Re: forged cancels (Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download)

? 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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

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

[...]

> > 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.

It is, but that dosn't mean that you should stoop to such conterproductive
meathods.  A little bit of flear and a well resoned argument gose further
then a humourless flame.

[...]

> Pedophile Chris Lewis is a content censor.

I don't think Mr Lewis' algeded activerties with childeren have any
validity to the argument.  Calling him a 'Pedophile' or any other name is
not effective in changing my option about this mattor.

>  There are dozens of other examples.

As yet I have seen only the one, could you provide these other examples
where Chris Lewis has perposly canceled posts that he dosn't like.

[...]

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

[...]

> I would like to be able to tell
> the rest of Usenet that these articles are not worth reading,

And if thay should deside the what is not work reading is not worth
storing?

[...]

> > Frees up diskspace + reducers propragtion.  May be a good thing.
> 
> A spew spreads to almost all the servers there are in minutes.

It seems to me more in the range of hours or days, esp in the case of
uucp sites wich don't connect often.

[...]

> > > 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"?

There _is_ I'm talking about present tence.  Any anty spammer who dosn't
follow the convention is going to be stopped or losse there account (eg
David Richards).

>  Most of the forgers didn't follow the "$alz" convention (giving the
> forged cancel the message-id "cancel.<original id>".

I would argue that all cancels (not just 3rd party) should follow the
message id protocol.

[...]

> > 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"?

This takes a little work,  you can't just reply to the email to get it in
my mail box,  gives the peaple who would do this a little more time to
think.  Thus reducing the amount of core files I would recive.

And yes if thay set the reply-to: feild of the message to me I do consider
it my post and cancelble from me.

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

Both uws.edu.au and acmeonnline would know these complants are bogus.

> Would you be justified in forgin cancels for these?

No.

> How about if someone posted your credit card numbers to Usenet?

I don't have a credit card for just that reson.  The creadit card securaty
system is so fundermently flawed as to be the equiverlent of sticking a
large sign on your forhead marked "ROB ME"

> 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".

Not a chance.  The PGP part changes every post, its within McQ, and I
write a content that is diffrent.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM+bNCqQK0ynCmdStAQEY7gP+Pb5QqKJYdaORGmSVjZ6ZphWtTxMklJt8
LpugNAiDzQ9pegXLg3Sxc9km8SV4OGnrSU1+cE9o2B9xXbuqUWntA+5Pcij/hEyk
fLk+xq5qweYNKAukAMBtr5f2lXP1O9CVj/VMBb4n9XvvGg3KoaWjNT46TAPUCtjl
oShaO+JLFa8=
=F/Tv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

> On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>
> > Pedophile Chris Lewis is a content censor.
>
> I don't think Mr Lewis' algeded activerties with childeren have any
> validity to the argument.  Calling him a 'Pedophile' or any other name is
> not effective in changing my option about this mattor.

"Chris Lewis" is a common name.  "Pedophile Chris Lewis" serves to identify
the content censor who works for Bell North Forgery Research / Northen
Telecom Forgers and uses their facilities to forge Usenet cancels for
articles whose contents he doesn't like.

> >  There are dozens of other examples.
>
> As yet I have seen only the one, could you provide these other examples
> where Chris Lewis has perposly canceled posts that he dosn't like.

David, you're bordering on asciribing to me things I haven't said -
is you reading as bad as your writing?

I said, there were dozens of examples of cancel-forgers who claim to be
cancelling "spam" (i.e. multi-posts), but are in fact cancelling singly posted
articles whose contents they simply didn't like. Pedophile Chris Lewis is one
of many such content censors. Let's count the ones we find at
http://www.netscum.net: 1) Guy Macone 2) Sally Monde, 3) Tim Brown, 4) Bob
Curtis, 5) Sean Eric Fagan, 6) Nat Makarevitch, 7) Michael Horansky, 8) David
Howard, 9) Alex Bulan, 10) "Eric Dynamic", 11) John Milburn, 12) Gabriel
Krabbe, 13) Odd Einar Aurbakken, 14) Alan Reichert, 15) Andreas Kirchwitz, 16)
Dax Hutcheon, 17) James Gardner, 18) Otmar Lendl, 19) Henning Weede, 20) Ian
Goldberg, 21) Gregory Woodbury, 22) Bruce Lane, 23) Otto Makela, 24) Steve
Manes, 25) Rich Sauers, 26) Ralph Valentino, 27) Luis Echeverria, 28) Michael
S. Scheidell, 29) Matthias Scheler, 30) Wolfgang Schelongowski, 31) Dick
Depew, 32) Ed Hew, 33) George Nemeyer, 34) Edward Igoe, 35) Tom Phoenix, 36)
Michael Shields - that's 3 dozen, an there's probably twice as many more
listed on the Net.Scum pages. Check out Sally Monde: the lady claims to be a
heroin junky currently using methadone, she described how her Legal Aid lawyer
got a psychiatrist to convince the court that she's insane, so she's out of
jail and collecting SSI on mental disability - and she's forging cancels for
aricles she considers to be "racist crap". Do you want Sally to decide for you
what you're allowed to read vs. what's the forbodden "racist crap"?

> > > Since Dr Vulis is the newsadmin of that site, the question is quite valid
>
> > I would like to be able to tell
> > the rest of Usenet that these articles are not worth reading,
>
> And if thay should deside the what is not work reading is not worth
> storing?

My telling the readers of the affected newsgroups that an article posted
under my name isn't worth reading (e.g. because the car advertized as
being for sale has already been sold) is not a reason for news admins
(generally, a different group of people) to remove such an article from
their spool and to deprive their users of the ability to read that article
(e.g., to compare the asking prices for cars).  I'm not talking to
admins.  If they abuse my message by using it as a basis to remove
such articles from spool, then I'll be reluctant to issue it.

