Don't Feed the Animals!

Fact is, I now have more people in my Eudora filter file that at any time
in the four years this list has existed. Also a fact, there are more people
on this list that at any time in history (despite what some of the New Wave
journalists are writing about "the death of the Cypherpunks list").

Fact is, the attention being given to Vulis, Aga, Stathis, Boursy, and
other list disruptors (or clueless cross-posters) is _exactly_ what they
thrive on: controversy. Being the center of so much attention strokes their
egos.

I suspect John Gilmore made a tactical error in kicking Vulis off the list,
as there are so _many_ workarounds. Vulis is clearly posting more messages,
of even greater vitriol, than ever before. Dozens of messages just so far
today. And his supporters and detractors are chiming in with equally
juvenile taunts. This "aga" personna, for example, seems dead-set on doing
whatever he can to get himself added to the "Unwelcome on Cypherpunks"
list. A predictable effect, I'm afraid.

Not that I question John's right to do as he pleases with his machines.
This list is, after all, operated at his expense on his hardware.

[A minor note, though. I disagree with the abstract notion that John
"created" the list, and now "owns" the list. Eric Hughes, Hugh Daniel, and
I proposed a mailing list after the first Cypherpunks meeting, and Hugh set
it up. John volunteered his machine, toad, as he has volunteered it for so
many other projects in the past. While John is in an important sense free
to discontinue his hosting of the list, it is also true that traditional
notions of "ownership" are not the full story. For example, if the San
Francisco Marriot Hotel plays host to the CFP Conference, in any sense is
it proper to say they "own" the conference? If a church volunteers space
for a club meeting, do they "own" the club? However, in both cases the host
may kick out an especially uncouth or disruptive attendee, modulo specific
contract language agreed to by the parties, and this is, I think, all John
has claimed to be doing with Vulis. Perhaps a mistake, but certainly within
reason. I think John has taken a hands-off attitude toward the list, and
has never imposed restrictions on topic, membership, etc. This one case
involving Vulis was well-described by John: he asked Vulis to stop sending
50K byte rants about the Armenians and Turks to the list--consider that
50KB x 1500 destinations = 75 MB of outgoing traffic, modulo corrections
for aliases, compression, etc. Vulis responded with more insults, basically
saying "Make me!!!!" Gilmore said, "OK."]


And the issue is not just killfiles and filters. It's a matter of not
giving the juvenile disruptors the results they crave.

Yes, this message is itself likely to trigger at least a couple of "More
lies from Timmy [fart] May" spews from Vulis, and a couple of incoherent
rants from newcomers Stathis and Aga. I've been saying little on this
issue, compared to dozens of Vulis rants every day (ironic that he calls
_me_ the main ranter!), but it's time to remind folks of a basic Net maxim:

DON'T FEED THE ANIMALS.

--Tim May

"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May wrote:
> Fact is, I now have more people in my Eudora filter file that at any time
> in the four years this list has existed. Also a fact, there are more people
> on this list that at any time in history (despite what some of the New Wave
> journalists are writing about "the death of the Cypherpunks list").

[snip]

> This one case
> involving Vulis was well-described by John: he asked Vulis to stop sending
> 50K byte rants about the Armenians and Turks to the list--consider that
> 50KB x 1500 destinations = 75 MB of outgoing traffic, modulo corrections
> for aliases, compression, etc. Vulis responded with more insults, basically
> saying "Make me!!!!" Gilmore said, "OK."]

[mo' snip]

I've been hammered on for a nearly-50k posting, which is pretty much just
a one-time deal for me, so I know what you're saying.  Is there some way
around this problem? I'd hate to take a coffee break and find my computer
downloaded 100 50kb messages of anything, especially considering the
duplication that takes place here.

I'd hate to think that all of this discussion comes down to a message-size
problem.

It seems that there are many technical means to stop abuse from
the resource usage sense:

1.  Prevent non-members from sending mail to the list.  (This may
    be done already, but since I don't know, I cannot say.)

