of course he uses a VPN so it is hard to stop him completely, but here
> is the current list of posting-hosts he used on paganini :
> posting-host="aJqRCYORex+qw7Hdj/favw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="ip1JLA9M/LlzVZplJtZivw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="ohsf5uaZzF4yAIVnImWjbA.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="zjSVH+s/XBbZv26RHT63rg.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="HFwRVUvzuKpUDkNDm25+uw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="anR4YpMNijul/+hpGOvYXQ.user.paganini.bofh.team"
posting-host="a719c7497e7fcaf5de4bf78d12ecd2df"
>
> However, in order that I don't risk to cancel other legitimate posts,
> for the anonymous hateful Zorro I will let you stop him to use your
> server instead of me trying to cancel him afterwards.
>
> Of course he uses a VPN so it is hard to stop him completely, but here
> is the current list of posting-hosts he used on paganini :
> posting-host="aJqRCYORex+qw7Hdj/favw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="ip1JLA9M/LlzVZplJtZivw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="ohsf5uaZzF4yAIVnImWjbA.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="zjSVH+s/XBbZv26RHT63rg.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="HFwRVUvzuKpUDkNDm25+uw.user.paganini.bofh.team"
> posting-host="anR4YpMNijul/+hpGOvYXQ.user.paganini.bofh.team"
--
Olivier Miakinen
Frank Slootweg
Jan 6, 2024, 10:59:09 AMJan 6
to
Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
[...]
> And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
> the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
> consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
any properly configured server.
[...]
> And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
> the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
> consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
any properly configured server.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 6, 2024, 11:09:42 AMJan 6
to
noel <delet...@invalid.lan> wrote:
>
> Ahhh this thread reminds me of the mid 90's...
>
> This kids, is why you never ever, honor cancels, drop em stone cold dead
> at the door.
Indeed! I found the "being 40 years old" part rather funny (no offense
intended). Most of us (YTIU) are not 40 years old but have 40 years (and
more) experience, expertise, etc..
[...]
>
> Ahhh this thread reminds me of the mid 90's...
>
> This kids, is why you never ever, honor cancels, drop em stone cold dead
> at the door.
Indeed! I found the "being 40 years old" part rather funny (no offense
intended). Most of us (YTIU) are not 40 years old but have 40 years (and
more) experience, expertise, etc..
[...]
Olivier Miakinen
Jan 6, 2024, 11:41:59 AMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 16:59, Frank Slootweg wrote :
>
> The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
Maybe on the Big8? On Usenet-fr (fr.*), this methode has existed for
>
> The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
(at least) more than two decades, either by hand (for instance by Denis
Liégeois) or by robot (the bleachbot of Xavier Roche is still active,
but too bad is not yet maintained).
Of course, someone who would abuse of the cancels would be signaled to
his/her news admin and see their account removed. If I was thought to
be abusing, there would be two ways of stopping me, either by making
remove my account on usenet-fr.net (where my bot reads the articles)
or by making remove my IHAVE access to paganini.bofh.team (where my
bot sends both cancels, and cancel reports to fr.usenet.abus.rapports).
> All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
> any properly configured server.
all cancels on his server and is not directly touched by them. But he
has a grudge against me since before November 2020, when he used for
the first time the pseudonym LaLibreParole (later changed to llp) for
aggressing me. That is why he does everything he can to denigrate me.
I am very sorry that this fight had to arrive on this group.
--
Olivier Miakinen
Olivier Miakinen
Jan 6, 2024, 11:43:47 AMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 17:41, Olivier Miakinen a écrit :
>
> [...] or by robot (the bleachbot of Xavier Roche is still active,
--
Olivier Miakinen
>
> [...] or by robot (the bleachbot of Xavier Roche is still active,
> but too bad is not yet maintained).
Sorry, I meant "not maintained anymore". I am not very good in English.
--
Olivier Miakinen
Eric M
Jan 6, 2024, 12:06:52 PMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 16:59, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
> The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if
> The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do
is leave usenet ?
> All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
> any properly configured server.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 6, 2024, 1:58:08 PMJan 6
to
As said before, this is all a bit of a theoretical discussion, because
cancels are a thing of the past. That said, ....
Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
*could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for
'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
Just "decided by consensus" by some random group of people is not a
defined formal procedure. I assume there is no defined formal procedure,
otherwise people/you would by pointing to that procedure and that
organizational body would be issueing the cancels, not you.
Realize that while in the old days local hierarchies were indeed that,
local to some country, city, etc., that is no longer true. Local
hierarchies like fr.*, nl.* (for our country), etc. are carried by
servers the world over.
For example the fr.* hierarchy - or a least a part of it (416 groups)
- is carried by my NSP (News SP) News.Individual.Net. So I, a Dutch
user, can access a French hierarchy via a German server.
So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been
posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
specifically said so.)
Is that a proper way to do things? I do not think so. The person
issuing these cancels has no business affecting servers and people in
other countries.
> Of course, someone who would abuse of the cancels would be signaled to
> his/her news admin and see their account removed. If I was thought to
> be abusing, there would be two ways of stopping me, either by making
> remove my account on usenet-fr.net (where my bot reads the articles)
> or by making remove my IHAVE access to paganini.bofh.team (where my
> bot sends both cancels, and cancel reports to fr.usenet.abus.rapports).
As others, and I, have said, these cancels do not need to be stopped
by someone, they shouldn't be issued in the first place. As has been
mentioned, *if* - big if - there is a need, NoCeM is the proper
mechanism, not cancels.
BTW, you needing two servers (usenet-fr.net and paganini.bofh.team)
looks dodgy in and of itself. Why can't you use one?
cancels are a thing of the past. That said, ....
Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
> Le 06/01/2024 ŕ 16:59, Frank Slootweg wrote :
> >
> > The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> > of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> > into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
>
> Maybe on the Big8? On Usenet-fr (fr.*), this methode has existed for
> (at least) more than two decades, either by hand (for instance by Denis
> Liégeois) or by robot (the bleachbot of Xavier Roche is still active,
> but too bad is not yet maintained).
On Usenet and NetNews in general. A 'local' hierarchy, i.e. like fr.*,
> >
> > The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> > of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> > into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
>
> Maybe on the Big8? On Usenet-fr (fr.*), this methode has existed for
> (at least) more than two decades, either by hand (for instance by Denis
> Liégeois) or by robot (the bleachbot of Xavier Roche is still active,
> but too bad is not yet maintained).
*could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for
'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
Just "decided by consensus" by some random group of people is not a
defined formal procedure. I assume there is no defined formal procedure,
otherwise people/you would by pointing to that procedure and that
organizational body would be issueing the cancels, not you.
Realize that while in the old days local hierarchies were indeed that,
local to some country, city, etc., that is no longer true. Local
hierarchies like fr.*, nl.* (for our country), etc. are carried by
servers the world over.
For example the fr.* hierarchy - or a least a part of it (416 groups)
- is carried by my NSP (News SP) News.Individual.Net. So I, a Dutch
user, can access a French hierarchy via a German server.
So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been
posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
specifically said so.)
Is that a proper way to do things? I do not think so. The person
issuing these cancels has no business affecting servers and people in
other countries.
> Of course, someone who would abuse of the cancels would be signaled to
> his/her news admin and see their account removed. If I was thought to
> be abusing, there would be two ways of stopping me, either by making
> remove my account on usenet-fr.net (where my bot reads the articles)
> or by making remove my IHAVE access to paganini.bofh.team (where my
> bot sends both cancels, and cancel reports to fr.usenet.abus.rapports).
by someone, they shouldn't be issued in the first place. As has been
mentioned, *if* - big if - there is a need, NoCeM is the proper
mechanism, not cancels.