> > > Frees up diskspace + reducers propragtion.  May be a good thing.
> >
> > A spew spreads to almost all the servers there are in minutes.
>
> It seems to me more in the range of hours or days, esp in the case of
> uucp sites wich don't connect often.

This was the case many years ago.  These days, a spam propagates pretty
much everywhere because the cancels catch up with it.  The claim that
cancels save bandwidth is an outright lie.

> > > > 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 th
> > Cantor and Siegel "spam"?
>
> There _is_ I'm talking about present tence.  Any anty spammer who dosn't
> follow the convention is going to be stopped or losse there account (eg
> David Richards).

David Richards is the sysop of the Ripco BBS in Chicago. He's been forging
cancels for dozens of articles he considers to be "off-topic" - see his
Net.Scum page at http://www.netscum.net/richard0.html.  He's been doing
this for months and no one's been able to stop him.

Scott Sadow's been forging cancels for months - he hasn't been stopped and
hasn't lost his account (see his Net.Scum page).

> >  Most of the forgers didn't follow the "$alz" convention (giving the
> > forged cancel the message-id "cancel.<original id>".
>
> I would argue that all cancels (not just 3rd party) should follow the
> message id protocol.

I would argue that all cancels should be ignored irrespective of message-id.

> And yes if thay set the reply-to: feild of the message to me I do consider
> it my post and cancelble from me.

To hell with cancels, but you should be able to issue a retraction nocem.

> > How about me posting under my own name or via an anonymous remailer, "Platy
> > is a spammer - complain to his ISP"?
>
> Both uws.edu.au and acmeonnline would know these complants are bogus.

I hope so.  A couple of weeks ago some scumbag posted via a remailer an
annoucement that "vulis@bwalk.dm.com" is responsible for some sort of
net-abuse. This address doesn't exist; nevertheless I received several
postmaster complaints about this address, giving detailed description of
the alleged abuse (junk mail, thousands of usenet articles, etc). One of
the complainers wrote from a work account - I tried to get him fired and
apparently succeeded :-) :-) :-)

> > How about if someone posted your credit card numbers to Usenet?
>
> I don't have a credit card for just that reson.  The creadit card securaty
> system is so fundermently flawed as to be the equiverlent of sticking a
> large sign on your forhead marked "ROB ME"

That's right, except in the U.S. various laws protect the consumer.
(The card issuer gets to eat the losses, and passes the cost to the
consumer whether or not he has a card :-)

Many Cabal supporters cite credit card numbers as the canonical example
of the kind of traffic that must be cancelled on sight. They're idiots.
Once a credit card # has been posted to Usenet, the card must be cancelled
at once to make it unusable. Cancelling the article won't make the number
"safe" again.

---

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa@st.nepean.uws.edu.au> writes:
> 
> > I don't think Mr Lewis' algeded activerties with childeren have any
> > validity to the argument.  Calling him a 'Pedophile' or any other name is
> > not effective in changing my option about this mattor.
> 
> "Chris Lewis" is a common name.

But every body in this context know who you are talking about.  How many
other Chris Lewises are involved in spam canceling.  Even if that was
unstafactory you could of appened his name with his email address wich is
uniqe.

> "Pedophile Chris Lewis" serves to identify

It also helps discreadit you.  I know that you are a resonable and sane
person.  And many of your arguments are valid but others don't know you
thay well and makeing comments like the above can harm your postion.

> > As yet I have seen only the one, could you provide these other examples
> > where Chris Lewis has perposly canceled posts that he dosn't like.

[...]

> I said, there were dozens of examples of cancel-forgers who claim to be
> cancelling "spam" (i.e. multi-posts),

Oh sorry I missparsed what you meant.  I fully appologise for any harm
done.

[...]

> > It seems to me more in the range of hours or days, esp in the case of
> > uucp sites wich don't connect often.
> 
> This was the case many years ago.  These days, a spam propagates pretty
> much everywhere because the cancels catch up with it.

I would wonder how we could test artical propergation times,  anyone with
some stats.

[...]

> > There _is_ I'm talking about present tence.  Any anty spammer who dosn't
> > follow the convention is going to be stopped or losse there account (eg
> > David Richards).
> 
> David Richards is the sysop of the Ripco BBS in Chicago.

My bots say he is not issueing any cancels.  Unless he has discoved a way
to hide.  He was recently whining about how the nasty cabal stopped him
from canceling.

[...]

> > And yes if thay set the reply-to: feild of the message to me I do consider
> > it my post and cancelble from me.
> 
> To hell with cancels, but you should be able to issue a retraction nocem.

Yes I should (and I will).  Still working on that darn bot.

[...]

> One of
> the complainers wrote from a work account - I tried to get him fired and
> apparently succeeded :-) :-) :-)

I thourt you where against plug pulling?

[...]

> > The creadit card securaty system is so fundermently flawed as to be
> > the equiverlent of sticking a large sign on your forhead marked "ROB
> > ME"
> 
> That's right, except in the U.S. various laws protect the consumer.

Since when have laws stopped crimminals?  Systems should be set up so that
thay can't be abused reather then inposing half assed laws ontop of a
basicly broken system.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM+rs8qQK0ynCmdStAQFBrQQAyPmwgzUJsraJYuXNTfXHiZTGO1WWJeHv
t0niVtfGKe1s7x2vYRQJmUilFsyWu1KvpfaPRSH2XLT45/lN5Q9UozhxXNldqLc7
s+8n3ikkrkDhzRifq0O9OdBXgbZQnCj4DgjSQV7IDnHps7sUjBoo5LcPFNqyJtqd
ZOgRCOri9OU=
=rzgL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----