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
Anon Service.
In article Hi David, 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:
<1993Mar12.010241.2849@fuug.fi>
<1993Mar12.061727.9451@fuug.fi> The best time to put out a fire is while it is still small. :-) In article <1nq1f2INNfed@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> dclunie@pax.tpa.com.au 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,
indeed. [...] 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. :-) Regards,
Dick
--
Richard E. Depew, Munroe Falls, OH red@redpoll.neoucom.edu
"Leap years are a pain; the earth should be stabilised." - Geoff Collyer
and Mark Moraes in getabsdate.3