BTW, you needing two servers (usenet-fr.net and paganini.bofh.team)
looks dodgy in and of itself. Why can't you use one?
llp
Jan 6, 2024, 2:19:13 PMJan 6
to
Olivier Miakinen a présenté l'énoncé suivant :
Ivo does not do this...
And yet, you have a long history of cancelling legitimate articles.
> Note that the anonymous llp, who now owns his own news server, refuses
> all cancels on his server
I only refuse to accept abusive cancels.
And because of this I'm constantly harassed by a small pack
that wants to censor usenet-fr to its heart's content.
And I've never hesitated to say the abusive nature of your
cancellations. Like that of Pierre Aribaut (whose only crime
was to disagree with you about the covid19 group) that you cancelled
of your own accord under a false pretext (a year of messages in a one
go).
> I am very sorry that this fight had to arrive on this group.
But not sorry enough to stop the nonsense and listen to other
people's opinions: only use nocems.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> Le 06/01/2024 à 16:59, Frank Slootweg wrote :
>>
>> The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
>> of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
>> into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
>
>>
>> The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
>> of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
>> into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
>
> Of course, someone who would abuse of the cancels would be signaled to
> his/her news admin and see their account removed.
Very funny.
> his/her news admin and see their account removed.
Ivo does not do this...
And yet, you have a long history of cancelling legitimate articles.
> Note that the anonymous llp, who now owns his own news server, refuses
> all cancels on his server
And because of this I'm constantly harassed by a small pack
that wants to censor usenet-fr to its heart's content.
And I've never hesitated to say the abusive nature of your
cancellations. Like that of Pierre Aribaut (whose only crime
was to disagree with you about the covid19 group) that you cancelled
of your own accord under a false pretext (a year of messages in a one
go).
> I am very sorry that this fight had to arrive on this group.
people's opinions: only use nocems.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 6, 2024, 2:27:28 PMJan 6
to
Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
>[...]
>>And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
>>the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
>>consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
> I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
>articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
>get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
From what we've been told, the cancels are processed at two specific
>Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
>[...]
>>And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
>>the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
>>consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
> I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
>articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
>get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
servers that are very old and aren't set up for NoCeMs. I have no idea
what protects these servers from massive numbers of cancel messages
being issued as denial-of-service attacks. But apparently these two
servers are never going to be updated.
The issuer of the cancels is not expecting the cancel messages to be
acted upon at any other News site.
> The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
>of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
>into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
that's several decades old and intended to guide those issuing
third-party cancels as spam countermeasures.
As always, it depends on the reputation of the issuer of the cancel
messages.
Cancel messages aren't trusted generally due to past abuse in denial of
service attacks, not because it's impossible for the judgement of any
issuer of cancel messages to be trusted who maintained a good reputation.
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 6, 2024, 2:30:51 PMJan 6
to
Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>. . .
> On Usenet and NetNews in general. A 'local' hierarchy, i.e. like fr.*,
>*could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
>this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for
>'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
I'm being pedantic, but fr.* is a regional hierarchy. A local hierarchy
isn't Usenet at all because articles aren't intended to be distributed
to peers. The newsgroups are local to that News site only.
>. . .
>>. . .
> On Usenet and NetNews in general. A 'local' hierarchy, i.e. like fr.*,
>*could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
>this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for
>'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
isn't Usenet at all because articles aren't intended to be distributed
to peers. The newsgroups are local to that News site only.
>. . .
Frank Slootweg
Jan 6, 2024, 2:49:43 PMJan 6
to
much better term than 'local'. I should have thought of that myself, but
the language barrier apparently prevented me from finding the
right/better term :-)
Thanks!
Frank Slootweg
Jan 6, 2024, 3:10:47 PMJan 6
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >>And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
> >>the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
> >>consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
>
> > I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
> >articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
> >get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
>
> From what we've been told, the cancels are processed at two specific
> servers that are very old and aren't set up for NoCeMs. I have no idea
> what protects these servers from massive numbers of cancel messages
> being issued as denial-of-service attacks. But apparently these two
> servers are never going to be updated.
>
> The issuer of the cancels is not expecting the cancel messages to be
> acted upon at any other News site.
OK. Thanks for the details. So the issuer of the cancels has
> >Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >>And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
> >>the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
> >>consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
>
> > I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
> >articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
> >get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
>
> From what we've been told, the cancels are processed at two specific
> servers that are very old and aren't set up for NoCeMs. I have no idea
> what protects these servers from massive numbers of cancel messages
> being issued as denial-of-service attacks. But apparently these two
> servers are never going to be updated.
>
> The issuer of the cancels is not expecting the cancel messages to be
> acted upon at any other News site.
reasonable expectations.
It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
Anyway, as has been said, also by me, this whole business is mainly a
non-issue, because these cancels shouldn't affect other - properly
configured servers.
> > The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> >of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> >into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
>
> Oh, c'mon. skirv maintains the cron job on his cancellable spam FAQ
> that's several decades old and intended to guide those issuing
> third-party cancels as spam countermeasures.
>
> As always, it depends on the reputation of the issuer of the cancel
> messages.
>
> Cancel messages aren't trusted generally due to past abuse in denial of
> service attacks, not because it's impossible for the judgement of any
> issuer of cancel messages to be trusted who maintained a good reputation.
because there's already so much irrelevant noise, but I probably overdid
it.
DV
Jan 6, 2024, 3:13:39 PMJan 6
to
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> I'm being pedantic, but fr.* is a regional hierarchy.
Actually, the fr.* hierarchy is more than regional: it is not limited to
> I'm being pedantic, but fr.* is a regional hierarchy.
French people but welcomes French-speaking users from all over the world.
--
Denis
Serveurs de news et passerelles web : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org>
Lecteurs de news : <http://usenet-fr.yakakwatik.org/lecteurs-de-news.html>
Frank Slootweg
Jan 6, 2024, 3:20:39 PMJan 6
to
Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
to do that, deal with it or indeed leave Usenet.
> > All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
> > any properly configured server.
>
> I think you didn't ask the users, maybe because they were the ennemy :)
Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. Which users? Who
should do the asking? What should they ask? Who is whose 'enemy' and
why?
--
Frank Slootweg, ex (part time) News admin in some tiny 150K employee company.
> Le 06/01/2024 ŕ 16:59, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> > The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> > of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> > into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
>
> So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if
> the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do
> is leave usenet ?
If nothing helps, use your killfile. If for some reason you don't want
>
> > The only people who can legitimately cancel an article are the poster
> > of said article and the admin of the server which injected the article
> > into the network. Anyone else is a no-no.
>
> So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if
> the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do
> is leave usenet ?
to do that, deal with it or indeed leave Usenet.
> > All in the earlier mentioned context of cancels being irrelevant for
> > any properly configured server.
>
> I think you didn't ask the users, maybe because they were the ennemy :)
should do the asking? What should they ask? Who is whose 'enemy' and
why?
--
Frank Slootweg, ex (part time) News admin in some tiny 150K employee company.
Olivier Miakinen
Jan 6, 2024, 3:40:02 PMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 19:58, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> On Usenet and NetNews in general. A 'local' hierarchy, i.e. like fr.*,
> *could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
> this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for
> 'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
>
> Just "decided by consensus" by some random group of people is not a
> defined formal procedure. I assume there is no defined formal procedure,
> otherwise people/you would by pointing to that procedure and that
> organizational body would be issueing the cancels, not you.
>
> Realize that while in the old days local hierarchies were indeed that,
> local to some country, city, etc., that is no longer true. Local
> hierarchies like fr.*, nl.* (for our country), etc. are carried by
> servers the world over.
