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 <C3tzLF.5ou@redpoll.neoucom.edu> Richard Depew <red@redpoll.neoucom.edu writes:
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