🚀 go-pugleaf

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



On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Phil Oliver wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 23:15:24 -0500, afn23950@pop3.afn.org (Follower of
> the Clawed Albino) announced:

<...>

> >The posters from alt.net (who, I will note, were NOT alone in this) were
> >attempting a flood.  
> 
> By no one's definitions but your own.  The only person who's even come
> close to actually agreeing with you is Stan Kalisch, <...>

I know I already addressed this part--but I'm just taken aback by what
you've said, considering the fact that I have commented in no way 
whatsoever to date on whether or not I personally thought these posts were
a flood.

Again, read what I said.  Referring to the record is usually helpful.

<...>

> >I document this by the following:
> >
> >1) Upwards of 25-30 messages/day, of which roughly 15-20 were from alt.
> >   net, were posted to alt.horror.werewolves daily (excepting the binary
> >   floods, where thousands of posts were sent through an open NNTP 
> >   server).  Normal traffic on alt.horror.werewolves is 40-60 messages/
> >   day *at most*.
> 
> 25-30 messages a day *is* *not* *a* *flood*.

For the sake of objectivity, let me say it could be if the posts
themselves are large enough.  Traditionally, twenty-five to thirty
messages a day would not be thought of as a *flood*--but then again, the
size of the average message is much smaller than of one found in a flood.

What really matters is the total number of bytes.

What I think would *really* be helpful is an archiving of the alleged
abuse itself, put somewhere up on the web, or made available by FTP.
Windigo, could you do this?  It would make sorting out this mess much
easier for those of us who are actually trying to figure out who abused
what and didn't abuse what.

<...>

> >   Towards the end, posts were also affecting alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.
> >   die which has upwards of 10 posts/day.
> 
> Complaining about off-topic posts in a JOKE group is the true height
> of lunacy. 

alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die isn't a joke group.  Fluffy and I had to
renewgroup it after you sent a rmgroup for it in error.  All it has is a
bad name.  Check your facts.

> >2) As I have stated, this was in fact part of a *coordinated* attempt to
> >   drive regulars off alt.horror.werewolves.   I honestly do suspect, based
> >   on previous attacks, that if more open NNTP servers were available the
> >   attack would be FAR more severe. 
> 
> What they might have done is not relevant to a UDP discussion.

It would be relevant if her argument were more convincing and better
substantiated.

> >   Furthermore, the stated intent of the entities *was* that of a flood.
> 
> Not relevant again.  ISPs have no responsibility to sanction their
> users based on intent.

If it's demonstrated (note the word *"if"*), yes they do, because if they
don't, they are essentially refusing to mitigate a potential threat to
Usenet traffic.

> Maybe they were planning on flooding the group eventually, but they
> didn't so alt.net bears no responsibility in the matter of "flooding". 
> 
> >  The intent of the list was to replace alt.horror.werewolves 
> >   because *it was being made unusable*.

That I wouldn't know.  I'd like to see clear evidence of that.

> See above.
> 
> FYI, 250kb posts of private e-mail correspondence that has nothing to
> do with the topic of net abuse makes news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
> unuseable. 

No, they don't.  Although she probably should have merely posted a pointer
to a web or FTP address where the documents could be accessed.  (I'm
willing to provide any necessary such web or FTP space for similar 
documents in the future, by the way, if desired)

<...>

> >   In essence,
> >   this is the latest episode of an ongoing DOS attack aimed at
> >   alt.horror.werewolves.  
> 
> alt.horror.werewolves is a legal entity?  Which state provides
> newsgroups with legal protection?

The United States government does, as they are a communications medium.
While prosecutorial conditions are a separate matter, it is against
federal law to make a communications medium unusable.

> Please let me know because I wouldn't want to be charged with murder the
> next time I rmgroup. 
> 
> >   (This is one factor of many that has led to me contacting law
> >   enforcement over this matter.  
> 
> Have you called the FBI and the Attorney General in 2 states again
> because people are posting messages to Usenet that you don't like?

Then wasn't why she had called them before, though.  There *have* been
much more substantial things that *have* been Denial of Service attacks
that Windigo has reported.  What's it's really a matter of at this point
is someone being able to come forward and demonstrate they've suffered
enough damage because of this for the government to prosecute.

> If you can humor me a bit, <...>

<[Your humor snipped]>

<[More snipped]>

> Threatening a UDP against alt.net makes you look like a Kook of the
> highest caliber. 

Only on the basis that they are allowing a flood, perhaps.  It's true they
were also allowing serious kinds of *real* net-abuse (which I've already 
discussed earlier in this thread) to occur.

At any rate...

> >   At this point, it is crossing the line to harassment and a persistent DOS attack.
> 
> Yes, I'm sure alt.horror.werewolves feels quite harassed at having
> received 25-30 noise posts per day.

I'll agree that the harassment claim at least probably doesn't hold much
water.  Harassment is something that is quite harder to argue on a scale
larger than that of the individual.

<...>

> >6) What Caputo has not detailed--many of the posts were reposts of random
> >   FAQs, reposts of articles from NANA*, reposts of articles from alt.
> >   fan.karl-malden.nose, etc.  
> 
> If there were hundreds or thousands of these articles, you'd have a
> point.  But the minute scale of this does not constitute a DOS attack.

Well, Phil, let's take your own words for a moment.  You said that by
Windigo posting her e-mail logs, she made news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
unusable.  Well, the reposts of FAQs by said individuals have far exceeded
250K.

If you're going to criticize Windigo, don't employ a double-standard.

> >  The "meowbot" reposted one article no less than four separate times,
> 
> BI of 4?  UDP!  UDP!  

Perhaps she's speaking of the number of bytes.  A spew can be cancellable,
for example, even if it hasn't exceeded a BI of 20.

> >7) Over 100 articles (out of 280-odd) on alt.horror.werewolves were from
> >   alt.net at the end of this round.  This is from alt.net *alone*; this
> >   does *not* count other sites that were abused in the attacks. 
> 
> 100.  Whoopdee fucking doo.

She said of of 280.  Now it's getting closer to a definite flood.

<...>

> And you're accounting for about 30% of the diskspace in n.a.n-a.* on
> my server right now, so let's UDP airnews.net.  

Yes, that would be a bit silly.

> >   These were on Airnews' server, which holds posts for approximately 2
> >   weeks, and during the period of ~25 October to 5 November (when the
> >   flood ended, roughly). 
> 
> TINF.

I don't know if she's demonstrated that there is; but you certainly
haven't demonstrated that there isn't.


Stan


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: http://www.crl.com/~sjkiii/PGP.Current_Public_Key 

iQCVAwUBNHLcWJyiGl9g1kgJAQGvvQP/ZXfW28xVcNwlEmmvpFf48GQOErsfnHgt
BUUs8UnXRrvZTD3D0zAW3n4MT8H/Cd/Ik+wBgPenHiaNux64YgiZdwsDdsdWpIe5
5zZfgMW66hbDwR5vZMUKJ77t2Xe2aSMXuhaLsqcBNVOgFIYrOHDRNy6pXrVdhtZj
YB88KGkAMSM=
=G9w7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----