Actually, fr.* is neither a local hierarchy nor a regional one but a
>
> On Usenet and NetNews in general. A 'local' hierarchy, i.e. like fr.*,
> *could* be different *if* there is a organizational body which governs
> this hierarchy *and* that body has *defined* the special procedures for
> 'approved' cancels, i.e. who, how, why, when, etc..
>
> Just "decided by consensus" by some random group of people is not a
> defined formal procedure. I assume there is no defined formal procedure,
> otherwise people/you would by pointing to that procedure and that
> organizational body would be issueing the cancels, not you.
>
> Realize that while in the old days local hierarchies were indeed that,
> local to some country, city, etc., that is no longer true. Local
> hierarchies like fr.*, nl.* (for our country), etc. are carried by
> servers the world over.
global hierarchy.
It is not restricted to France, but its specificity is that it is
required to speak French. Even people living in a country where
French is not an official language are welcome in fr.*, provided
they are willing to speak this language.
> For example the fr.* hierarchy - or a least a part of it (416 groups)
> - is carried by my NSP (News SP) News.Individual.Net. So I, a Dutch
> user, can access a French hierarchy via a German server.
are polluted by Zorro, then you would have received the article asking
if this anonymous hateful should be cancelled or not, and you would have
had the possibility to vote pro or against the cancellation. Even Zorro
himself had this possibility, and of course he voted NO, however the
majority was for the YES.
> So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been
> posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
> German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
> affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
> specifically said so.)
very same groups that were so frequently polluted by Zorro, and where
it was asked to users to vote pro or against.
> [...]
>
> BTW, you needing two servers (usenet-fr.net and paganini.bofh.team)
> looks dodgy in and of itself. Why can't you use one?
It is a technical limitation of my bot which takes too long to read
> BTW, you needing two servers (usenet-fr.net and paganini.bofh.team)
> looks dodgy in and of itself. Why can't you use one?
on a server outside France. The fact is I never succeeded in reading
all fr.* at once on paganini.bofh.team which is in Italy. Probably
I could accelerate things if I redesign the bot, but it is not
possible for now.
On the other hand, I don't want to issue cancels via a server where
the admin is not fully willing to help cancelling spams and flood.
Ivo Gandolfo is this admin at paganini.bofh.team, thanks to him.
Thus, I have no other choice than read from usenet-fr.net and write
through paganini.bofh.team.
>> Note that the anonymous llp, who now owns his own news server, refuses
>> all cancels on his server and is not directly touched by them. But he
>> has a grudge against me since before November 2020, when he used for
>> the first time the pseudonym LaLibreParole (later changed to llp) for
>> aggressing me. That is why he does everything he can to denigrate me.
>>
>> I am very sorry that this fight had to arrive on this group.
nature of past cancels. He (and two or three other anonymous users)
pretends that, and of course you will not be able to guess if it's me
or him who lies, so it is useless to try to convince you here.
Sorry again for this fight to come in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet.
--
Olivier Miakinen
Olivier Miakinen
Jan 6, 2024, 4:01:27 PMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 21:10, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
> fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
Though it is possible to prevent articles to reach some specific servers
>
> It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
> fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
by Path: pre-loading, it would be difficult to do the opposite.
However, if a server wants to receive cancels from miakibot only, or
at the contrary to receive all cancels but those of the miakibot, it
can be done according to the Path: which is always on the form :
...!paganini.bofh.team!miakibot!(variable)!cyberspam!not-for-mail
where the '(variable)' part describes the way of cancelling (byfrom,
bysubject or bymid) and if it is a spamcancel, an mmfcancel or a
spewcancel.
> Anyway, as has been said, also by me, this whole business is mainly a
> non-issue, because these cancels shouldn't affect other - properly
> configured servers.
if he didn't have a grudge against me.
--
Olivier Miakinen
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 6, 2024, 4:41:41 PMJan 6
to
DV <d...@yakakwatik.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>I'm being pedantic, but fr.* is a regional hierarchy.
>Actually, the fr.* hierarchy is more than regional: it is not limited to
>French people but welcomes French-speaking users from all over the world.
I stand corrected.
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>I'm being pedantic, but fr.* is a regional hierarchy.
>Actually, the fr.* hierarchy is more than regional: it is not limited to
>French people but welcomes French-speaking users from all over the world.
I can't read French, so I was just going by the discussion in this
thread, that the two servers affected by the cancel messages were the main
servers used by regulars.
But regional versus international is more about the nature of the
discussion, not where regulars lives. If topics are generally
discussed in relation to specific geography, then it's regional. If
topics are discussed that aren't related to specific geography, it's
international.
These days, Usenet distributions really aren't restricted and users
might live anywhere, participating if they share the same language.
llp
Jan 6, 2024, 4:43:44 PMJan 6
to
Frank Slootweg a couché sur son écran :
But if Miakinen is so keen on these cancellations, it's because
of the "free.fr" server: the main french server.
Unfortunately no longer administered, and which accepts all cancels
wherever they come from. Because of this, many French users have
migrated to other, better-managed servers that don't accept these
abusive cancels. It's funny to see that the majority of people who
support these abusive cancellations don't use "free.fr" server
or either of the two mentioned who accepted these cancels.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>>>> And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
>>>> the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
>>>> consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
>>> I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
>>> articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
>>> get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
>>
>> From what we've been told, the cancels are processed at two specific
>> servers that are very old and aren't set up for NoCeMs. I have no idea
>> what protects these servers from massive numbers of cancel messages
>> being issued as denial-of-service attacks. But apparently these two
>> servers are never going to be updated.
>>
>> The issuer of the cancels is not expecting the cancel messages to be
>> acted upon at any other News site.
>
> OK. Thanks for the details. So the issuer of the cancels has
> reasonable expectations.
>
> It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
> fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
>
> Anyway, as has been said, also by me, this whole business is mainly a
> non-issue, because these cancels shouldn't affect other - properly
> configured servers.
Absolutely.
>> Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>>>> And, before someone asks, let me recall that the cancellation of all
>>>> the posts of Zorro because of his many abuses has been decided by
>>>> consensus : <news:umh49a$jtn$1...@cabale.usenet-fr.net>.
>>> I don't have a stake in this fight, but cancelling other people's
>>> articles is not something that can be "decided by consensus". You don't
>>> get to define your own rules for Usenet/NetNews at large.
>>
>> From what we've been told, the cancels are processed at two specific
>> servers that are very old and aren't set up for NoCeMs. I have no idea
>> what protects these servers from massive numbers of cancel messages
>> being issued as denial-of-service attacks. But apparently these two
>> servers are never going to be updated.
>>
>> The issuer of the cancels is not expecting the cancel messages to be
>> acted upon at any other News site.
>
> OK. Thanks for the details. So the issuer of the cancels has
> reasonable expectations.
>
> It would be interesting to know if these cancels can in some way be
> fed to only those two servers. Perhaps some creative Path: pre-loading.
>
> Anyway, as has been said, also by me, this whole business is mainly a
> non-issue, because these cancels shouldn't affect other - properly
> configured servers.
But if Miakinen is so keen on these cancellations, it's because
of the "free.fr" server: the main french server.
Unfortunately no longer administered, and which accepts all cancels
wherever they come from. Because of this, many French users have
migrated to other, better-managed servers that don't accept these
abusive cancels. It's funny to see that the majority of people who
support these abusive cancellations don't use "free.fr" server
or either of the two mentioned who accepted these cancels.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Eric M
Jan 6, 2024, 4:45:20 PMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 21:20, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>> So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if
>> the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do
>> is leave usenet ?
> If nothing helps, use your killfile. If for some reason you don't want
> to do that, deal with it or indeed leave Usenet.
There was a man called Marc Schaefer, he had been running a usenet server
>> So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if
>> the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do
>> is leave usenet ?
> If nothing helps, use your killfile. If for some reason you don't want
> to do that, deal with it or indeed leave Usenet.
for nearly 30 years, but he had to stop, he had to turn off his server and
put offline his INN documentation in French because he was bullied. The
"fun part" is that he was bullied by "llp", the same guy that now wants to
destroy Paganini. So if you want people to leave usenet (well, the few of
them that are still there), you can just go on like that, it's perfect.
>> I think you didn't ask the users, maybe because they were the ennemy :)
> Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. Which users? Who
> should do the asking? What should they ask? Who is whose 'enemy' and
> why?
people using their services, running INN doesn't make you instantly a
genious, and usenet is also full of this little creatures that are called
humans and which can suffer too, you know.
Eric M
Jan 6, 2024, 4:48:35 PMJan 6
to
Le 06/01/2024 à 22:43, llp a écrit :
> But if Miakinen is so keen on these cancellations, it's because
> of the "free.fr" server: the main french server.
> Unfortunately no longer administered, and which accepts all cancels
> wherever they come from. Because of this, many French users have
> migrated to other, better-managed servers that don't accept these
> abusive cancels. It's funny to see that the majority of people who
> support these abusive cancellations don't use "free.fr" server
> or either of the two mentioned who accepted these cancels.
To be clear, this is all lies. It would be too long to explain and it's
> But if Miakinen is so keen on these cancellations, it's because
> of the "free.fr" server: the main french server.
> Unfortunately no longer administered, and which accepts all cancels
> wherever they come from. Because of this, many French users have
> migrated to other, better-managed servers that don't accept these
> abusive cancels. It's funny to see that the majority of people who
> support these abusive cancellations don't use "free.fr" server
> or either of the two mentioned who accepted these cancels.
too late in France but just remember never to trust llp, you will gain a
lot of time.
Jesse Rehmer
Jan 6, 2024, 6:44:18 PMJan 6
to
On Jan 6, 2024 at 3:01:24 PM CST, "Olivier Miakinen" <om+...@miakinen.net>
wrote:
It should not be difficult to generate the cancels and configure the small
number of servers intended to honor them so they do not propagate to the rest
of Usenet.
Per RFC 1036:
"Only the author of the message or the local news administrator is allowed to
send this message."
Cancelbots and the like have always been contentious, but as an operator my
opinion is by RFC definition they should not be permitted and fall into the
'abuse' bucket. NoCeM was created in 1997 as an acceptable solution that does
not go against existing standards. INN, C News, DNews, and others have support
for NoCeM since around 1999-2000.
wrote:
number of servers intended to honor them so they do not propagate to the rest
of Usenet.
Per RFC 1036:
"Only the author of the message or the local news administrator is allowed to
send this message."
Cancelbots and the like have always been contentious, but as an operator my
opinion is by RFC definition they should not be permitted and fall into the
'abuse' bucket. NoCeM was created in 1997 as an acceptable solution that does
not go against existing standards. INN, C News, DNews, and others have support
for NoCeM since around 1999-2000.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 7, 2024, 8:35:55 AMJan 7
to
[...]
> Of course you can. But if you were reading the fr.* newsgroups which
> are polluted by Zorro, then you would have received the article asking
> if this anonymous hateful should be cancelled or not, and you would have
> had the possibility to vote pro or against the cancellation. Even Zorro
> himself had this possibility, and of course he voted NO, however the
> majority was for the YES.
>
> > So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been
> > posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
> > German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
> > affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
> > specifically said so.)
>
> Your assuming is correct, the cancels affect only fr.* groups, the
> very same groups that were so frequently polluted by Zorro, and where
> it was asked to users to vote pro or against.
What's so special about 'Zorro' that he can not be filtered,
killfiled, ignored, etc.?
In many groups we have our share of trolls, loons, jerks, creeps,
<whatever>, but we don't start cancelling their posts. There's no point.
They just run to other - mostly 'open' - servers and - as said - cancels
don't work world-wide. So we decide what we read and what we ignore.
> > [...]
> >
> > BTW, you needing two servers (usenet-fr.net and paganini.bofh.team)
> > looks dodgy in and of itself. Why can't you use one?
>
> It is a technical limitation of my bot which takes too long to read
> on a server outside France. The fact is I never succeeded in reading
> all fr.* at once on paganini.bofh.team which is in Italy. Probably
> I could accelerate things if I redesign the bot, but it is not
> possible for now.
>
> On the other hand, I don't want to issue cancels via a server where
> the admin is not fully willing to help cancelling spams and flood.
> Ivo Gandolfo is this admin at paganini.bofh.team, thanks to him.
>
> Thus, I have no other choice than read from usenet-fr.net and write
> through paganini.bofh.team.
I was more thinking of the other way around, why can't you do the
reading and cancelling on usenet-fr.net?
After all, usenet-fr.net is one of the only two (someone seems to be
talking about three without naming names) affected servers. Can't you
cooperate with the admin of usenet-fr.net or let him/her do the
cancelling (via local cancel commands)? If - as has been hinted at -
usenet-fr.net is no longer properly managed, why do people keep using
it? Not that there are no other servers in the world.
[...]
> Of course you can. But if you were reading the fr.* newsgroups which
> are polluted by Zorro, then you would have received the article asking
> if this anonymous hateful should be cancelled or not, and you would have
> had the possibility to vote pro or against the cancellation. Even Zorro
> himself had this possibility, and of course he voted NO, however the
> majority was for the YES.
>
> > So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been
> > posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
> > German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
> > affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
> > specifically said so.)
>
> Your assuming is correct, the cancels affect only fr.* groups, the
> very same groups that were so frequently polluted by Zorro, and where
> it was asked to users to vote pro or against.
killfiled, ignored, etc.?
In many groups we have our share of trolls, loons, jerks, creeps,
<whatever>, but we don't start cancelling their posts. There's no point.
They just run to other - mostly 'open' - servers and - as said - cancels
don't work world-wide. So we decide what we read and what we ignore.
> > [...]
> >
> > BTW, you needing two servers (usenet-fr.net and paganini.bofh.team)
> > looks dodgy in and of itself. Why can't you use one?
>
> It is a technical limitation of my bot which takes too long to read
> on a server outside France. The fact is I never succeeded in reading
> all fr.* at once on paganini.bofh.team which is in Italy. Probably
> I could accelerate things if I redesign the bot, but it is not
> possible for now.
>
> On the other hand, I don't want to issue cancels via a server where
> the admin is not fully willing to help cancelling spams and flood.
> Ivo Gandolfo is this admin at paganini.bofh.team, thanks to him.
>
> Thus, I have no other choice than read from usenet-fr.net and write
> through paganini.bofh.team.
reading and cancelling on usenet-fr.net?
After all, usenet-fr.net is one of the only two (someone seems to be
talking about three without naming names) affected servers. Can't you
cooperate with the admin of usenet-fr.net or let him/her do the
cancelling (via local cancel commands)? If - as has been hinted at -
usenet-fr.net is no longer properly managed, why do people keep using
it? Not that there are no other servers in the world.
[...]
Frank Slootweg
Jan 7, 2024, 9:01:18 AMJan 7
to
Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
> >> I think you didn't ask the users, maybe because they were the ennemy :)
>
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. Which users? Who
> > should do the asking? What should they ask? Who is whose 'enemy' and
> > why?
>
> It's an old joke, but maybe, just maybe, newsmasters should listen to the
> people using their services, running INN doesn't make you instantly a
> genious, and usenet is also full of this little creatures that are called
> humans and which can suffer too, you know.
If one is using a paid server, address your concerns to the NSP (News
SP). If one is using a free/private server, use their abuse channel, if
any, or/and move to another server. If you have problems with (a user
of) another server, use their abuse channel, if any, or filter posts
from that server.