2.  Limit the rate of new subscription requests (perhaps on a per-
    host or per-domain basis.)

3.  Re-order out-going mail (from toad.com) according to size.
    Drop messages from queue if it gets "reordered" too many times.

4.  Truncating long messages.

5.  Re-order out-going mail (from toad.com) according to time of
    last mail (from the originator).  Basically, limit the rate of
    mail from any particular person or host or domain.

6.  Refuse connections from "known host(s) or domain(s) of
    abusers" during "busy" periods.

These are not whole-sale censorship mechanisms, but just abuse-
resistence measures.

Ern

uOn Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Ernest Hua wrote:

> 
> It seems that there are many technical means to stop abuse from
> the resource usage sense:
> 
> 1.  Prevent non-members from sending mail to the list.  (This may
>     be done already, but since I don't know, I cannot say.)
> 

This makes anonymous remailers not be able to send to the list, which is
(in principle) a Bad Thing.

> 2.  Limit the rate of new subscription requests (perhaps on a per-
>     host or per-domain basis.)
> 

Most domains don't have more than 1 problem user on them and on this list.

> 3.  Re-order out-going mail (from toad.com) according to size.
>     Drop messages from queue if it gets "reordered" too many times.
> 

nononononononono Bad Bad Thing.  If you start doing that, we'll start
getting replies before messages _even more than we do now_.

> 4.  Truncating long messages.
> 

You _must_ be joking...

> 5.  Re-order out-going mail (from toad.com) according to time of
>     last mail (from the originator).  Basically, limit the rate of
>     mail from any particular person or host or domain.
> 

This hinders many discussions; easier and more effecient not to.

> 6.  Refuse connections from "known host(s) or domain(s) of
>     abusers" during "busy" periods.

Which would only really be usefull on users who needed to be removed
anyway.  A Better fix might be to and more disk space to queue messages
in.

> 
> These are not whole-sale censorship mechanisms, but just abuse-
> resistence measures.
> 

"Abuse-resistance" is simple: If somebody abuses the list, warn them.  If
they continue, John does what he did to Vulis. Good Thing. 'nuff said.

> Ern

 --Deviant
Blood flows down one leg and up the other.

> "Abuse-resistance" is simple: If somebody abuses the list, warn them.  If
> they continue, John does what he did to Vulis. Good Thing. 'nuff said.

As we all noticed, doing what John did was of little help. While I 
support John in his decision, I believe the the offenders should be 
source blocked as well.

--Lucky

Timmy May <tcmay@got.net> farts:
> Fact is, I now have more people in my Eudora filter file that at any time
> in the four years this list has existed. Also a fact, there are more people

I don't believe Timmy.

> on this list that at any time in history (despite what some of the New Wave
> journalists are writing about "the death of the Cypherpunks list").

This censored forum has no credibility, irrespective of the number of
subscribers.

> I suspect John Gilmore made a tactical error in kicking Vulis off the list,

Timmy tacitly admits that he lied when he claimed that no one had kicked me
off the list.

> has never imposed restrictions on topic, membership, etc. This one case
> involving Vulis was well-described by John: he asked Vulis to stop sending
> 50K byte rants about the Armenians and Turks to the list--consider that
> 50KB x 1500 destinations = 75 MB of outgoing traffic, modulo corrections
> for aliases, compression, etc.

If that's how John Gilmore described it, then he's lying again. He never said
anything to me about the size of my messages, only about their contents.

Moreover if John Gilmore had a problem with the size of articles being sent
to his private mailing list, he would have configured majordomo not to
broadcast submissions above a certain size, the way most majordomo mailing
lists are configured.

John Gilmore is clearly a liar.

> Yes, this message is itself likely to trigger at least a couple of "More
> lies from Timmy [fart] May" spews from Vulis, and a couple of incoherent

Of course Timmy May and John Gilmore would rather lie and not be called liars.

> rants from newcomers Stathis and Aga. I've been saying little on this
> issue, compared to dozens of Vulis rants every day (ironic that he calls
> _me_ the main ranter!)

This from the asshole who rants about "don't hire" lists, "crazy Russians",
and mormons...

---

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