I invite all cypherpunks subscribers to let this censorhappy -- not to mention humorless -- sysadmin know what they think about spam complaints over a joke posted here: "J.A. Terranson" <measl@mfn.org> I posted recently, in response to a help-me-spam message:
Cypherpunks are well-known providers of Bulk-email HTML spam campaigns. As a "marketing analyst," you've clearly come to the right place.
And Terranson complained to my upstream provider that I was spamming (see message below). I will be writing about the censorhappy behavior of Terranson/MFN in my next column. -Declan they the
----- End forwarded message -----
Declan, If you'll look closely at the addresses to which my complaint was mailed, you will note that it was directed to "broadwing.net" which is the luser's ISP, and uu.net, the upstream NSP for broadwing: unless you also have broadwing as your upstream provider, it should have been pretty obvious that my complaint - oops, I'm sorry, my *censorship* - was not directed at you. Yes, I hit the forward button on the wrong email within the thread, and for any confusion, I apologize, however, it was pretty obvious to *everyone* but you who the complaint was directed against. As for being "censorhappy": shouldn't a *journalist* do a little more homework before (a) making such a sweeping declaration, and (b) using his media access in such a directed and vindictive manner? Possibly an email to ask just what the hell was going on might have been more appropriate? Do your homework: you'll find that I am pretty middle of the road WRT "Muzzling Spammers". I make the occassional complaint about the truly stupid (such as our friend below), but in general, my reputation is that of an anti-spammer "thorn". In my experience, the anti-spammers generate several orders of magnitude more trash with their bitching than the original spammer did with their spam run. I personally recieve between 500 and 700 emails a day (between home and offices), of which roughly 2/3rds is spam (a great number of these coming from this very list) - and you know what? Hitting "Delete" is just not that big a deal (no matter *what* Net-Nazis like Vixie have to say). Basically Declan, I'm disappointed in you. Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
You forwarded one of my messages to my upstream provider (and someone else's upstream provider), complaining about my alleged spam. This has led my network provider to contact me, and has introduced friction into our relationship. I understand now this was a mistake on your part. But I'm not sure if the conclusion from this episode is that I should be one who should be more careful -- shouldn't you be more careful before accusing someone of spamming? -Declan At 04:00 PM 3/30/01 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
You forwarded one of my messages to my upstream provider
I gather from this that you and "The Idjit" share a common upstream path? Let's see now: you're [supposed] to be a reasonably "bright" guy - It didn't occur to you that the upstream NSP was contacted because they are the next in line from the ISP? Are you saying [with a straight face] that you don't know what you are looking at? Disingenuous. Totally.
(and someone else's upstream provider)
Bzzt. I complained to the upstream ISP, and their upstream NSP. Normal practice and procedure: I personally have to look at several thousands of these a day at work...
,complaining about my alleged spam.
Look again Declan (clue: the email I complained about *is _clearly_ visible, in your original tirade about me - see below*. Nowhere did we complain about you: anyone with the reading abilities of an armchair could see what we were bitching about. Sorry that UU has an abuse desk staffed with dropouts from the short bus, but such is life... Maybe you should have pointed ot the obvious to them, ya? Of course, it's obviously *much* more satisfying for you to yell and scream like a 4 year old who has been rejected from the Romper Room Playtime Games...
Then maybe you need a new provider. We, like everyone else, gets complaints. A responsible upstream is going to actually *examine* any complaints for validity before taking any action. If your ISP doesn't fall into this category then you shouldn't be doing business with them should you?
I understand now this was a mistake on your part.
B Z Z Z T T ! ! ! ! Wrong: *OUR* part. But unlike us, you are apparently unwilling to accept your piece of responsibility. You went off half cocked, with no looking back, and now it has [rightfully] bitten you in the ass. You have abused your position as a "journalist" here. You have sullied your own reputation here. And you did it all by yourself. I made an honest mistake, and acknowledged it openly when it was pointed out. You went off on your little revenge kick, and now that the world can see you in the dark colors you have painted yourself with you are pissed off and looking to dump YOUR responsibilities. You want the world to think of you as a responsible, honorable, and *honest* journalist? After THIS? Yeah. Right.
Why don't YOU be more careful before accusing someone of being Censorhappy? Pot. Kettle. VERY black. As I said before: I am *very* disappointed in you - I *thought* you were better than this.
-Declan
J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org ==========================================================================
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact: You forwarded MY message to UUNET and said kill-this-spammer or something to that effect. The rest is hand-waving and after-the-fact justification. -Declan PS: I agree that perhaps I should have been a little less harsh in calling you "censorhappy."
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Fact: You forwarded MY message to UUNET and said kill-this-spammer or something to that effect.