Finally, from the somewhat-funny department: I had to whitelist you,
because I filter gmail.com posters in this group because of the amount
of loons/etc..
> Le 06/01/2024 ŕ 21:20, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> >> So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if
> >> the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do
> >> is leave usenet ?
>
> > If nothing helps, use your killfile. If for some reason you don't want
> > to do that, deal with it or indeed leave Usenet.
>
> There was a man called Marc Schaefer, he had been running a usenet server
> for nearly 30 years, but he had to stop, he had to turn off his server and
> put offline his INN documentation in French because he was bullied. The
> "fun part" is that he was bullied by "llp", the same guy that now wants to
> destroy Paganini. So if you want people to leave usenet (well, the few of
> them that are still there), you can just go on like that, it's perfect.
I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
>
> >> So, if someone is insulted or bullied every day by the same poster and if
> >> the newsmaster keeps the account alive the only thing that person can do
> >> is leave usenet ?
>
> > If nothing helps, use your killfile. If for some reason you don't want
> > to do that, deal with it or indeed leave Usenet.
>
> There was a man called Marc Schaefer, he had been running a usenet server
> for nearly 30 years, but he had to stop, he had to turn off his server and
> put offline his INN documentation in French because he was bullied. The
> "fun part" is that he was bullied by "llp", the same guy that now wants to
> destroy Paganini. So if you want people to leave usenet (well, the few of
> them that are still there), you can just go on like that, it's perfect.
talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
> >> I think you didn't ask the users, maybe because they were the ennemy :)
>
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at. Which users? Who
> > should do the asking? What should they ask? Who is whose 'enemy' and
> > why?
>
> It's an old joke, but maybe, just maybe, newsmasters should listen to the
> people using their services, running INN doesn't make you instantly a
> genious, and usenet is also full of this little creatures that are called
> humans and which can suffer too, you know.
SP). If one is using a free/private server, use their abuse channel, if
any, or/and move to another server. If you have problems with (a user
of) another server, use their abuse channel, if any, or filter posts
from that server.
Finally, from the somewhat-funny department: I had to whitelist you,
because I filter gmail.com posters in this group because of the amount
of loons/etc..
Eric M
Jan 7, 2024, 9:18:41 AMJan 7
to
Le 07/01/2024 à 15:01, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
> I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
> talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
> and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
>
> No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
> you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you
> I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
> talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
> and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
>
> No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
> you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using
servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was
a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
> If one is using a paid server, address your concerns to the NSP (News
> SP). If one is using a free/private server, use their abuse channel, if
> any, or/and move to another server. If you have problems with (a user
> of) another server, use their abuse channel, if any, or filter posts
> from that server.
> Finally, from the somewhat-funny department: I had to whitelist you,
> because I filter gmail.com posters in this group because of the amount
> of loons/etc..
see things. People are leaving usenet because it's not safe, but people
here only seem to care about the tld in the mail. I won't go further, but
I understand why you agree with llp, this must be Elon Musk's fan club :)
D
Jan 7, 2024, 10:20:27 AMJan 7
to
On Sun, 07 Jan 24 14:18:38 +0000, Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Le 07/01/2024 a 15:01, Frank Slootweg a ecrit :
where to engage and participate in widely distributed public discourse
in the world . . . seems more users are subscribing than unsubscribing;
this newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.usenet" is lightyears from silent
>Le 07/01/2024 a 15:01, Frank Slootweg a ecrit :
>> I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
>> talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
>> and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
>> No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
>> you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
>>
snip
>> talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
>> and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
>> No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
>> you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
>>
>
>People are leaving usenet because it's not safe
unmoderated usenet newsgroups are the safest internet-accessible forum
>People are leaving usenet because it's not safe
where to engage and participate in widely distributed public discourse
in the world . . . seems more users are subscribing than unsubscribing;
this newsgroup "news.admin.net-abuse.usenet" is lightyears from silent
Frank Slootweg
Jan 7, 2024, 10:34:30 AMJan 7
to
Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
UDP by filtering/dropping posts from rogue servers.
It seems to me that you expect others to solve the abuse you face, but
seem to do little to filter/ignore that abuse yourself.
> > If one is using a paid server, address your concerns to the NSP (News
> > SP). If one is using a free/private server, use their abuse channel, if
> > any, or/and move to another server. If you have problems with (a user
> > of) another server, use their abuse channel, if any, or filter posts
> > from that server.
>
> That does *not* solve the problem.
You want abuse to go away. I want world peace. Both are not going to
happen. We have to do what we can do. Expecting others to solve the
abuse we are facing is not going to work.
> > Finally, from the somewhat-funny department: I had to whitelist you,
> > because I filter gmail.com posters in this group because of the amount
> > of loons/etc..
>
> You are intolerant to Gmail but tolerant to abusers, what a strange way to
> see things. People are leaving usenet because it's not safe, but people
> here only seem to care about the tld in the mail. I won't go further, but
> I understand why you agree with llp, this must be Elon Musk's fan club :)
Lighten up *and* easy does it!
I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
As to being tolerant to abusers: I don't understand where you get that
from. I'm just being realistic about what one can and can not do about
abuse on Usenet.
If you see people leaving Usenet because it's not safe, then try to
help them making it safer for them. Often that can be done with better
filtering (and of course advice to ignore the abusers). Often people
have very limited filtering tools or/and do not know how to use them. It
would be in the Usenet spirit to help/educate these people.
BTW, from your headers I get the impression that you are using a
webbrowser to access Usenet instead of a normal Usenet client. If that
is indeed the case, that - dependent on the (non-)capabilities of that
web UI (User Interface) - probably explains your problems filtering/
ignoring the abuse.
So specifically, which program on your (Windows?) system do you use to
read Usenet.
Finally, as to "I understand why you agree with llp", I don't agree
with him. And if you implicitly refer to the 'freedom of speech' mantra,
no I don't accept that no-limits mantra.
> Le 07/01/2024 ŕ 15:01, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> > I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
> > talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
> > and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
> >
> > No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
> > you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
>
> Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you
> never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using
> servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was
> a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
A news admin - and users for that matter - can do a kind of selective
>
> > I don't know the details of that specific situation, but I was and am
> > talking in general. In general, if you filter/killfile/ignore the bully
> > and don't respond to him, for all intents and purposes he doesn't exist.
> >
> > No, it's not easy and it can be hard not to bite the bait, but it's all
> > you can do, unless the person starts stalking you in real life.
>
> Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you
> never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using
> servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was
> a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
UDP by filtering/dropping posts from rogue servers.
It seems to me that you expect others to solve the abuse you face, but
seem to do little to filter/ignore that abuse yourself.
> > If one is using a paid server, address your concerns to the NSP (News
> > SP). If one is using a free/private server, use their abuse channel, if
> > any, or/and move to another server. If you have problems with (a user
> > of) another server, use their abuse channel, if any, or filter posts
> > from that server.
>
> That does *not* solve the problem.
happen. We have to do what we can do. Expecting others to solve the
abuse we are facing is not going to work.
> > Finally, from the somewhat-funny department: I had to whitelist you,
> > because I filter gmail.com posters in this group because of the amount
> > of loons/etc..
>
> You are intolerant to Gmail but tolerant to abusers, what a strange way to
> see things. People are leaving usenet because it's not safe, but people
> here only seem to care about the tld in the mail. I won't go further, but
> I understand why you agree with llp, this must be Elon Musk's fan club :)
I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
As to being tolerant to abusers: I don't understand where you get that
from. I'm just being realistic about what one can and can not do about
abuse on Usenet.
If you see people leaving Usenet because it's not safe, then try to
help them making it safer for them. Often that can be done with better
filtering (and of course advice to ignore the abusers). Often people
have very limited filtering tools or/and do not know how to use them. It
would be in the Usenet spirit to help/educate these people.
