Can We Get Off This ^#$! Subject?
Steve Frampton
Scott Beal (bandy) regarding this <non-event> has been, for the
Just a slight observation. The discussion about Andrew Scott Beal (the
mad-canceller AKA bandy) regarding this <non-event> has been, for the
most part, talked about by the following net.people:
Dave Hayes (***)
Chip Salzenberg (***)
Richard Hartman (***)
Gary Heston
Jay Maynard
Mike Meyer
Dave Ratcliffe
Matthew P. Wiener
Bengt Larsson
The (***) represents an extra amount of hot-air :-) (read: net.traffic).
Let's face it, folks, this happened A MONTH AGO! It's over, why are you
people still discussing it?
Perhaps you would be so kind as to take it to e-mail? Maybe make up a
mailing list or something? Create an alt.fan.andrew-beal? Please?
Don't get pissed, I'm just saying it'd be nice to move on to other things
now.
-------------------------------------------------------
Steve Frampton - fram...@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca
"Thank you for that spontaneous burst of indifference!"
Chip Salzenberg
>Let's face it, folks, this happened A MONTH AGO! It's over, why are you
>people still discussing it?
To live for the present is fun. To forget the past is foolish.
Intelligent beings learn from the past. But different people have
different ideas of what Beals did to, or for, Usenet. In other words,
what exacly _have_ we learned from the Adventure of the Mad Canceller?
And where else should we try to make sense of it but on Usenet itself?
--
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <ch...@tct.com>, <7371...@compuserve.com>
"Do Rush place weird subliminal backmasked messages in their songs to
compel unwilling geeks to commit evil .sig atrocities?" -- Dean Engelhardt
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
>Just a slight observation. The discussion about Andrew Scott Beal (the
>mad-canceller AKA bandy) regarding this <non-event> has been, for the
>most part, talked about by the following net.people:
>Let's face it, folks, this happened A MONTH AGO! It's over, why are you
>people still discussing it?
Is there a time limit?
> [...]
>Don't get pissed, I'm just saying it'd be nice to move on to other things
>now.
Feel free to do so. Do you think there is a finite number of threads
available in any one newsgroup?
BTW changing followup without mentioning it is rude, even more so when you
followup to a non-exsistent group.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | like no government!
+1 416 424 2871 DoD#0082 |
Bengt Larsson
>Intelligent beings learn from the past. But different people have
>different ideas of what Beals did to, or for, Usenet. In other words,
>what exacly _have_ we learned from the Adventure of the Mad Canceller?
I think we learned that some people don't want to say "this is wrong".
Since some people don't seem to want to say it (not you, Chip), let me
do it:
Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim: this is wrong.
Another lesson is that it's perfectly possible to forgive a deed in
the past but to not forgive a repeat of the same behavior. My opinion.
A third lesson is that some people believe in what I would call the
"ostrich attitude": "If I don't see it/want to see it then it doesn't
exist and never have.".
--
Bengt Larsson - ben...@maths.lth.se
Elaine Richards
>
>BTW changing followup without mentioning it is rude, even more so when you
>followup to a non-exsistent group.
I disagree. Being mindful of where the followup is going is a nice idea
that spares bandwidth. Not too long ago, I forgot to check the followup
line and sent a Peevish alt.peeve posting to another group on air travel
whose charter is much more polite.
I think its the duty of the reader to check the headers of a posting
to get the full flavor of what is going on. The header is warning enough.
ER
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know when it was that I scratched Fate's car door, but I should have
left a note. --Tim Mefford
Richard E. Depew
(Bengt Larsson) writes:
>In article <2A66CF...@tct.com> ch...@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>
>>Intelligent beings learn from the past. But different people have
>>different ideas of what Beals did to, or for, Usenet. In other words,
>>what exacly _have_ we learned from the Adventure of the Mad Canceller?
>
>I think we learned that some people don't want to say "this is wrong".
>Since some people don't seem to want to say it (not you, Chip), let me
>do it:
>
>Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim: this is wrong.
But it isn't simple to distinguish between a personal whim and a
service to the net... there are too many situations where a cancel
*may* be justified. What we have is a tradition of cooperation between
news admins to remove articles that threaten the functioning of the
network. The disagreements are about what constitutes a sufficient
threat to warrent a cancellation, and what protocol should be followed
in issuing the cancel.
What follows is a series of situations in which a cancel by
someone (perhaps only the author), perhaps accompanied by an
explanation, may be justified. Think about each, and decide how
it should be handled. It isn't necessary to tell all of us, yet.
