brunette is bad
Wm...
it seems the brunette group has been pulled by Demon
I think it reasonable to ask for an explanation.
I haven't noticed anything bad in the group apart from the usual spam
which the IWF seems unable to do anything about.
If the group was pulled because of child porn (about which many people
have complained) then just about every adult orientated group should be
pulled too because the IWF hasn't done a fucking thing about the spam.
--
Wm ...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days from date of posting
Richard Clayton
not-spam.me.uk> writes
>it seems the brunette group has been pulled by Demon
"the brunette group" is hardly clear; two spring to mind
200 news.demon.co.uk InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.4.1 ready (posting
ok).
group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.brunette
411 No such group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.brunette
group alt.binaries.erotica.pictures.brunettes-short-hair.reposts
211 3 26942 26944 alt.binaries.erotica.pictures.brunettes-short-
hair.reposts
>I think it reasonable to ask for an explanation.
Demon removes newsgroups either on the advice of the IWF, advice which
(AIUI) they have contractually agreed not to reveal; or because the
newsgroup is remarkably high volume and it is removed for service
protection reasons.
Since saying it was the latter would indicate that the former was the
case (leaving aside the remote possibility of acting on a well-formed
group removal request) I don't see that it would be possible for Demon
to comment on every group removal, nor in my view, would it be
reasonable to ask that they do.
see .sig; what do I know ?
>I haven't noticed anything bad in the group apart from the usual spam
>which the IWF seems unable to do anything about.
the IWF are not an anti-spam organisation; I assume that this reference
suggests that these articles were both illegal images of children and
also were multiply posted with a high BI value ?
So you seem to be suggesting that the group regularly contained illegal
images of children -- yet somehow the multiply posted nature of the
articles should be taken into account -- and this should mean that the
regularity should be ignored ?
If that is correct, then that's certainly an interesting viewpoint (not
unrelated to the "displacement theory" which suggests that material
migrates when newsgroups are removed). But this is a view to make to
the IWF and I don't see any overwhelming relevance to demon.service
>If the group was pulled because of child porn (about which many people
>have complained)
the IWF's criterion is not complaints, but regularity of occurrence
>then just about every adult orientated group should be
>pulled too because the IWF hasn't done a fucking thing about the spam.
if you are aware of articles containing illegal images of children then
the IWF operate a "hot line" to which you can (and probably should)
report the details.
http://www.iwf.org.uk/reporting.htm
Follow-ups set, cross-posting is seldom desirable :(
--
richard writing to inform and not as company policy
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM
Wm...
demon.service Richard Clayton <ric...@highwayman.com>
>In article <b2vnkpnoWT$CFw76@[127.0.0.1]>, Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-
>not-spam.me.uk> writes
>
>>it seems the brunette group has been pulled by Demon
>
>"the brunette group" is hardly clear; two spring to mind
>
>200 news.demon.co.uk InterNetNews NNRP server INN 2.4.1 ready (posting
>ok).
>group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.brunette
>411 No such group alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.brunette
That is the one I had in mind.
>group alt.binaries.erotica.pictures.brunettes-short-hair.reposts
>211 3 26942 26944 alt.binaries.erotica.pictures.brunettes-short-
>hair.reposts
Since that group is carried (but appears unused) I'd hardly be
complaining about it. There is also
alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.brunettes-short-hair.reposts
but that too appears unused.
>>I think it reasonable to ask for an explanation.
>
>Demon removes newsgroups either on the advice of the IWF, advice which
>(AIUI) they have contractually agreed not to reveal; or because the
>newsgroup is remarkably high volume and it is removed for service
>protection reasons.
I don't think alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.brunette was removed for
volume reasons. By comparison with some other groups it is and always
has been tiny.
>Since saying it was the latter would indicate that the former was the
>case (leaving aside the remote possibility of acting on a well-formed
>group removal request) I don't see that it would be possible for Demon
>to comment on every group removal, nor in my view, would it be
>reasonable to ask that they do.
I understand what you are saying Richard but I am genuinely puzzled
about the group being pulled presuming it was based on IWF information.
>>I haven't noticed anything bad in the group apart from the usual spam
>>which the IWF seems unable to do anything about.
>
>the IWF are not an anti-spam organisation; I assume that this reference
>suggests that these articles were both illegal images of children and
>also were multiply posted with a high BI value ?
Yup. I have given up reporting them to the IWF (I also agree that is
something I should take up with the IWF again, I have tried before).
>So you seem to be suggesting that the group regularly contained illegal
>images of children -- yet somehow the multiply posted nature of the
>articles should be taken into account -- and this should mean that the
>regularity should be ignored ?
Yes. People that read / look at group should not, to my mind, be
"punished" because a spammer has been hitting it.
If, as I suspect, the group was pulled because of spammers then I can
give you a very long list of other groups that should be pulled too
because they have been sent the same or similar spam. Most of it
off-topic for the groups concerned.
>If that is correct, then that's certainly an interesting viewpoint (not
>unrelated to the "displacement theory" which suggests that material
>migrates when newsgroups are removed).
I doubt the spammers will notice that Demon (and probably most UK based
newsgroup providers) have pulled it. They'll keep on sending it :(
> But this is a view to make to
>the IWF and I don't see any overwhelming relevance to demon.service
My first point of contact was me noticing Demon had pulled the group so
it seemed reasonable to ask here first (Demon have made some odd
independent decisions about binary groups in the past, after all).
>>If the group was pulled because of child porn (about which many people
>>have complained)
>
>the IWF's criterion is not complaints, but regularity of occurrence
If they are basing that on spam then we should expect hundreds of groups
to disappear shortly.
>>then just about every adult orientated group should be
>>pulled too because the IWF hasn't done a fucking thing about the spam.
>
>if you are aware of articles containing illegal images of children then
>the IWF operate a "hot line" to which you can (and probably should)
>report the details.
>
> http://www.iwf.org.uk/reporting.htm
I (and many other people) have reported the spammers of such material to
the IWF and similar agencies hundreds and probably thousands of times
over a long period of time. They seem immune.
>Follow-ups set, cross-posting is seldom desirable :(
It seemed appropriate in this case.