BTW, from your headers I get the impression that you are using a
webbrowser to access Usenet instead of a normal Usenet client. If that
is indeed the case, that - dependent on the (non-)capabilities of that
web UI (User Interface) - probably explains your problems filtering/
ignoring the abuse.
So specifically, which program on your (Windows?) system do you use to
read Usenet.
Finally, as to "I understand why you agree with llp", I don't agree
with him. And if you implicitly refer to the 'freedom of speech' mantra,
no I don't accept that no-limits mantra.
Eric M
Jan 7, 2024, 11:05:08 AMJan 7
to
Frank Slootweg a écrit le Sun, 07 Jan 2024 16:34:27 dans
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
> Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you
>> never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using
>> servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was
>> a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
> A news admin - and users for that matter - can do a kind of selective
> UDP by filtering/dropping posts from rogue servers.
This is not a solution, the abuse will still be there, this is like
putting dust under the carpet so you can't see it, but it's still there.
> It seems to me that you expect others to solve the abuse you face, but
> seem to do little to filter/ignore that abuse yourself.
I was not talking about myself, the whole time I gave the example of
someone who did exactly what you said, and he still had to leave usenet,
because other people answered, and you can't control other people.
> You want abuse to go away. I want world peace. Both are not going to
> happen. We have to do what we can do. Expecting others to solve the
> abuse we are facing is not going to work.
We can at least *try* to do something, not give up because it's like that.
> I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
> in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
> gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
I'm very happy to be a good guy :)
But I took Gmail only because it filtered spam, it was in 2005, you
could still receive spam for posting on newsgroups. Now I could change
but I don't want people who killfilled me to read me again.
> As to being tolerant to abusers: I don't understand where you get that
> from. I'm just being realistic about what one can and can not do about
> abuse on Usenet.
And the conclusion is that nobody can do anything, which is not very
optimistic.
> If you see people leaving Usenet because it's not safe, then try to
> help them making it safer for them. Often that can be done with better
> filtering (and of course advice to ignore the abusers). Often people
> have very limited filtering tools or/and do not know how to use them. It
> would be in the Usenet spirit to help/educate these people.
You know, as Google closes it spam service I'm trying to redirect the few
legitimate users to a regular server with regular tools. And it's already
very hard to do. So explaining advanced filtering will not work.
> BTW, from your headers I get the impression that you are using a
> webbrowser to access Usenet instead of a normal Usenet client. If that
> is indeed the case, that - dependent on the (non-)capabilities of that
> web UI (User Interface) - probably explains your problems filtering/
> ignoring the abuse.
I can change that too, but that won't help other people to filter, and
that won't prevent abusers to change identity everyday.
> So specifically, which program on your (Windows?) system do you use to
> read Usenet.
I've been using Outlook Express (sorry about that), Xnews, Gravity, Gnus,
Pan, MesNews, Dialog, tin, slrn, and now Nemo because I quite like it :
http://news2.nemoweb.net/
The person who programmed it didn't finish it and he seems occupied
by other things. One day it will be really fine, but for the moment
there is just a simple killfille with no options (just mail+from).
> Finally, as to "I understand why you agree with llp", I don't agree
> with him. And if you implicitly refer to the 'freedom of speech' mantra,
> no I don't accept that no-limits mantra.
Ok, I'm a bit reassured, sorry about that, this person makes everybody
nervous wherever he posts.
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
> Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you
>> never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using
>> servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was
>> a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
> A news admin - and users for that matter - can do a kind of selective
> UDP by filtering/dropping posts from rogue servers.
putting dust under the carpet so you can't see it, but it's still there.
> It seems to me that you expect others to solve the abuse you face, but
> seem to do little to filter/ignore that abuse yourself.
someone who did exactly what you said, and he still had to leave usenet,
because other people answered, and you can't control other people.
> You want abuse to go away. I want world peace. Both are not going to
> happen. We have to do what we can do. Expecting others to solve the
> abuse we are facing is not going to work.
> I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
> in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
> gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
But I took Gmail only because it filtered spam, it was in 2005, you
could still receive spam for posting on newsgroups. Now I could change
but I don't want people who killfilled me to read me again.
> As to being tolerant to abusers: I don't understand where you get that
> from. I'm just being realistic about what one can and can not do about
> abuse on Usenet.
optimistic.
> If you see people leaving Usenet because it's not safe, then try to
> help them making it safer for them. Often that can be done with better
> filtering (and of course advice to ignore the abusers). Often people
> have very limited filtering tools or/and do not know how to use them. It
> would be in the Usenet spirit to help/educate these people.
legitimate users to a regular server with regular tools. And it's already
very hard to do. So explaining advanced filtering will not work.
> BTW, from your headers I get the impression that you are using a
> webbrowser to access Usenet instead of a normal Usenet client. If that
> is indeed the case, that - dependent on the (non-)capabilities of that
> web UI (User Interface) - probably explains your problems filtering/
> ignoring the abuse.
that won't prevent abusers to change identity everyday.
> So specifically, which program on your (Windows?) system do you use to
> read Usenet.
Pan, MesNews, Dialog, tin, slrn, and now Nemo because I quite like it :
http://news2.nemoweb.net/
The person who programmed it didn't finish it and he seems occupied
by other things. One day it will be really fine, but for the moment
there is just a simple killfille with no options (just mail+from).
> Finally, as to "I understand why you agree with llp", I don't agree
> with him. And if you implicitly refer to the 'freedom of speech' mantra,
> no I don't accept that no-limits mantra.
nervous wherever he posts.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 7, 2024, 11:48:10 AMJan 7
to
Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg a écrit le Sun, 07 Jan 2024 16:34:27 dans
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
>
> > Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you
> >> never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using
> >> servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was
> >> a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
>
> > A news admin - and users for that matter - can do a kind of selective
> > UDP by filtering/dropping posts from rogue servers.
>
> This is not a solution, the abuse will still be there, this is like
> putting dust under the carpet so you can't see it, but it's still there.
True, but you can't do anything to prevent it, so filtering/ignoring
> Frank Slootweg a écrit le Sun, 07 Jan 2024 16:34:27 dans
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
>
> > Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Well, when the abuser call friends to bully you for months even when you
> >> never reply or talk about them (that's was MS did) and that they are using
> >> servers with no abuse or a "friend" as abuse, it can become hard. UDP was
> >> a good thing, at least it had an influence on the rogue newsmasters.
>
> > A news admin - and users for that matter - can do a kind of selective
> > UDP by filtering/dropping posts from rogue servers.
>
> This is not a solution, the abuse will still be there, this is like
> putting dust under the carpet so you can't see it, but it's still there.
is the only thing you can do.
If you have any workable suggestions to change things, please say so,
but just (implicitly) saying 'Things shouldn't be this way!' isn't
helping anybody.
> > It seems to me that you expect others to solve the abuse you face, but
> > seem to do little to filter/ignore that abuse yourself.
>
> I was not talking about myself, the whole time I gave the example of
> someone who did exactly what you said, and he still had to leave usenet,
> because other people answered, and you can't control other people.
filtering can help with that.)
> > You want abuse to go away. I want world peace. Both are not going to
> > happen. We have to do what we can do. Expecting others to solve the
> > abuse we are facing is not going to work.
>
> We can at least *try* to do something, not give up because it's like that.
> > I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
> > in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
> > gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
>
> I'm very happy to be a good guy :)
> But I took Gmail only because it filtered spam, it was in 2005, you
> could still receive spam for posting on newsgroups. Now I could change
> but I don't want people who killfilled me to read me again.
