From: buchanan@cybernex.net (Lysander Spooner) Subject: Re: Freedom of speech (was: If Spam is Garbage ...) Date: 1997/08/13 Message-ID: X-Nntp-Posting-Host: wayne1-028.cybernex.net References: <33E17256.3483@rocketmail.com> <33E7907C.34B86174@jetcafe.org> <33e84b4f.180742884@news.ecid.cig.mot.com> <33E8D4F0.17C7@adan.kingston.net> <5samh9$4lc@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> <33E8FF55.B25BB4E1@jetcafe.org> <33EAEE39.4304BDFC@jetcafe.org> <33EE7870.FBD235BB@jetcafe.org> <33F12EF9.26B99FEC@jetcafe.org> X-Complaints-To: Email abuse@news2.new-york.net if this posting is inappropriate X-Trace: news2.new-york.net 871477878 1310 user [207.198.145.28] Organization: Sisyphus Systems Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.censorship On Tue, 12 Aug 1997 20:50:17 -0700, Dave Hayes wrote: >Lysander Spooner wrote: >> Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> >I do. The list of headers you may not look at are: >> >> > >> >> >Sender: >> >> >From: >> >> >Subject: >> >> >NNTP-Posting-Host: >> >> >Approved: >> >> Does it follow that Boursy, the Grubor Gestalt and Vulis "may not" >> >> look at those headers? >> > >> >If they are not going to be censors, yes. >> >> Reply saved, and ready to be used as a keyboard macro next time I feel >> like tilting at the the Boursy windmill. > >Oh what joy to have one's words turned and used on others as a weapon of >righteousness. NOT. Sauce for the goose, and all that. >> >> If not, why the special dispensation for Loons? >> > >> >Besides the fact that you Cabal people -make- us special, what are you referring >> >to? >> >> FWIW, I've seen no evidence that you are a "loon" by _my_ definition >> An extremist, and unrealistic, but quite rational. > >Well gee, why not just call me a "loon"? It's quicker... I reserve the term for people who've erected impermiable barriers against reason, logic and rationality. Boursy qualifes. You don't. I'm still trying to decide about Vulis. >> >> If so, how is it that they are always bitching about "Forged" cancels? >> >> How do they know something is "forged" without content-based reference >> >> to those forbidden header lines? >> > >> >According to RFC1036, if the cancel is not from the author of the message or >> >from the site administrator, it is "forged". >> >> How do you determine if it is from the author, without inspection of >> the forbidden fields? > >You are beginning to understand. The condescension is uncalled for. I think I understand quite well. >> Also, I haven't checked it in a while; does RFC1036 use the term "forged"? > >No, but it has wording to the effect that anything else violates the standards >therein. I have some small experience with networking standards. They change and adapt to new needs and situations -- often before the changes are codified. This does not mean the people adopting the changes should be labeled with appelations such as "forger". >> >If they post an article, and >> >it gets cancelled, and the message does not originate from their site or >> >their fingertips, what other conclusion is possible? >> Uh, maybe that they posted the same article 80,000 times and pissed >> off the people who have to keep this circus running on real-life >> computers with real-life datalinks and real-life disk-drives, and >> SOMETHING had to be done? > >The reasons for cancelling are not usually thought about before knowing >that one has been cancelled. MY reason for cancelling is simple -- the same message is posted in extraordinarily excessive numbers. I never HAVE and never WILL cancel based on my opinions of the author, the contents or the newsgroup. >> I think you'll find that I tend to concentrate my venom (and my >> cancels) on the handful of individuals who are EGREGIOUSLY abusing >> Usenet. If you could talk four people (Noel Westerlind, Jerry >> Reynolds, Tom Bridges and Ron Harris) into behaving responsibly, I'd >> probably retire from the despamming arena. And gladly so. > >I have trouble accepting this, mainly because I know a few spammers >and those names do not match. Noel Westerlind -- Adultsights, the "XXX Passwords" spammer Jerry Reynolds -- Netzilla, Sexzilla Tom Bridges -- dozens of spamming websites, various names Ron Harris -- Eros -- nuff said. (online18 -- the "800PhoneSex" and "Psychic" spammers) I've got plenty of old cancel reports that put each of them into 5 to 6-figure BIs on a regular basis. Name some spammers who are more "prolific", if you can. >> FOUR men are killing this wonderful medium and effectively denying it >> to tens of thousands of potential participants. THAT pisses me off! > >Perhaps they are pissed off at those who run this medium? I know lots >of people in that category... Why are they pissed? Because they are denied free advertising services on a discussion medium? TOUGH! -- Rick ----------- ** Gee, who'da thought Holonet's "Spamboy" would miss the top 5? **