forged cancels (Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free download)

? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} dformosa at
Tue Aug 5 04:12:03 PDT 1997


On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa at> writes:


> > Haveing trubble working out what this line is,  as a flame it is limp
> > wristed, as a rebuttle it is pathtic.
> Our frustration with the Cabal supporters is understandable.

It is, but that dosn't mean that you should stoop to such conterproductive
meathods.  A little bit of flear and a well resoned argument gose further
then a humourless flame.


> Pedophile Chris Lewis is a content censor.

I don't think Mr Lewis' algeded activerties with childeren have any
validity to the argument.  Calling him a 'Pedophile' or any other name is
not effective in changing my option about this mattor.

>  There are dozens of other examples.

As yet I have seen only the one, could you provide these other examples
where Chris Lewis has perposly canceled posts that he dosn't like.


> > Since Dr Vulis is the newsadmin of that site, the question is quite valid.


> I would like to be able to tell
> the rest of Usenet that these articles are not worth reading,

And if thay should deside the what is not work reading is not worth


> > Frees up diskspace + reducers propragtion.  May be a good thing.
> A spew spreads to almost all the servers there are in minutes.

It seems to me more in the range of hours or days, esp in the case of
uucp sites wich don't connect often.


> > > We've got to receive repeated 
> > > blasts of forged cancels ten times the number of the offending posts?
> > 
> > Ergh?  There is only one cancel per post.
> Were you around when Ausralia was knocked off the net by the cancels for the
> Cantor and Siegel "spam"?

There _is_ I'm talking about present tence.  Any anty spammer who dosn't
follow the convention is going to be stopped or losse there account (eg
David Richards).

>  Most of the forgers didn't follow the "$alz" convention (giving the
> forged cancel the message-id "cancel.<original id>".

I would argue that all cancels (not just 3rd party) should follow the
message id protocol.


> > Realy how about "Post to me your corefile for free porn."?
> How about me posting under my own name, "E-mail your core file to Platypus
> for some free porn"?

This takes a little work,  you can't just reply to the email to get it in
my mail box,  gives the peaple who would do this a little more time to
think.  Thus reducing the amount of core files I would recive.

And yes if thay set the reply-to: feild of the message to me I do consider
it my post and cancelble from me.

> How about me posting under my own name or via an anonymous remailer, "Platypus
> is a spammer - complain to his ISP"?

Both and acmeonnline would know these complants are bogus.

> Would you be justified in forgin cancels for these?


> How about if someone posted your credit card numbers to Usenet?

I don't have a credit card for just that reson.  The creadit card securaty
system is so fundermently flawed as to be the equiverlent of sticking a
large sign on your forhead marked "ROB ME"

> I don't have an issue with anyone's .sig, especially Dr. Fomin's, but
> Net.Scum like Chris Lewis might use this as an excuse to declare your
> writings "spam".

Not a chance.  The PGP part changes every post, its within McQ, and I
write a content that is diffrent.

- -- 
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett

Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv


More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list