>
> > As to being tolerant to abusers: I don't understand where you get that
> > from. I'm just being realistic about what one can and can not do about
> > abuse on Usenet.
>
> And the conclusion is that nobody can do anything, which is not very
> optimistic.
you know the saying "There are optimists and realists.")
> > If you see people leaving Usenet because it's not safe, then try to
> > help them making it safer for them. Often that can be done with better
> > filtering (and of course advice to ignore the abusers). Often people
> > have very limited filtering tools or/and do not know how to use them. It
> > would be in the Usenet spirit to help/educate these people.
>
> You know, as Google closes it spam service I'm trying to redirect the few
> legitimate users to a regular server with regular tools. And it's already
> very hard to do. So explaining advanced filtering will not work.
users leaving Usenet because of abuse. (And yes, there's some overlap
between these groups.)
> > BTW, from your headers I get the impression that you are using a
> > webbrowser to access Usenet instead of a normal Usenet client. If that
> > is indeed the case, that - dependent on the (non-)capabilities of that
> > web UI (User Interface) - probably explains your problems filtering/
> > ignoring the abuse.
>
> I can change that too, but that won't help other people to filter, and
> that won't prevent abusers to change identity everyday.
problem. But again, filtering and whitelisting can help a lot.
> > So specifically, which program on your (Windows?) system do you use to
> > read Usenet.
>
> I've been using Outlook Express (sorry about that), Xnews, Gravity, Gnus,
> Pan, MesNews, Dialog, tin, slrn, and now Nemo because I quite like it :
>
> http://news2.nemoweb.net/
>
> The person who programmed it didn't finish it and he seems occupied
> by other things. One day it will be really fine, but for the moment
> there is just a simple killfille with no options (just mail+from).
temporary solution. But not for someone who has real problems with abuse
from others. Dialog would be an excellent solution for such users. (I
use Hamster. Dialog's filtering is based on Hamster's.)
llp
Jan 7, 2024, 12:05:46 PMJan 7
to
Frank Slootweg avait prétendu :
But, if want to cancel all messages from certain people's
on "free.fr" nntp server. It's his personal battle.
>[...]
They do nothing about spam or flooding.
But the server is open to all cancels.
> Can't you
> cooperate with the admin of usenet-fr.net or let him/her do the
> cancelling (via local cancel commands)? If - as has been hinted at -
> usenet-fr.net is no longer properly managed, why do people keep using
> it? Not that there are no other servers in the world.
Good question !
An other solution was to produce Nocem.
This has already been said
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> Olivier Miakinen <om+...@miakinen.net> wrote:
>> Le 06/01/2024 à 19:58, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
> [...]
>
>> Of course you can. But if you were reading the fr.* newsgroups which
>> are polluted by Zorro, then you would have received the article asking
>> if this anonymous hateful should be cancelled or not, and you would have
>> had the possibility to vote pro or against the cancellation. Even Zorro
>> himself had this possibility, and of course he voted NO, however the
>> majority was for the YES.
>>
>>> So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been
>>> posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
>>> German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
>>> affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
>>> specifically said so.)
>>
>> Your assuming is correct, the cancels affect only fr.* groups, the
>> very same groups that were so frequently polluted by Zorro, and where
>> it was asked to users to vote pro or against.
>
> What's so special about 'Zorro' that he can not be filtered,
> killfiled, ignored, etc.?
It's very easy to filtedred him. I'm not the only one to do it.
>> Le 06/01/2024 à 19:58, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
> [...]
>
>> Of course you can. But if you were reading the fr.* newsgroups which
>> are polluted by Zorro, then you would have received the article asking
>> if this anonymous hateful should be cancelled or not, and you would have
>> had the possibility to vote pro or against the cancellation. Even Zorro
>> himself had this possibility, and of course he voted NO, however the
>> majority was for the YES.
>>
>>> So if someone - i.e. you - issues cancels for articles which have been
>>> posted to some fr.* newsgroup, these cancels (theorically) affect a
>>> German server and a Dutch user. (This is assuming that these cancels
>>> affect only fr.* groups. As far as I know, sofar, no-one has
>>> specifically said so.)
>>
>> Your assuming is correct, the cancels affect only fr.* groups, the
>> very same groups that were so frequently polluted by Zorro, and where
>> it was asked to users to vote pro or against.
>
> What's so special about 'Zorro' that he can not be filtered,
> killfiled, ignored, etc.?
But, if want to cancel all messages from certain people's
on "free.fr" nntp server. It's his personal battle.
>[...]
>> Thus, I have no other choice than read from usenet-fr.net and write
>> through paganini.bofh.team.
>
> I was more thinking of the other way around, why can't you do the
> reading and cancelling on usenet-fr.net?
>
> After all, usenet-fr.net is one of the only two (someone seems to be
> talking about three without naming names) affected servers.
"free.fr": the main french server.
>> through paganini.bofh.team.
>
> I was more thinking of the other way around, why can't you do the
> reading and cancelling on usenet-fr.net?
>
> After all, usenet-fr.net is one of the only two (someone seems to be
> talking about three without naming names) affected servers.
They do nothing about spam or flooding.
But the server is open to all cancels.
> Can't you
> cooperate with the admin of usenet-fr.net or let him/her do the
> cancelling (via local cancel commands)? If - as has been hinted at -
> usenet-fr.net is no longer properly managed, why do people keep using
> it? Not that there are no other servers in the world.
An other solution was to produce Nocem.
This has already been said
Sincerely.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
llp
Jan 7, 2024, 12:06:52 PMJan 7
to
Eric M wrote :
>> Finally, as to "I understand why you agree with llp", I don't agree
>> with him. And if you implicitly refer to the 'freedom of speech' mantra,
>> no I don't accept that no-limits mantra.
>
> Ok, I'm a bit reassured, sorry about that, this person makes everybody
> nervous wherever he posts.
You've been harassing me with your gang for a long time.
But it hasn't had the effect you were hoping for and now the French
speaking groups are no longer enough for you.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
> Frank Slootweg a écrit le Sun, 07 Jan 2024 16:34:27 dans
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
> http://news2.nemoweb.net/
>
> The person who programmed it didn't finish it and he seems occupied
> by other things. One day it will be really fine, but for the moment
> there is just a simple killfille with no options (just mail+from).
And no valid abuse mail address :-(
>
> The person who programmed it didn't finish it and he seems occupied
> by other things. One day it will be really fine, but for the moment
> there is just a simple killfille with no options (just mail+from).
>> Finally, as to "I understand why you agree with llp", I don't agree
>> with him. And if you implicitly refer to the 'freedom of speech' mantra,
>> no I don't accept that no-limits mantra.
>
> Ok, I'm a bit reassured, sorry about that, this person makes everybody
> nervous wherever he posts.
But it hasn't had the effect you were hoping for and now the French
speaking groups are no longer enough for you.
--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh
Eric M
Jan 7, 2024, 1:02:25 PMJan 7
to
Le 07/01/2024 à 17:48, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
[...]
[...]
> If you have any workable suggestions to change things, please say so,
> but just (implicitly) saying 'Things shouldn't be this way!' isn't
> helping anybody.
Cancels are not evil, they can be a tool to clean up the groups. Maybe not
> but just (implicitly) saying 'Things shouldn't be this way!' isn't
> helping anybody.
everyone should cancel, but a few people could be allowed to delete the
most awful messages.
>> I was not talking about myself, the whole time I gave the example of
>> someone who did exactly what you said, and he still had to leave usenet,
>> because other people answered, and you can't control other people.
> And he couldn't ignore those responses? Why not? (Again, proper
> filtering can help with that.)
some of the fake news llp said.
[...]
>> And the conclusion is that nobody can do anything, which is not very
>> optimistic.
