🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 19 Nov 1997 04:32:15 -0800, Stan Kalisch III <sjkiii@crl.com>
announced:

>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.

Oh, I see. I wasn't referring specifically to the flood, I was
referring to all the claims she made, but the way I quoted from her 
post made it look like I was referring to the flooding alone.  Sorry
about that.

>> >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.  
<snip>
>What really matters is the total number of bytes.

Agreed to a certain extent, both total number of bytes and number of
posts should be considered.  5 different 200 line (~60kb) posts would
certainly not be a flood, but 1000 different 1 line posts would. 

>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.

Everything I saw was generally averaged sized, and since her claim was
solely based on the number of messages, I'm assuming size is
irrelevant as far as she's concerned.  

What convinced me that FotCA had gone completely over the edge was
when The Rear Admiral posted 2 or 3 average-sized messages to a.h.w.
and she included him in her "flood report", even going so far to
implicitly threaten him (the exact quote is in his .sig).  

>> >   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. 

Sure it is.  Anything of the format .word.word.word is 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.  

And the content of the group is that "Barney must die" and "B'harni
rules the world".  Sounds like a joke group to me.  I'm not advocating
its rmgroup and the rmgroup I issued was in error (I was trying to
rmgroup alt.base-jumping.sheep), but I don't think it's appropriate to
complain about off-topic posts in a joke group.

>Check your facts.

"My facts" state that Brian Edmonds, author of many of the FAQs on
alt.config and newsgroup creation, rmgrouped it last year as a "joke
group".  I consider him an authority on the matter.

>> >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.

How can one make a convincing and substantiated argument based on what
people "might have done"?  If we're going to start discussing UDPs on
what the users of sites "might do", we'll never get anything
accomplished.

>> 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.

In the basest form, just giving someone an account is a "potential
threat to Usenet traffic".  The question is "Where do we draw the
line?"  Since the volume of spam is so high now, I think it's futile
to make UDP jugements based on what users "might do /intend to do".  

>> 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.  

By her definitions it does.  To claim that 25-30 average sized
messages a day are a "flood" and then yourself post 6 off-topic
messages totalling 250kb is employing a double standard.

>> >   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.

I would still take issue with that to a certain extent.  Every time
Tale issues a big 8 rmgroup, it makes a newsgroup unusable since the
vast majority of sites (if not all) automatically honor his rmgroups.
Removal of a newsgroup certainly makes it more unusable then posting a
lot of messages to it.  

But there's no need to argue this point in the general sense; I'm
convinced beyond a doubt that what has occured so far *specifically in
terms of the "flood"* did not break any laws.

>> >   (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.  

That may be true but doesn't justify a complaint based on a "flood" of
one's own imagination.

>> 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.

Other people still dispute that.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I
believe Russ Allbery said the only thing that could be construed as
net-abuse was the self-approving of posts in moderated newsgroups, and
only if the newsgroup had a problem with it.  Even then, it still
isn't net-abuse of the UDP level. 

>> >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. 

By *her* standards, not mine. 

>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.

But they're not my standards I'm employing, they're hers.  More
importantly, you're arguing (perhaps unintentionally) that "2 wrongs
make a right".

I also believe that n.a.n-a.* should be held to higher "usability"
standards because it has a charter, unlike a.h.w, but that's another
argument for another day.

>> >  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.  

Doubtful, she hasn't mentioned size at all.  

>> >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.

Only because the group is low traffic.  As I said previously, if
a "flood" is based solely on proportions, than 10 posts to a really
low traffic group is a "flood". 

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

Not relevant, as I don't have the burden of proof here.  Nothing she
said resembles a flood to anyone but her.

-Phil Oliver

--
"[Phil Oliver is] the 20 year old punk who, with the
aid of his idiot pal, have managed to piss off more people
than Boursy/Grubor combined."
Steve Day in <61u1sm$ln5$1@ccnet3.ccnet.com>