Just decide for yourself. I suspect it would be possible to reach a
consensus on most of these, and perhaps it would be a good idea to do
that... so we don't spend a month discussing each cancel that offends
someone. :-) I'll leave it up to someone else to propose a mechanism
for finding and enunciating the consensus. I haven't come up with a
good way, myself. We might start with an easy one like 20.-A.-b. :-)
* * * Some situations in which a cancel may be justified. * * *
1. When a sendsys attack is made,
2. When copyrighted material is posted without permission of the
copyright owner,
3. When an article is posted to a moderated group with bogus approval,
4. When a mal-formed article crashes news systems,
5. When an enormous article threatens to clog uucp links,
6. When a "pyramid scheme" chain letter is posted,
7. When a binary article is posted to a discussion group,
8. When an article violates the accepted charter of a newsgroup,
9. When a forged article is posted in the name of a victim,
10. When a forged newgroup or rmgroup is posted,
11. When an escaped newgroup changes the moderation status of
a newsgroup,
12. When a blatant advertisement is cross-posted to multiple
groups outside the "biz" hierarchy,
13. When a gateway recycles old articles with new headers,
14. When a cascade appears outside of alt.cascade,
15. When an article is maliciously cross-posted (e.g. to misc.test),
16. When a request for postcards for Craig Shergold is posted,
17. When the old "FCC proposes tax on modems" file reappears,
18. When an article is inappropriately cross-posted,
19. When the author of an article requests a cancellation,
20. At any time, and for any reason,
........................................
it is acceptable for
........................................
A. the author of the article
B. the copyright holder
C. the author's sysadmin or news admin
D. the newsgroup's moderator (if a moderated group)
E. the gateway's admin
F. a highly respected news admin such as (insert name here)
G. the newsgroup's enforcer(s) (see P.S.)
H. any sysadmin or news admin
I. the injured party
J. J. Random Hacker
K. no one
........................................
to post a net-wide cancellation of the article,
........................................
a. and anonymous/forged cancels are OK in this case.
b. and no explanation is necessary.
c. if an explanation is posted to "control" in the cancel message itself.
d. if an explanation is mailed to the author of the original article.
e. if an explanation is posted to the newsgroup(s) in which the article
appeared.
f. if an explanation is posted to news.admin.
g. if an explanation is posted to the nntp-managers mailing list. :-)
h. if an explanation is posted to news.announce.important.
i. no matter what the excuse.
P.S. Much of the criticism has been against a self-appointed canceller.
The elected post of "enforcer" would be a newsgroup-sanctioned
canceller... someone who would do for a newsgroup what Guido and
Luigi did for the USENET Cartel (is it true they are now working
for the INET Gang?), but with less pain. :-)
* * * End of exercise. * * *
P.P.S. And where is BIFF when we need him? :-)
To consensus!
Dick Depew
--
Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH r...@redpoll.neoucom.edu
"Leap years are a pain; the earth should be stabilised." - Geoff Collyer
and Mark Moraes in getabsdate.3
jj, curmudgeon and general grouch
>I think its the duty of the reader to check the headers of a posting
>to get the full flavor of what is going on. The header is warning enough.
Sorry, Booter, but I gotta disagree.
Changing the "followup" line to something more polite, or to
something nonexistant, or in general doing anything devious with
the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.
--
Bush *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
vs *by USENET and like free facilities granted. Said permission is
Clinton -- *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
Just Say !NO! *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
Bengt Larsson
>In article <1992Jul20....@lth.se> ben...@maths.lth.se
>(Bengt Larsson) writes:
>>Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim: this is wrong.
>[...]
>
> But it isn't simple to distinguish between a personal whim and a
>service to the net... there are too many situations where a cancel
>*may* be justified. What we have is a tradition of cooperation between
>news admins to remove articles that threaten the functioning of the
>network. The disagreements are about what constitutes a sufficient
>threat to warrent a cancellation, and what protocol should be followed
>in issuing the cancel.
I guess another way of saying it is "is a real net.police needed"?
_If_ there is one, it should certainly not be self-appointed.
And the position should be time-limited.
I think it's interesting how Usenet is turning into a (non-anarchic)
society. There already are guidelines for creating newsgroups,
conventions for newsgroup naming, and a collection of wisdom in
various fields (a University) in news.answers. And sort of the
Constitution in news.announce.newusers.
The rules (sorry, Guidelines) for newsgroup creation came about out of
necessity. I doubt anyone disputes that. (It's a good thing alt
exists, though. "You follow the procedures, you get into the big 7 and
get better distribution." Seems fair.)
PS. In my opinion the appointments for moderator of moderated groups
should be time-limited at newsgroup creation with a default
of 6-12 months. Intended to create more vigor in moderating
and a protection against burn-out.
Mike Meyer
> Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim: this is wrong.
So what does this have to do with what Andy did?
<mike
Richard M. Hartman
>
>1. When a sendsys attack is made,
Given.
>2. When copyrighted material is posted without permission of the
> copyright owner,
Have to have a way to verify permission or lack of same....
>3. When an article is posted to a moderated group with bogus approval,
>4. When a mal-formed article crashes news systems,
Reasonable.
>5. When an enormous article threatens to clog uucp links,
Hmmmm...... Some systems clog w/ smaller articles than others (say
f'r example, I only have 1 or 2 meg left, I could clog up a lot easier
than other systems might....) Of course, really large articles are
especially bothersome to people w/ UUCP/modem links instead of direct
net connections (like me).
>6. When a "pyramid scheme" chain letter is posted,
Pyramid schemes *are* illegal (in the US).
>7. When a binary article is posted to a discussion group,
If we have a "cancel" could we implement a "refile" to redirect
such articles to the proper group?
>8. When an article violates the accepted charter of a newsgroup,
This one is pretty much self-regulating by the members of the
group. It could cause quite a cry of "censorship" if one news admin
decided to cancel an article & others, perhaps in the groups itself,
decided it belongs or is at least worthy of discussion. This does
not apply to truely flagrant cases (e.g. commercial ads for legal services
in comp.whatever), however I would rather stay away from this one
than set a bad precedent...
>9. When a forged article is posted in the name of a victim,
>10. When a forged newgroup or rmgroup is posted,
Ok.
>11. When an escaped newgroup changes the moderation status of
> a newsgroup,
never ran across this one -- wouldn't this come under "forged"?
>12. When a blatant advertisement is cross-posted to multiple
> groups outside the "biz" hierarchy,
See #8 -- one man's blatant is another man's in-context reply.....sometimes.
>13. When a gateway recycles old articles with new headers,
Ouch!
>14. When a cascade appears outside of alt.cascade,
Unless continually re-redirected, the groups themselves can
be pretty well self-regulating on this one. And there's always
kill file entries to avoid anything cross-posted to alt.cascade....
See #8.
>15. When an article is maliciously cross-posted (e.g. to misc.test),
"maliciously"?
>16. When a request for postcards for Craig Shergold is posted,
Yes!!!
>17. When the old "FCC proposes tax on modems" file reappears,
Haven't seen this one yet, but I don't get a full newsfeed....
>18. When an article is inappropriately cross-posted,
See #8 again.
>19. When the author of an article requests a cancellation,
Of course.
???
Is this a "choose one from column A and two from column B" thing?
>P.S. Much of the criticism has been against a self-appointed canceller.
> The elected post of "enforcer" would be a newsgroup-sanctioned
> canceller... someone who would do for a newsgroup what Guido and
> Luigi did for the USENET Cartel (is it true they are now working
> for the INET Gang?), but with less pain. :-)
For a moderated group, the enforcer is obvious. For un-moderated
groups, mailbox stuffings from the "legitimate" and outraged group
members frequently work for many inappropriate postings.
As a general rule I would have to suggest that illegal postings
(pyramid schemes, copyright violations) *may* be cause for a news
admin originated cancel, but what is illegal in Canada may not be
illegal in the US (f'r example folks -- I know there are more countries
involved in the net). Ref. the recent "alt.sex...." flap on Canadian systems.
Some "classics", like the Shergold letters, can and should be canceled
by anyone who recognizes them -- although a followup posting to news.admin
would be nice. Also any traffic-blockers (1.2 gig transmission containing
someone's entire hard disk dump so the New York office can get it by
Monday....)
Most other cases should be brought up individually, unless there is
a time-limitation for some reason. In which case a followup posting
should still be given even after the cancel is issued.....
Well, there's my $.02 -- have fun!
-Richard Hartman
har...@ulogic.COM
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I am just a figment of your imagination...
...what does that say about *your* mental health?
earthbound misfit, I
> boo...@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards) writes:
>
> >I think its the duty of the reader to check the headers of a posting
> >to get the full flavor of what is going on. The header is warning enough.
>
> Sorry, Booter, but I gotta disagree.
>
> Changing the "followup" line to something more polite, or to
> something nonexistant, or in general doing anything devious with
> the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.
Only if you're using some brain-dead newsreader that won't let you direct
your own followup to the newsgroup of your choice. Newsgroups in a Followup-To
shouldn't be strictly obeyed with no chance to override, they should be
considered a suggestion by the poster. If your newsreader won't let you do
anything about those newsgroups when you reply to postings, then complain to
the author who wrote it or the sysadmin who installed it or whatever.
- k
--
Craig Harding kil...@acme.gen.nz ACME BBS +64 63 3551342
"Jub'f Xvob?"
Christopher Davis
Bengt> == ben...@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) wrote:
Bengt> Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim:
Bengt> this is wrong.
Mike> So what does this have to do with what Andy did?
Well, he definitely cancelled other people's articles, I don't think
anyone is arguing that; it's debatable whether you can call it "whim",
but it doesn't appear to have been "well planned" by the standards of
USENET. He didn't put out feelers on news.admin or nntp-managers, as
far as I know; he certainly didn't test the code enough. Premeditiation
was probably there, but he didn't meditate sufficiently :-)
Cancelling other people's articles out of personal disagreement with
their crossposting, then.
--
Christopher Davis * c...@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
``The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the
point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
Chip Salzenberg
>Doing anything devious with the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.
I think this analogy's bogosity rates on the order of one gilley:
terrorists kill many innocent bystanders to achieve their goals.
William W. Arnold
>it is acceptable for
>........................................
