🚀 go-pugleaf

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



On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Phil Oliver wrote:

> 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).  

Her going after the Rear Admiral for that did strike me as a bit odd.
(Let it not be said I haven't ever spoken in his defense)

> 
> >> >   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 <...>

Then if there's a reason for it to stay on the news spool, it's silly for
you to say complaining about off-topic posts to that group is lunacy.  I'm
not a fan of the group, but there is a pretty simple rubric for defining
what is on-topic there.  Without even reading the newgroup message for it:
posts related to hatred of Barney the Dinosaur.  Not Winnie the Pooh.  Not
Maya the Bee.  Not the Rear Admiral.  Not Windigo the Feral.  All we're
talking about is a silly group *name* and nothing more.  The *topic* is
fine.  As long as there's a sufficient, dependable readership.

<...> 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. 

See above.

> >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.

Mr. Edmonds rmgrouped the group closer to two years than a year ago.

You also failed to note that less than a month after Mr. Edmonds rmgroup
message, Jonathan Grobe sent out a newgroup message saying the
following:

| This is a booster newgroup message as discussed in alt.config. While this
| is a silly name this group is a well established group having over
| 40,000 posts in total and averaging 40 to 50 per day.

Brian Edmonds didn't issue a rmgroup message after that message was
sent.

Following all of this, there wasn't another rmgroup message sent for
alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die until you sent yours on August 26th of
this year.

Over *nineteen* months later.

> >> >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.

UDPs are implemented on the reasonable belief of what could likely
happen, and endanger Usenet (without mitigation) in the process.

> >> 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?"

If you're asking me--I don't know.  If anything looks close to the
line, Usenet errs in favor of no UDP.

<...>

> >> 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.

Ah, I see.

> 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.

Feel free to if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's
true.

> 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.  

I fail to see your point--I don't understand how Tale's supposed
breaking the law would change things.

> But there's no need to argue this point in the general sense; <...>

<...>

> >> 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.

He said that before I ever joined in the thread.  Though he could
have, I have yet to see him dispute the serious net-abuse I've
addressed.  Fluffy has disputed it, but Fluffy also harbors
misconceptions about what I was saying was and wasn't net-abuse in the
first place.

> Even then, it still isn't net-abuse of the UDP level. 

That's a rather general assertion, and I've addressed already how it
wouldn't be unlikely the abuse would endanger a number of sites, on a
dangerous level, and how a UDP under previous circumstances would have
been a perfectly reasonable measure for guarding against that threat
of abuse.

> >> >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. 

Again, so noted. :-)

> >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".

No; I just hadn't realized it was her standard.

> 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.

aiyee.

<...>

> >She said of of 280.  Now it's getting closer to a definite flood.
> 
> Only because the group is low traffic.

No, I think that's even still getting pretty close to a flood in
n.a.n-a.u .  (Even if it would be far from the group's biggest)

> As I said previously, if a "flood" is based solely on
> proportions, <...>

It isn't.

<...> 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.

True, but you've taken on a burden with all the assertions you have made.
Not that that changes her burden, of course.


Stan

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

iQCVAwUBNHXeIJyiGl9g1kgJAQHuRAQAgqqAkLTwtwQhEZjfXkZHjQvYRmKDKObg
dV45bqWlk4566Z4rdTntgKAvNSYBq5R7VfGuNf/6p/Xe6+wPufRF9+IzBnxYUlpg
th/IVCKqE3uszIo8qRzXsGTgoQtd3tYZ+4N4XFCQG3vjbyjQlIGHZpTwcNgMF6LZ
feS44ST5HAw=
=xfih
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----