Martin Pool writes:

Dave Hayes wrote:

...

Sandy Harris writes:

...

What this scum is actually upset about is Chris Lewis cancelling spam. He calls that "forgery" because the spammer's name goes in the sender field of the cancel message. Nonsense. According to RFC 1036 forging cancels for articles that do not originate from your news site is not allowed. He is clearly in violation of the RFCs. Spam jihads are not sufficient reason to ignore internet protocols. Spamming is a crime (theft of computer resources)

I don't know that I can agree with that and still be for freedom. By that standard, so is posting or mailing "non spam" articles containing a topic that the owner of a recipient machine is not interested in. The magnitude of the theft is not relavent.

and sometimes such acts may be justifiable self-defense, such as when I steal from my employer because they don't pay me enough, or when I lie on my income tax forms because I want to keep my money for myself.

My point of focus is freedom. Deleting others' messages is not justifiable for -any- reason, IMO. If you have a problem with what is sent, you should take it up with the source of the transmission. The carriers of that transmission cannot care about the content and still profess to be "free" in any way. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A person was frighteningly ugly. Once he was asked how could he go on living with such a terrible face. "Why should I be unhappy?", answered the man. "I never see my own face; let others worry."