>A. the author of the article
>B. the copyright holder
The copyright holder is always entitled to cancel an article.
>C. the author's sysadmin or news admin
This depends on many factors outside the content of the post being
canceled. Such as whether the poster has paid for access etc.
>D. the newsgroup's moderator (if a moderated group)
The moderator is entitled to cancel any article in his group.
>E. the gateway's admin
The gateway admin gains no additional authority to cancel articles,
except in that he is also a news admin, if he wasn't before.
>F. a highly respected news admin such as (insert name here)
The only thing a hrna has over a na is that he is well known, and
therefore People will trust his judgment on many borderline cases.
>G. the newsgroup's enforcer(s) (see P.S.)
>H. any sysadmin or news admin
>I. the injured party
>J. J. Random Hacker
>K. no one
The Poster/copywrite holder/moderator of an article is always entitled
to cancel it.
>........................................
>to post a net-wide cancellation of the article,
>........................................
>a. and anonymous/forged cancels are OK in this case.
Anonymous/forged cancels are NEVER acceptable. If you aren't prepared to
stand up for your actions. You aren't entitled to make them.
>b. and no explanation is necessary.
I can think of NO reason to EVER post an cancel of someone elses
article without putting an explination or pointer to one in AT LEAST
the cancel message.
>c. if an explanation is posted to "control" in the cancel message itself.
>d. if an explanation is mailed to the author of the original article.
unless there is some particular reason not to.
>e. if an explanation is posted to the newsgroup(s) in which the article
> appeared.
>f. if an explanation is posted to news.admin.
In most cases.
>g. if an explanation is posted to the nntp-managers mailing list. :-)
>h. if an explanation is posted to news.announce.important.
I can't think of an reason for this, but someone else might.
>i. no matter what the excuse.
>
>1. When a sendsys attack is made,
CFGHI
>2. When copyrighted material is posted without permission of the
> copyright owner,
BC
FGH if f and d
>3. When an article is posted to a moderated group with bogus approval,
CD
>4. When a mal-formed article crashes news systems,
CFH
>5. When an enormous article threatens to clog uucp links,
CFGH
>6. When a "pyramid scheme" chain letter is posted,
CFGH
J if distrubition is limited to those countries where "pyramid scheme"
letters are illegal and not just frowned upon.
>7. When a binary article is posted to a discussion group,
No cancels, FLAME him. This usually also fits in case 5.
>8. When an article violates the accepted charter of a newsgroup,
Flame away.
>9. When a forged article is posted in the name of a victim,
the victim of course. Or the victims Sysadmin. Or anyone who knows
the victim, and believes the victim would want it canceled. Just be
prepared to justify your actions to the victim.
>10. When a forged newgroup or rmgroup is posted,
CFGH
>11. When an escaped newgroup changes the moderation status of
> a newsgroup,
DFGH if moderated -> unmoderated
J if unmoderated -> moderated.
it's probably more important to send out correct newgroup messages.
>12. When a blatant advertisement is cross-posted to multiple
> groups outside the "biz" hierarchy,
Flame Bait.
>13. When a gateway recycles old articles with new headers,
DFGH if you're sure that they're old.
>14. When a cascade appears outside of alt.cascade,
Flame.
>15. When an article is maliciously cross-posted (e.g. to misc.test),
Flame again.
>16. When a request for postcards for Craig Shergold is posted,
CFGHI
>17. When the old "FCC proposes tax on modems" file reappears,
same as 16
>18. When an article is inappropriately cross-posted,
very mild flame.
>19. When the author of an article requests a cancellation,
anyone
>20. At any time, and for any reason,
ABD
C depending on contract/authority
-billy- war...@nomad.urich.edu ne...@nomad.urich.edu has...@cabell.vcu.edu
Chip Salzenberg
>It isn't simple to distinguish between a personal whim and a
>service to the net...
So true.
>What follows is a series of situations in which a cancel by
>someone (perhaps only the author), perhaps accompanied by an
>explanation, may be justified.
I'm sorry, but I don't think a Talmud-like list of shalls and
shall-nots will be helpful. We must deal with situations as they
arise, so as to allow adequately for extenuating circumstances.
>P.P.S. And where is BIFF when we need him? :-)
Has anyone ever seen Andrew Scott Beals and BIFF in the same place?
Mike Meyer
> In article <Brpt6...@redpoll.neoucom.edu> r...@redpoll.neoucom.edu (Richard E. Depew) writes:
> >6. When a "pyramid scheme" chain letter is posted,
>
> Pyramid schemes *are* illegal (in the US).
>
>
> This one is pretty much self-regulating by the members of the
>
> >14. When a cascade appears outside of alt.cascade,
>
> As a general rule I would have to suggest that illegal postings
> (pyramid schemes, copyright violations) *may* be cause for a news
> admin originated cancel, but what is illegal in Canada may not be
> illegal in the US
Note that in the US, #8 and #14 are both illegal. After all, if you
believe that "unauthorized" cancels are illegal destruction of data,
then it's clear that "unathorized" cross-posts are illegal use of
resources - telecom bandwidth, disk space, and CPU cycles. Unless you
subscribe to the appropriate group, of course - in which case you've
"authorized" such use on your machine.