Fact: I forwarded *A* message to UUNET, which is the upstream NSP for the spammer-to-be's ISP. The forwarded message had both your comment, AND the actual offending email. I have already (REPEATEDLY) acknowledged that the part with your commentary was forwarded in error. How about YOUR acknowledgements? How about addressing my POINTS?
The rest is hand-waving and after-the-fact justification.
I *absolutely* agree with this statement, and wish you would cut the crap.
Is that all? Don't you think that prior to choosing such a wide brush you should (as a "responsible journalist" of course) have maybe (JUST MAYBE) done a little homework? Do you deny that your "piece" was little more than an "I'll show him not to fuck with *ME*" excersize in chest beating? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you forwarded *my* message responding to the spam-solicitation to UUNET, and asked them to take action against *me*. I have the complete headers. The reason I wrote about it is because it shows, as an online society, how hypersensitive we've become to spam. It requires all three people in the spam-complaint chain to overreact: You (accidentally, you say), uunet (intentionally), and my provider (intentionally, probably). Different actions by any of them would have derailed the spamcident. Frankly, I've also been meaning to send out my econlib.org column for a while, and this gave me an excuse to mention it. Better ways of dealing with spam can avoid this in the future. -Declan
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
No, you forwarded *my* message responding to the spam-solicitation to UUNET, and asked them to take action against *me*.
You're losing it Declan: when you have to start putting words into my mouth, you at the point where you need to step back, take a deep breath, and realize you have crossed over... *NOWHERE* in the below complaint will you see *ANY* proof of your assertion that I "asked them to take action against *me* [McCullagh]". You have been reduced to whimperings that even your supporters can see are utter fabrications.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= BEGIN MY EMAIL COMPLAINT TO BROADWING/UUNET =-=--=-=-=-=
Cypherpunks are well-known providers of Bulk-email HTML spam campaigns. As a "marketing analyst," you've clearly come to the right place. -Declan On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 05:48:17PM +0530, Ganesh Acharya wrote:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= END OF MY EMAIL COMPLAINT TO BROADWING/UUNET =-=-=-=-=-=
The reason I wrote about it is because it shows, as an online society, how hypersensitive we've become to spam. It requires all three people
Here we go again: "three people". Poor little Declan isn't responible for *ANY* of his little betwetting mess, now *is he*???
in the spam-complaint chain to overreact: You (accidentally, you say),
Again with making up what you would LIKE to hear. Please quote where I said *anything even remotely LIKE* "I overreacted". I do not think I overreacted at all. I send a complaint about some idjit who was too stupid to even obtain a spam host without putting his foot in his mouth. I don't consider this overreacting. In fact, given the unbelievable pathetic attempt he made, I think it was rather appropriate.
uunet (intentionally),
I wouldn't know, as UU.net has not yet sent me anything on this "issue" other than the standard "thanks for making a complaint, now get lost" missive.
and my provider (intentionally, probably).
Hrmmm.. So is broadwing your provider as well? Since broadwing and UU were the only ones I complained to, your statements here imply that.
Different actions by any of them would have derailed the spamcident.
More smoke and mirrors Declan: this isn't about "the spamincident" and you know it. It's a bout a spoiled little brat who got his panties all knotted up because he thought someone had tried to complain about him, and then abused his reputation for accuracy and fairness as a journalist to try and "get even".
Really? Don't you mean something more along the lines of "Beter ways of dealing with others can avoid this in the future."???
-Declan
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
The correct and accurate chronology is here: http://www.politechbot.com/p-01870.html The message you sent to UUNET complaining about my alleged spam is below. In your most recent response, you wrote: "*NOWHERE* in the below complaint will you see *ANY* proof of your assertion that I "asked them to take action against *me* [McCullagh]". To the contrary, in the below spam complaint sent to UUNET you brand me a "downstream spammer" and ask them to "please muzzle this idjit..." I admit I may have been a little hasty in saying you were "censorhappy." "Apparently censorhappy" would have been better. But it is incorrect to say that I tried to attack you in my writeup. My full message is 5,202 characters; the paragraph dealing with you was 338 characters. (Granted, you could snip headers, but the calculation would be similar.) It would have been trivial to write an article that *was* aimed at you. I could have said:
But I didn't write that. -Declan
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
The correct and accurate chronology is here: http://www.politechbot.com/p-01870.html
The *chronology* was never in question Declan: why the straw?
The message you sent to UUNET complaining about my alleged spam is below.
Yes. The exact same message I just cited.
Using YOUR OWN copy of this complaint, go LOOK at it Declan. It was sent to BROADWING.NET. That's B-R-O-A-D-W-I-N-G.N-E-T. It was sent to broadwing and *CC'd* to UUnet. This message is *obviously* aimed at broadwing's subscriber. And again, using *your* copy of the message, show us where I brand *YOU* as the downstream spammer. Or even "The Idjit" himself for that matter! Since I thought the message I was forwarding had only The Idjit's scrawl, there was no *reason* to actually *point out* anyone in particular - you have CHOSEN to paint this the way you WANT to paint this, for whatever reason(s) you have. It must make for good copy, huh?
you brand me a "downstream spammer"
While I have never "branded [you] a downstream spammer", I *am* now branding you a liar and an irresponsible, unethical, and untrustworthy writer with an attitude problem and an ego problem.
and ask them to "please muzzle this idjit..."
And you know what? After all this bullshit from you, I *still* don't think you're in need of "muzzling". Killfiling yes, but nothing more.
Playing with numbers now that playing with words has backfired? I am not going to play the game with you anymore: you have shown me, the list, and everyone who ever runs across this thread in a web search what *really* happened. All the smoke, mirrors, and outright *bullshit* can't change that Declan.
No, however you *did* clearly imply it. And again, that was NOT THE POINT. The POINT is that you specifically used your "column" as a vehicle for revenge and not for Truth, and you did it consciously, and with malice. The POINT is that when you were called on it you weren't man enough to admit your mistakes, instead, you made a lot of noise and tried a lot of things to distract the world from your folly. The POINT is that you have not just sullied *your own* reputation with this infantile bullshit, the POINT is that you have, by extension, sullied every magazine that elects to give you a public voice. You have failed to serve Truth. THAT is the point.
-Declan
Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org ============================================================================
-- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the first place... --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 09:10 PM 3/30/01 -0600, J.A. Terranson wrote:
You have failed to serve Truth.
THAT is the point.
I wrote what I honestly believed was the truth when I wrote it. I may send along a followup clarification. That you responded with venom and invective instead of with a "whoops, sorry, honest mistake, didn't mean to say you were a spammer, let's put it behind us" does not make anyone take you more seriously. Frothing and kvetching -- after the error was yours in the first place -- is not going to change anything. -Declan
On 30 Mar 2001, at 16:00, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Oops. I sent a message earlier, before noticing this message, where some remarks did not hold Mr. Terranson in the highest regard. This appears to be a misunderstanding between Declan and Mr. Terranson. I apologize for any remarks using Mr. Terranson as an example. I believe my comments are still valid with the references to Mr. Terranson removed. My apologises to Mr. Terranson. I mean what would you expect from a representative of FBN Technical Services!! Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbntech.com FBN - Harnessing The Dynamics of The Internet http://www.fbntech.com
On 30 Mar 2001, at 10:44, Declan McCullagh wrote:
If you check out the mfn.org web site, Missouri FreeNet, you will note Mr. Terranson is Mr. MFN, or at least one of them. Mr. Terranson has over 20 years experience in the BBS and Internet business. A real pioneer you might state. He either has no humor or he fails to completely understand what he reads. I find many of the anti-spam folk to be as bad as the spammers. Where do you draw the line? If people are so keen to jump on spammers they fail to properly understand the nature of a post you have a big problem. Imagine what would happen if your local police force was given authority to police spammers? If the police had the intellectual ability of Mr. Terranson many Cypherpunks would soon be in jail in a digital age version of the Inquisition. A long time ago, or what seems a long time ago, I supported the notion that the Cypherpunk list be moderated. At the time a major concern was 2 or 3 or 4 posts a day from an anonymous source disparaging the character of Tim May. It was assumed the source of the posts was Dimitri Vulis (spelling?). It was decided that there should be moderation and I thought it would be good. I now understand the problems with that approach. The question is how do you deal with spam? The anti-spam folks are looking more like bigoted Nazis racing to launch complaints on anything resembling spam. Lots of users will complain to their ISP when the ISP implements anti-spam measures as their mailbox is obvious broke as there are no messages in it. I try not to read spam and would never buy anything from anyone who spams or calls me at home. I would love to be forever rid of spam but don't believe we can trust politicians to write the right law. Idealistically we could all not buy anything from spammers and eventually they would realize there was no return from spam and stop but some newbie schmuck is always going to buy something from the spammers so that won't work. Anyone have any thoughts on eliminating spam other than filters and hitting the delete key or button? Virtually Raymond D. Mereniuk Raymond@fbntech.com FBN - Delivering on the policy of "Lowered Expectations" http://www.fbntech.com/service1.html
participants (3)
-
Declan McCullagh -
J.A. Terranson -
Raymond D. Mereniuk