From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:34:48 +0800
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: Re: forged cancels (Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download)
In-Reply-To: <199708011508.KAA04749@raid2.fddi.phoenix.net>
Message-ID: <icJXae1w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



wireinfo <wireinfo@phoenix.net> writes:

> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >
> >On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> >
> >> ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Nno one is arugeing that.  Both sides in this debait aggry that that is 
> >> > REAL BAD thing.  Spam cancelers use an objective rules.
> >
> >[...]
> 
> You're not very bright are you David?

In my humble opinion David is pretty bright.  Unfortunately he's misguided
about certain things.  I think the extreme aversion to censorship (like that
displayed by imp and myself) seldom arises in people who haven't themselves
been victims of censorship (plug-pulling or forged cancels, not 'censored thro
being drowned up by the dissenting opinions" "-)

> 
> 
> >> Let me clarify two things:
> >> 
> >> 1. "Spam cancellers" are not generally news admins.
> >
> >I think you will have to justerfy this,  the top spam cancellers are all
> >news adimns.
> 
> Aer nto.

The current top "spam canceller", Rich Bland ("cosmo") is an admin of a tiny
little BBS in California - probably fewer users than mine. The previous top
"spam canceller" - Rick Buchanan - was just a user, whose actions were condonded
by the admins of the several systems he used to forge cancels. (He only had
his plug pulled by one ISp I know of.)

Most of the people who scream about their "hatred of spam" on news.* are not
admins, but fairly recent users who figure that "fighting spam" is a cool thing.

Thing is hardly relevant - anyone can easily set up their own site and become
its admins.  I was just pointing out that it's factually incorrect to use
"admins" as a synonym for "anti-spammers".  Many admins are pro-free speech.
> 
> >> 2. Once a cancel-forger builds a "reputation" as a "spam canceller",
> >> s/he often diversifies into "retromodetration"
> >
> >There is little proof that this is the case.  Even the netscum case could
> >have been considered spam.
> 
> What the fuck is "the netscum case"?

I think David is referring to the recent case of content-based cancels forged
by Chris Lewis for severa articles whose only thing in common was the mention
of Chris lewis's Net.Scum page.  

This is just one of dozens of such examples.  Chris Lewis and Dave Barr obth
forge cancels for usenet articles that follow up on their articles and quote
them, claiming "copyright violations".  Interestingly, Dave Barr is one of the
moderators of news.admin.net-abuse.announce.  When that newsgroup was up for
a vote, its charter said (don't know why) that its moderators aren't supposed
to issue third party cancels.  So much for moderated newsgrou charters. :-)

> 
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> > Not even forgeries in my name?  Not even out of the control spews from
> >> > fidonet?
> >> 
> >> Correct.
> >
> >Ok so if a mailing list gateway @bwalk.dm.com pumps thousands of broken
> >posts into usenet you don't wish them to be removed from usenet?
> 
> The motherfucker can remove them himself, send him a note. But after 
> they've already hit our servers and we've already read them it doesn't 
> make much of a difference now does it? We've got to receive repeated 
> blasts of forged cancels ten times the number of the offending posts?

Once the offending articles are part of the spool on toher site, it's pointless
for me to issue cancels. Note that both have happened: both I and my wife have
been forged numerous times on usenet, and there have been spews from this site.
I don't think that trying to remove them from spool is a proper thing to do
whether or not my site ogirinated them.  I do think it's polite to try to
let people know that these articles are forged/obsolete/posted in error and
should be ignored.  That was the original purpose of the cancel control
articles in RFC 1036 - I post a "car for sale" ad, I sell the car, I don't
want to get any more replies, I cancel it. Problem is, the cancels in RFC
1036 were unauthenticated - relied on honor, and too many people on Usenet
have no honor are aere eager to forge other people's e-mail addresses on
their cancels.

As I discussed with David in private mail, a "retraction server" that would
announce forgeries, spews, etc would be a useful thing.
> 
> You're really not very bright are you David?

Just misguided.  
> 
> >Nor if I post a message with your name and email, saying "Chris Lewis the
> >best thing that happened to usenet and I wish to have his baby."
> 
> A simple "I didn't write that" shall suffice.

I recall how a couple of years ago Peter Vorobiev forged a bunch of articles
in my name all over Usenet, and I posted an announcement to that effect
on news.admin.net-abuse.misc, and got some very obnoxious e-mail from Tim
Skirvin saying it's off-topic.


---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps