From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 07:38:26 +0800
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: Re: forged cancels (Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.970802103954.106I-100000@shirley>
Message-ID: <59kXae1w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:

> > You're not very bright are you David?
> 
> Haveing trubble working out what this line is,  as a flame it is limp
> wristed, as a rebuttle it is pathtic.

Our frustration with the Cabal supporters is understandable.

> > >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"?
> 
> Boursy or Grubour (I've forgotten wich one) keeped posting an add for
> Chris Lewis' netscum post.  Chris Lewis desidered that thay where
> substatuly identical and canceled them.

Pedophile Chris Lewis is a content censor.  There are dozens of other examples.
For example, see the Net.Scum pages for Nat Makarevitch or Michael Martinez,
both of whom arbitrarily declare some article "spam" and forge cancels dfor it.

> > >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.
> 
> Since Dr Vulis is the newsadmin of that site, the question is quite valid.

I would not issue cancels in either case.  I would like to be able to tell
the rest of Usenet that these articles are not worth reading, and that I
have sifficient authority to say so (by having my e-mail address in the
from: field or being the local admin).  I wouldn't want to delete them from
anyone's spool, though.

> 
> > 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?
> 
> Frees up diskspace + reducers propragtion.  May be a good thing.

A spew spreads to almost all the servers there are in minutes. Cancels for
a spew waste more bandwidth and cpu time than ignoring it.

> 
> > We've got to receive repeated 
> > blasts of forged cancels ten times the number of the offending posts?
> 
> Ergh?  There is only one cancel per post.

Were you around when Ausralia was knocked off the net by the cancels for the
Cantor and Siegel "spam"?  Most of the forgers didn't follow the "$alz"
convention (giving the forged cancel the message-id "cancel.<original id>".

> 
> > >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.
> 
> Realy how about "Post to me your corefile for free porn."?

How about me posting under my own name, "E-mail your core file to Platypus
for some free porn"?

How about me posting under my own name or via an anonymous remailer, "Platypus
is a spammer - complain to his ISP"?

Would you be justified in forgin cancels for these?

How about if someone posted your credit card numbers to Usenet?
Would you be justified in forging cancel for that?
> 
> > And when your content to mail lists is a 
> > fifth the size of your 16-line .sig, you're doing something wrong.
> 
> My sig is four lines long.  I know there is also the overhead of the pgp
> signing but atleast its not smime.

I don't have an issue with anyone's .sig, especially Dr. Fomin's, but
Net.Scum like Chris Lewis might use this as an excuse to declare your
writings "spam".

---

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