> No, it's indeed not optimistic, but, as I said, realistic. (I'm sure
> you know the saying "There are optimists and realists.")
>> You know, as Google closes it spam service I'm trying to redirect the few
>> legitimate users to a regular server with regular tools. And it's already
>> very hard to do. So explaining advanced filtering will not work.
> Yes, but that's another category, users losing their service. Not
> users leaving Usenet because of abuse. (And yes, there's some overlap
> between these groups.)
of traumatized (but some of them just prefer Facebook, I admit).
> Yes, EMAK (Excessive Morphing to Avoid Killfiles) is a difficult
> problem. But again, filtering and whitelisting can help a lot.
change them very often.
> That's probably OK for some ex Google Groups user to use for a quick
> temporary solution. But not for someone who has real problems with abuse
> from others. Dialog would be an excellent solution for such users. (I
> use Hamster. Dialog's filtering is based on Hamster's.)
anymore, too complex.
Frank Slootweg
Jan 7, 2024, 2:17:33 PMJan 7
to
Eric M <conano...@gmail.com> wrote:
server accepts cancels. So cancels only have an effect on a few
incorrectly configured servers, which apparently includes two or three
of the named French servers. All other servers, including my NSPs server
(News.Individual.Net) would still have these "most awful messages". So
this is exactly the sticking your head in the sand, which you said we
shouldn't do.
> >> I was not talking about myself, the whole time I gave the example of
> >> someone who did exactly what you said, and he still had to leave usenet,
> >> because other people answered, and you can't control other people.
>
> > And he couldn't ignore those responses? Why not? (Again, proper
> > filtering can help with that.)
>
> He really did his best, but as is server was attacked, he had to answer to
> some of the fake news llp said.
Debunk (not answer) it just once and leave it at that. If it comes up
again after some time, just post the URL to the rebuttal. If someone
wants to see it, they can look it up. If not, their loss. No need to
re'defend' oneself.
[...]
> >> You know, as Google closes it spam service I'm trying to redirect the few
> >> legitimate users to a regular server with regular tools. And it's already
> >> very hard to do. So explaining advanced filtering will not work.
>
> > Yes, but that's another category, users losing their service. Not
> > users leaving Usenet because of abuse. (And yes, there's some overlap
> > between these groups.)
>
> I talk with people who are not on usenet anymore and some of them are kind
> of traumatized (but some of them just prefer Facebook, I admit).
I would be traumatized too if I was no longer on Usenet and if I was
on Facebook, I would be even more traumatized! :-)
> > Yes, EMAK (Excessive Morphing to Avoid Killfiles) is a difficult
> > problem. But again, filtering and whitelisting can help a lot.
>
> Even with tin, I had to make more and more complex filters and I had to
> change them very often.
Yes, that's why I use Hamster and tin. Hamster can do the difficult
work and tin the simple. In my experience, filtering rogue servers and
then whitelisting the few good guys on those servers, works best.
> > That's probably OK for some ex Google Groups user to use for a quick
> > temporary solution. But not for someone who has real problems with abuse
> > from others. Dialog would be an excellent solution for such users. (I
> > use Hamster. Dialog's filtering is based on Hamster's.)
>
> I used Hamster with Xnews, 20 years ago, it was great, but I can't do this
> anymore, too complex.
Complex!? My Scores.hst file is only some 800 lines! :-)
Just kidding. There's loads of old junk in there and over 50% are
comment lines.
But seriously, Dialog could do a lot with not too much work.
Especially the "!ignore,markread From" rule can get rid of posts from
unwanted posters and of responses to those posters. (At least that's
what I understand from Dialog users.)
> Le 07/01/2024 ŕ 17:48, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> [...]
>
> > If you have any workable suggestions to change things, please say so,
> > but just (implicitly) saying 'Things shouldn't be this way!' isn't
> > helping anybody.
>
> Cancels are not evil, they can be a tool to clean up the groups. Maybe not
> everyone should cancel, but a few people could be allowed to delete the
> most awful messages.
But as (others and) I said, cancels don't work. No properly configured
>
> [...]
>
> > If you have any workable suggestions to change things, please say so,
> > but just (implicitly) saying 'Things shouldn't be this way!' isn't
> > helping anybody.
>
> Cancels are not evil, they can be a tool to clean up the groups. Maybe not
> everyone should cancel, but a few people could be allowed to delete the
> most awful messages.
server accepts cancels. So cancels only have an effect on a few
incorrectly configured servers, which apparently includes two or three
of the named French servers. All other servers, including my NSPs server
(News.Individual.Net) would still have these "most awful messages". So
this is exactly the sticking your head in the sand, which you said we
shouldn't do.
> >> I was not talking about myself, the whole time I gave the example of
> >> someone who did exactly what you said, and he still had to leave usenet,
> >> because other people answered, and you can't control other people.
>
> > And he couldn't ignore those responses? Why not? (Again, proper
> > filtering can help with that.)
>
> He really did his best, but as is server was attacked, he had to answer to
> some of the fake news llp said.
again after some time, just post the URL to the rebuttal. If someone
wants to see it, they can look it up. If not, their loss. No need to
re'defend' oneself.
[...]
> >> You know, as Google closes it spam service I'm trying to redirect the few
> >> legitimate users to a regular server with regular tools. And it's already
> >> very hard to do. So explaining advanced filtering will not work.
>
> > Yes, but that's another category, users losing their service. Not
> > users leaving Usenet because of abuse. (And yes, there's some overlap
> > between these groups.)
>
> I talk with people who are not on usenet anymore and some of them are kind
> of traumatized (but some of them just prefer Facebook, I admit).
on Facebook, I would be even more traumatized! :-)
> > Yes, EMAK (Excessive Morphing to Avoid Killfiles) is a difficult
> > problem. But again, filtering and whitelisting can help a lot.
>
> Even with tin, I had to make more and more complex filters and I had to
> change them very often.
work and tin the simple. In my experience, filtering rogue servers and
then whitelisting the few good guys on those servers, works best.
> > That's probably OK for some ex Google Groups user to use for a quick
> > temporary solution. But not for someone who has real problems with abuse
> > from others. Dialog would be an excellent solution for such users. (I
> > use Hamster. Dialog's filtering is based on Hamster's.)
>
> I used Hamster with Xnews, 20 years ago, it was great, but I can't do this
> anymore, too complex.
Just kidding. There's loads of old junk in there and over 50% are
comment lines.
But seriously, Dialog could do a lot with not too much work.
Especially the "!ignore,markread From" rule can get rid of posts from
unwanted posters and of responses to those posters. (At least that's
what I understand from Dialog users.)
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 7, 2024, 2:57:43 PMJan 7
to
Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>. . .
>>. . .
> Lighten up *and* easy does it!
> I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
>in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
>gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
Furthermore, just because a gmail address appears on From is not actual
> I'm not intolerant to Gmail, I use Gmail myself. I just *filter* loons
>in this group (and in other groups). Because many loons are using
>gmail.com addresses, I filter on that and whitelist The Good Guys (TM).
evidence that the Usenet user is a gmail user. Purported email
addresses on Usenet cannot be authenticated; Usenet doesn't work like
that. It really has nothing to do with one's personal opinion of whether
gmail is a decent email service.
>. . .
Adam H. Kerman
Jan 7, 2024, 3:00:37 PMJan 7
to
Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>. . .
>>. . .
> But as (others and) I said, cancels don't work. No properly configured
>server accepts cancels. So cancels only have an effect on a few
>incorrectly configured servers, which apparently includes two or three
>of the named French servers. . . .
>server accepts cancels. So cancels only have an effect on a few
>incorrectly configured servers, which apparently includes two or three
They're not improperly configured. They're just old. Someone keeps
saying that one of the servers in question isn't administered. I don't
understand how that's possible.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages