All I did was properly crosspost!

I first saw the Dubois Letter in alt.security.pgp the 28th.
PRZ posted it here the next day.

I "crossposted" it to my favorite 10 newsgroups. Just 10.
Some creep complained. (we'll get to him a bit later).

I didn't get a chance to get back on-line for 3 1/2 days.
I was lied to.

I am hurt. My mail has been stolen.
I haven't read any of you for four days now.

My web pages are vulnerable.
Is there somebody who can please help me get my 2 megs of mail?
I can't get at your keys.

http://www.winternet.com/~carolann/coffee.html has the cypherpunk
rant links on the page. I'm proud of them, and proud to be on this list.

But to take my account away for crossposting to 10 groups is not right.

I'll be back with a better chronology.

Love Always,

Carol Anne
ps Hope you like (and feel free to use) my new .sig

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Carol Anne Braddock wrote:

> 
> I first saw the Dubois Letter in alt.security.pgp the 28th.
> PRZ posted it here the next day.
> 
> I "crossposted" it to my favorite 10 newsgroups. Just 10.
> Some creep complained. (we'll get to him a bit later).
>
ten is not a large number when it comes o cross-posting on soem topics, I 
can think of at lezast tewenty newsgroups where the PRZ letters and such 
would make alot of sense and be on topic.  This just goes to show the 
soemtimes reactionar steps people take to control spamming.  it leads to 
people getting hurt, especially whent he sysop at your site is nto 
intelligent enough to look aat the article, and see wether or not it was 
cross-posted to valid groups etc..and not only that, but to completely 
pull your account for such a small thing(ten groups?  that's nothing in 
comparison to some aticles out there still going) What is the name of the 
sysop at that site your account was pulled form?  
 
> But to take my account away for crossposting to 10 groups is not right.
>
I agree, ten groups is a small amount, especially if they are at least 
amrginally on topic.  

This is soemthing that we need to watch out for tho, it makes people 
fearful of spreadung information, when evenif you spread it in a nice 
manner, to on-topic groups etc.. that you face the chance of some bozo 
net-vigilante complaining to your sysop and having your account yanked. 
From teh evidence here it seems the sysop acted in a reactionary manner, 
probably out of fear of some asshole mailbombing your account.  

I heartily reccomend that those of you who do not know your sites 
policies for such, become aquainted with them, or at least contact the 
syspo and talk about this issue.  If you contact him and talk to him(her) 
about it then they are less likely to react so quickly and IMO stupidly.  
It's amazing how much just knowing your sysops first name helps in such a 
situation.

As for MCs, I am not sure of their policies but Karl is very reliable, 
and I doubt he would be so reactionary, in any case, I'll contact him 
about such policies.

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Nesta Stubbs wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 1995, Carol Anne Braddock wrote:
> ten is not a large number when it comes o cross-posting on soem topics, I 
> can think of at lezast tewenty newsgroups where the PRZ letters and such 
> would make alot of sense and be on topic.  This just goes to show the 
> soemtimes reactionar steps people take to control spamming.  it leads to 
> people getting hurt, especially whent he sysop at your site is nto 
> intelligent enough to look aat the article, and see wether or not it was 
> cross-posted to valid groups etc..and not only that, but to completely 
> pull your account for such a small thing(ten groups?  that's nothing in 
> comparison to some aticles out there still going) What is the name of the 
> sysop at that site your account was pulled form?  
>  
His name is Michael Horwath, root@winternet.com

> > But to take my account away for crossposting to 10 groups is not right.
> >
> I agree, ten groups is a small amount, especially if they are at least 
> amrginally on topic.  
> 
> This is soemthing that we need to watch out for tho, it makes people 
> fearful of spreadung information, when evenif you spread it in a nice 
> manner, to on-topic groups etc.. that you face the chance of some bozo 
> net-vigilante complaining to your sysop and having your account yanked. 
> >From teh evidence here it seems the sysop acted in a reactionary manner, 
> probably out of fear of some asshole mailbombing your account.  
> 
> I heartily reccomend that those of you who do not know your sites 
> policies for such, become aquainted with them, or at least contact the 
> syspo and talk about this issue.  If you contact him and talk to him(her) 
> about it then they are less likely to react so quickly and IMO stupidly.  
> It's amazing how much just knowing your sysops first name helps in such a 
> situation.
> 
> As for MCs, I am not sure of their policies but Karl is very reliable, 
> and I doubt he would be so reactionary, in any case, I'll contact him 
> about such policies.
>  
>