The only way for a site to protect itself from such illegal resource
usage is to make sure that the articles are never transmitted to their
site. Unfortunately, the only way this can be done with the current
generation of netnews software is by cancelling the article.
So, is it ok for an admin to protect their machine from unathorized
use in this way?
<mike
P.S. - are any of those who are so out of touch with reality as to
think that "unathorized" posting of any kind warrent court action
willing to take the cascaders to court?
Matthias Urlichs
< >someone (perhaps only the author), perhaps accompanied by an
< >explanation, may be justified.
<
< I'm sorry, but I don't think a Talmud-like list of shalls and
< shall-nots will be helpful. We must deal with situations as they
< arise, so as to allow adequately for extenuating circumstances.
<
a list may be a good way to get some sort of consensus.
I'm also thinking of a new sysadmin who is confronted with an article from
that list for the first time, and doesn't know what to do. It's easy to
cause even more trouble by doing the wrong thing.
Granted that circumstances are going to be different, but so what? These are
guidelines, not "hard" rules, and can be changed. The same thing happened
to almost every other guideline out there, and I don't see what's special
about this one.
--
Matthias Urlichs -- url...@smurf.sub.org -- url...@smurf.ira.uka.de /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany -- +49-721-9612521 \o)/
Paul Thompson
it constitutes 'unauthorized' use of the system is not well founded. There
are no authorities on the net. Who could 'authorize' what is appropriate
or inappropriate to be cross posted. Admittedly, cascading is extremely
annoying, but it is not illegal. Even the proposition that what the mad
canceler did is illegal is dubious at best. I seriously doubt the courts
would accept that as a criminal matter. Besides, what kind of evidence could
one possibly submit that would be accepted in a court. (Well, we all talked
for two months or so.......)
--
Paul Thompson Standard Disclaimers Apply
thom...@cognos.com Random quotes from random
(613) 738-1338 x3489 individuals here:
mathew
> According to j...@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch):
> >Doing anything devious with the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.
>
> I think this analogy's bogosity rates on the order of one gilley:
> terrorists kill many innocent bystanders to achieve their goals.
Right, but for the wrong reason.
terrorist n. One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or
coercing government or community (Concise OED)
Killing people is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a
terrorist.
However, it is the case that inappropriate Followup-To: lines aren't terrorism
by any stretch of the imagination. Show me someone who's suffered terror as
a result of a Followup-To: line and I'll show you someone who should stop
dropping acid.
mathew
--
Ceci | n'est pas une pipe.
Seth Breidbart
>However, it is the case that inappropriate Followup-To: lines aren't terrorism
>by any stretch of the imagination. Show me someone who's suffered terror as
>a result of a Followup-To: line and I'll show you someone who should stop
>dropping acid.
What about the guy who almost lost his job as a result of the email
(which his company paid for by the byte, and which almost hosed an
important disk) generated by accidentally posting to misc.test? (OK,
I don't know that it happened, but it's plausible. And you asked :-)
Seth se...@fid.morgan.com
Richard Childers
>ben...@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) wrote:
>> Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim: this is wrong.
>So what does this have to do with what Andy did?
It was subjective, ergo it was a whim. Nobody has cared to claim that they
completely agree with bandy's actions, overtly ... nor have they assumed his
self-imposed responsibility, as forger of cancels. Why is that ?
This lack of similar actions by his peer group, locally and virtually, says
to me that nobody agrees with his actions to the point that they duplicate
them. Clearly, if actions are any description, there is no consensus which
bandy can claim to represent.
Also, it was the third time, from what I know and what I have read, that
he has been believed to have forged - IE, created with false headers that
would deceive anyone wishing to know the source - news articles.
(1) possible, but unproven case in 1989, when he was the
only person who defended an unknown forger, via email,
after i called postmaster@sunncal's attention to the
fact that controversial posts from Sun were forgeries,
and criticized forgery publically.
(2) when he allegedly created software which he used to kill
any groups he did not like, on the Well, as has been
reported here in the past week ... impact and duration
of this 'prank' unknown.
(3) this occurrence. impact and duration precisely known.
(3a) followup deletion of news.admin posts containing Beals'
name and details, let's not forget that mystery.
I really haven't wanted to mention the first incidence, bandy seems to have
created enough trouble, but his friends' efforts to make him seem lily-white
kind of force me to say *something*. Especially after all the shit stirred
up by unknown individuals attempting to get me fired, back then. Kind of
hard to forget someone's effort to deliberately dishonor one ... but I've
kept my mouth shut for several weeks now on this topic, and I've seen all
that I care to. Then, as now, deceit and forgery stirred up a lot of anger.
This will continue until everyone generally agrees that it was deceitful,
and forgery. Since virtually everyone already knows this, the topic can
probably be closed.
Mike, if you want to keep defending bandy, have at it. But your motives are
questionable, to me.
It takes some serious effort to rack up three well-known strikes. I don't
know of anyone else who has been caught so many times being delinquent.
I know of a few people who have, through their acquaintance with bandy,
been placed in difficult positions through their divided loyalties, but
most of these people's first loyalty was to the Net, to the community
which has brought us all together and made us more than lonely hackers.
-- richard
--
-- richard childers rchi...@us.oracle.com 1 415 506 2411
oracle data center -- unix systems & network administration
Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
Chip Salzenberg
>The only way for a site to protect itself from such illegal resource
>usage is to make sure that the articles are never transmitted to their
>site.
That's impossible. No site knows what newsgroups an article is
cross-posted to until the article has already arrived. Therefore,
each site must have granted permission for such articles to arrive in
order to see and examine them. So they are _not_ unauthorized.
And even if they were considered unauthorized, from a site's view,
local removal and global cancellation have the same effect.
Therefore, this situation (massive cross-posts) offers no grounds for
cancellation: simple local removal would be equally effective _and_
harmless to neighbors.
Matthew P Wiener
>I really haven't wanted to mention the first incidence, bandy seems
>to have created enough trouble, but his friends' efforts to make him
>seem lily-white kind of force me to say *something*.
I for one am not in the category of bandy's friends, nor have I seen
anyone try to make him appear lily-white. Try dealing with the stated
objections, not your rationalizations of them.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Eliot Lear
subject that I've gotten lost. Has anyone actually tried to defend
Bandy's actions? I was just put off by Sef's actions.
--
Eliot Lear
[le...@sgi.com]
Elaine Richards
>In article <17...@autodesk.COM> boo...@Autodesk.COM (Elaine Richards) writes:
>>I think its the duty of the reader to check the headers of a posting
>>to get the full flavor of what is going on. The header is warning enough.
>
>Sorry, Booter, but I gotta disagree.
>
>Changing the "followup" line to something more polite, or to
>something nonexistant, or in general doing anything devious with
>the "followup" line is simple net.terrorism.
Changing the followup line which is clearly visible can only be compared
to terrorism if the terrorist is carrying a large sign, "BEWARE OF
TERRORIST." That kinda knocks the wind out of the terrorist's sails.
Followup lines are put in articles for a reason - so people can guide
comments to their comments in a certain direction. I have a right to
tell people to followup to my comments via email instead of taking
bandwidth. If the user wants to followup elsewhere, s/he can edit
the article accordingly.
I won't even bore you with metaphors. Its that simple. If a user wants
people to see a posting, that user has responsibility for directing it
properly.
Mike Meyer
> m...@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer) writes:
>
> >ben...@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson) wrote:
> >> Re: cancelling other people's articles out of personal whim: this is wrong.
>
> >So what does this have to do with what Andy did?
>
> questionable, to me.
That would be a good trick, considering I haven't started defending
him. All I've done is pointed out that what he intended to do was less
obnoxious than what the habits he was trying to deal with, and that
what he actually did was at about the same level.
I've also specifically stated what he did wrong.
If you think that means I'm defending him, I'd appreciate you working
for the defense if I hever have to go to court.
<mike
Mike Meyer
are illegal, any more than I believe that cancelling someone elses
article is illegal. What I believe is that the two go hand in hand;
one being illegal means the other must be. Now..
In <2A6F00...@tct.com>, ch...@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) wrote:
> According to m...@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer):
> >The only way for a site to protect itself from such illegal resource
> >usage is to make sure that the articles are never transmitted to their
> >site.
>
> That's impossible. No site knows what newsgroups an article is
> cross-posted to until the article has already arrived. Therefore,
> each site must have granted permission for such articles to arrive in
> order to see and examine them. So they are _not_ unauthorized.
Sorry, but by requesting some set of newsgroups as a feed, I've
authorized postings appropriate for those groups. As such, any
inappropriate crosspost is unauthorized use of my machine. Doing that
intentionally (and in the cascaders case, maliciously) is clearly
illegal.
> And even if they were considered unauthorized, from a site's view,
> local removal and global cancellation have the same effect.
No, they don't. If you really believe they do, why not let everyone
who pays some form of per byte charge for their news send you the cost
of recieving all those articles. I don't think anyone charges for cpu
cycles or disk-hours anymore, but people certainly used to, and those
are also resources that won't come back with local removal.
> Therefore, this situation (massive cross-posts) offers no grounds for
> cancellation: simple local removal would be equally effective _and_
> harmless to neighbors.
If local removal were equally effective, I'd agree with you. But the
only way to prevent future real money charges caused by followups is
cancelling the original, illegal article.
<mike
Chip Salzenberg
Not "pointed out", but "opined". Relative obnoxiousness isn't an
objectively measurable quantity.
Chip Salzenberg
>In <2A6F00...@tct.com>, ch...@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) wrote:
>> order to see and examine them. So they are _not_ unauthorized.
>
>Sorry, but by requesting some set of newsgroups as a feed, I've
>authorized postings appropriate for those groups.
Evidence, please. Where is the "appropriateness" field of the sys
file?
>> And even if they were considered unauthorized, from a site's view,
>> local removal and global cancellation have the same effect.
>
>No, they don't.
Yes, they do -- because by the time you know that an article merits
cancellation, you have *already* paid for it.
Chip Salzenberg
>What [if a person] almost lost his job as a result of the email
>(which his company paid for by the byte, and which almost hosed an
>important disk) generated by accidentally posting to misc.test?
Inconvenience, sure. Terror? Riiiight....
mathew
> In article <T7BDoB...@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mat...@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >However, it is the case that inappropriate Followup-To: lines aren't terrori
> >a result of a Followup-To: line and I'll show you someone who should stop
> >dropping acid.
>
> What about the guy who almost lost his job as a result of the email
> (which his company paid for by the byte, and which almost hosed an
> important disk) generated by accidentally posting to misc.test? (OK,
> I don't know that it happened, but it's plausible. And you asked :-)
Try posting to misc.test. You'll get about ten mail messages. You can get
more mail by posting something stupid.
mathew
--
Civilization is just a temporary failure of entropy.
Rick Gordon
>According to m...@contessa.palo-alto.ca.us (Mike Meyer):
>>All I've done is pointed out that what he intended to do was less
>>obnoxious than what the habits he was trying to deal with...
>
>Not "pointed out", but "opined". Relative obnoxiousness isn't an
>objectively measurable quantity.
WRONG! One pass of the Obnoximeter over this post registered a
seasonally-adjusted 6.3.
You can't argue with Science.
>Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <ch...@tct.com>, <7371...@compuserve.com>
--
Rick Gordon | "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly
ri...@netcom.com | and I did. I said I didn't know." M. Twain
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
>In article <1992Jul19.2...@druid.uucp> da...@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) writes:
>>BTW changing followup without mentioning it is rude, even more so when you
>>followup to a non-exsistent group.
>I disagree. Being mindful of where the followup is going is a nice idea
>that spares bandwidth. Not too long ago, I forgot to check the followup
> [...]
>I think its the duty of the reader to check the headers of a posting
>to get the full flavor of what is going on. The header is warning enough.
I agree 100% and obviously I caught the change but that wasn't what I was
saying. Changing the followup without mentioning it is rude. It isn't a
matter of rules, guidelines, RFCs or anything like that. It is simply a
matter of common courtesy to other readers.
Do I really have to add IMO?
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain (da...@druid.com) |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting | There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | like no government!
+1 416 424 2871 DoD#0082 |
Mike Meyer
anything it does on my system is authorized. That includes cancels. So
canceling an article *isn't* an unathorized use, and not illegal.
<mike
Chip Salzenberg
"Please don't throw me into the briar patch!" :-)
>If I've accepted an article from my feed, then anything it does on my
>system is authorized. That includes cancels.
That's exactly right, in my opinion.
>So canceling an article *isn't* an unathorized use, and not illegal.
Right. It _is_, however, inconsiderate at best to cancel others'
articles for no reason other than personal opinion of appropriate
cross-posting.
Dave Hayes
>It takes some serious effort to rack up three well-known strikes. I don't
>know of anyone else who has been caught so many times being delinquent.
What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
And, for the record, I don't know the sucker.
--
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
"When you are in it up to your ears, keep your mouth shut."
Gary Heston
[ in the ongoing cancel/crosspost flamefest ]
>Sorry, but by requesting some set of newsgroups as a feed, I've
>authorized postings appropriate for those groups.
Nope; you requested *all the postings* in those groups, whether "appropriate"
or not. There is no "appropriateness" filter anywhere in any of the news
systems' design, as far as I know.
If you can define "inappropriate crosspostings", please write a little
filter routine for your feed site to run when batching your news, so you
won't get things you think are "inappropriate".
> As such, any
>inappropriate crosspost is unauthorized use of my machine. Doing that
>intentionally (and in the cascaders case, maliciously) is clearly
>illegal.
There are neither guidelines or laws defining "inappropriate" crossposts.
And I, for one, think that the *last* thing we need on the net is a bunch
of technical illiterates (like the US Congress and Executive Branch, for
example) trying to codify anything like that.
--
Gary Heston SCI Systems, Inc. ga...@sci34hub.sci.com site admin
The Chariman of the Board and the CFO speak for SCI. I'm neither.
"Always remember, that someone, somewhere, is making a product that will
make your product obselete." Georges Doriot, founder of American R & D.
Seth Breidbart
>According to se...@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart):
>>What [if a person] almost lost his job as a result of the email
>>(which his company paid for by the byte, and which almost hosed an
>>important disk) generated by accidentally posting to misc.test?
>
>Inconvenience, sure. Terror? Riiiight....
Some people can be very scared about losing their jobs.
