[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Threat of restoring the status quo
Forwarded from news.admin.policy where this individual is threatning to
set up a cancel message generating script to kill all posts from Julf's
In article <[email protected]> Richard Depew
<[email protected] writes:
> I hope you don't mind my changing the title of this thread... I
>didn't care for the one you were using:
>Re: Threat of mass cancellings was Re: Anonymity is NOT the issue
> Tisk, tisk... you make it sound as if masses of postings are
>threatened. Have you *looked* for anonymous postings in the "sci"
>hierarchy? There are really very few. Only two, for Friday:
> The best time to put out a fire is while it is still small. :-)
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
>>I presume that cancel messages can be cancelled ... though I haven't
>>experimented with this yet, but it looks like I might have to. In fact I
>>think I will probably just turn off response to cancel messages totally if
>>you go ahead with this scheme, and I encourage other news administrators
>>to do the same ... they were a bad kludge in the first place and still are.
>>It seems to me they are rarely used for other than controversial purposes
>>like you are proposing (I don't like other people's postings so I won't let
>>anyone else read them).
> That (disabling cancel messages) would be unfortunate. They have
>many legitimate uses. Cancelling inappropriate postings is one of
>these legitimate uses. Controversial, sure, but my reason for
>activating the Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation script, if
>Julf remains unwilling to accept any compromise, is simply to
>demonstrate that the status quo with regards to anonymous postings from
>a particular site *can* be effectively enforced. As I have said many
>times before, I do *not* object to anonymous postings in newsgroups
>that invite them. However, I think it *is* important to demonstrate
>that USENET *does* have a defense against a self-styled cyberpunk
>who refuses to cooperate with the rest of the net. Whether USENET can
>find the *will* to oppose him remains an open question. I simply
>intend a brief demonstration of one defense mechanism.
>>I really think you are getting carried away with a non-issue here, and
>>inflamming the situation is going to make you extremely unpopular, and
>>undoubtedly start a "cancelling war" at the very least.
> The issue of an irresponsible system administrator trying to
>impose his anonymous server on readers of thousands of newsgroups is
>not a trivial one. My proposal to restore the status quo in a
>hierarchy that has protested anonymous postings may not make me
>popular with anonymous posters, but I haven't seen a single message
>claiming that any sci newsgroup has invited anonymous postings. If
>there is to be a "cancelling war", it will be very brief. If I
>activate the ARMM script, it will only be for the weekend.
>>No-one has appointed you as the moderator of all the non-alt groups
>>retrospectively or otherwise, and no-one is likely to appoint anyone else
>>in such a position either.
> You are right, no one has appointed me to the post of
>minimal-moderator. It is a volunteer position with, I assure you,
>miserable fringe benefits. I will gladly relinquish the position when
>the opportunity arises. :-)
>>> There shouldn't be much controversy over this, but there will be
>>> anyhow. :-)
>>There should be and there will be ... you are way out of line here Richard,
>>regardless of how many smileys you tack on the end of your message.
> No. It is Julf who is way out of line here... and has been for
>four months, now. He has finally met someone who has gotten fed up
>with his silly game, and is willing to call his bluff.
>>I hope you are prepared to take responsibility for what is going to happen
>>to your institution's news and mail servers if you go ahead with this plan.
> I hope you didn't mean that the way it reads... as a threat. I
>thought you were more responsible than that. Perhaps I am wrong. You
>*have* been one of Julf's strongest supporters in this newsgroup,
>urging him to ignore the advice of the experienced news administrators
>in this group. To date, this has been an argument between, if not
>friends, then at least respected opponents. Most of us have the best
>interests of the net in mind, agree that anonymous postings have their
>place, and agree that cooperative anarchy is a wonderful experiment.
>You may not like my "Automated Retroactive Minimal Moderation" script,
>but you must at least admit that it is simply an automated version of
>moderation - a well-accepted practice in newsgroups that want to keep
>an acceptable signal/noise ratio. You may protest that I have
>bypassed the usual mechanisms for establishing moderation, and you
>would be right. I have brused some USENET traditions while trying to
>protect others. However, threats against the integrity of internet
>sites are a far more serious matter. I sent a long note to the
>system administrators of my feed site, explaining my proposal and
>pointing out some of the threats that might affect them. We then
>had a long talk. They were, as you might expect, less than thrilled
>at my rash proposal, which received a decidedly mixed reception. They
>were even less thrilled at the prospect of being the recipient of
>denial-of service attacks. They will take any such attacks seriously,
>>I am sure you don't want to become Usenet's next "J Palmer" in terms of
>>reputation. (This is reference is becoming a bit like the "who is John Galt ?")
> Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor. :-)
>Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH [email protected]
>"Leap years are a pain; the earth should be stabilised." - Geoff Collyer
> and Mark Moraes in getabsdate.3