Chip Salzenberg
>In article <2A6FF4...@tct.com> ch...@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>Inconvenience, sure. Terror? Riiiight....
>
>Some people can be very scared about losing their jobs.
As Peter da Silva observed, you can get more E-Mail by being stupid
than you'll ever see from misc.test automatic replies.
It is unrealistic to believe that misc.test E-Mail could cause someone
to lose his job -- unless, of course, his employer had already decided
to fire him and was just looking for an excuse.
rpwhite
>What [if a person] almost lost his job as a result of the email
>(which his company paid for by the byte, and which almost hosed an
>important disk) generated by accidentally posting to misc.test?
Let's face facts:
NO ONE POSTS ACCIDENTALLY TO MISC.TEST
Ever seen this before?:
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. You message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.
It takes a definite, positive response in order to post.
Anyone who lies and indicates that they know what they're doing,
when in fact they don't, deserves the fan mail.
Neil Readwin
|> Let's face facts:
|>
|> NO ONE POSTS ACCIDENTALLY TO MISC.TEST
For all definitions of 'ACCIDENTALLY' which are useful in this context this
is stuff and nonsense.
|> Ever seen this before?:
|>
|> This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
|> civilized world. You message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
|> dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.
Yep. Back in the days when I used rn I saw it all the time. Now I use xrn
and I never get told these things.
|> It takes a definite, positive response in order to post.
Wrong. Not everybody uses Pnews to post stuff.
|> Followup-To: news.admin,talk.bizarre,alt.newbie,misc.test,alt.test
No, I don't think I will.
--
Phone: +44 71 528 8282 E-mail: nrea...@micrognosis.co.uk
Anything is a cause for sorrow that my mind or body has made
mathew
Some people can lose their jobs if they are believed to be homosexual. Does
that mean that my describing someone as a homosexual is an "act of
terrorism"?
Of course not. The "terror" there (and in the hypothetical example above) is
the fault of the employer. Accidentally posting an article which results in
tens of mail messages is almost inevitable if one posts to Usenet at all.
mathew
--
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
sense of rampant impropriety." -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
Doug Sewell
: According to se...@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart):
: >In article <2A6FF4...@tct.com> ch...@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
: >>Inconvenience, sure. Terror? Riiiight....
: >
: >Some people can be very scared about losing their jobs.
:
: As Peter da Silva observed, you can get more E-Mail by being stupid
: than you'll ever see from misc.test automatic replies.
Hear hear!
I run an auto-replier for misc.test (and a few other *.test) groups.
And I periodically post a global message to misc.test to make sure
that there aren't an unreasonable number of other responses, and that
they're geographically diverse enough that mine is still meaningful.
I don't recall ever getting more than a dozen replies... and at worst
they run about twice the size as the original post, because they incor-
porate a copy of the original post in them.
:
: It is unrealistic to believe that misc.test E-Mail could cause someone
: to lose his job -- unless, of course, his employer had already decided
: to fire him and was just looking for an excuse.
And 'Followup-To: misc.test' is a long-time net.prank. For example, it's
also included in the Newsgroups: line in the debate over alt.wanted.moslem.
gay (we can thank Carasso for that one).
The moral: check what groups your post is headed to before you post it.
You're responsible for what you post. Or you could Steven Brack what
happens if you don't pay attention to the Newsgroups: line....
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
do...@cc.ysu.edu do...@ysub.bitnet <internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
"Recession: your friend loses his job. Depression: you lose your job.
Recovery: Bush loses his job" - Bill Davidsen
Rick Kelly
>According to se...@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart):
>>In article <2A6FF4...@tct.com> ch...@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>Inconvenience, sure. Terror? Riiiight....
>>
>>Some people can be very scared about losing their jobs.
>
>As Peter da Silva observed, you can get more E-Mail by being stupid
>than you'll ever see from misc.test automatic replies.
>
>It is unrealistic to believe that misc.test E-Mail could cause someone
>to lose his job -- unless, of course, his employer had already decided
>to fire him and was just looking for an excuse.
A misc.test posting seems to be good for about 10 email replies, these
days.
--
Rick Kelly r...@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk r...@frog.UUCP
D'Arcy J.M. Cain
Oh come on. Would you have set the Followup-To line of the your post to
"news.admin,talk.bizarre,alt.newbie,misc.test,alt.test" like you did if
you didn't expect to catch a few people. Do you think they would post
to those groups by choice?
> This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
> civilized world. You message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
> dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.
> [...]
>Anyone who lies and indicates that they know what they're doing,
>when in fact they don't, deserves the fan mail.
Who doesn't believe that they know what they are doing? There is no need
to call them liars. Doing so seems rather rude but then I had already
decided that you were rude when I saw that Followup-To line.
Mind you, anyone stupid enough not to check the Followup-To line in this
particular thread probably "deserves the fan mail" but the intermediate
sites that have to pay for it don't.
John Henders
>
>A misc.test posting seems to be good for about 10 email replies, these
>days.
And alt.test gets you about 4.