geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (10/30/85)
In article <x148@psueea.UUCP> nnguyen@psueea.UUCP (Nhat M. Nguyen) DOES NOT cancel his own article. Instead, some joker at oliveb (I think) has unilaterally decided to cancel a bunch of articles in net.sources. As you can see from the referenced article ID's, the culprit is forging them based on the original article number. In addition, if you go look at the cancel messages, you will find that 100% pass through oliveb, though ostensibly not a single one originated there. Every cancellation contains the following message: >Inappropriate news group I thought this was rnews protecting me against net.sources cancellations until I investigated a bit further and found that the string "approp" does not occur in rnews. Now I suspect we have a person who has decided he/she has been personally anointed to purge net.sources of inappropriate messages. (Actually that's not a bad idea, but I strongly object to the underhanded and sneaky way this person has approached it. If you're going to do it, be above board and willing to take the heat. Especially because it's about to get *real* hot for you.) I have sent mail to the oliveb news administrator regarding the problem, with cc's to one of his major news neighbors (felix). In the meantime, if you have posted to net.sources, watch out to make sure your article hasn't been cancelled by a message pretending to be from you. Hell, he'll probably cancel this one. -- Geoff Kuenning {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoff
ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/01/85)
> In the meantime, if you have posted to net.sources, watch out to make sure your > article hasn't been cancelled by a message pretending to be from you. Hell, > he'll probably cancel this one. In addition, in canceling messages double posted to net.sources and the CORRECT group, he has zapped both copies. -Ron
eli@vcvax1.UUCP (eli) (11/01/85)
> > In the meantime, if you have posted to net.sources, watch out to make > > sure your article hasn't been cancelled by a message pretending to be > > from you. > > Hell, he'll probably cancel this one. > > In addition, in canceling messages double posted to net.sources and > the CORRECT group, he has zapped both copies. > > -Ron About three days ago, a discussion was initiated about whether or not sources should be rmgroup-ed (I did not start the discussion, I am against rmgroup-ing sources). Perhaps someone decided that things would go "business as usual" if the discussion simply went away. Maybe I should have cross-posted this to net.rumor :-) ----------- "If you don't care where you are, then ya *ain't* lost" Elias Israel VenturCom, Inc. Cambridge, MA {cybvax0, mit-eddie}!vcvax1!eli
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/02/85)
The fact that it was being done at oliveb was quite obvious after
the first three articles. I looked at the path and I knew oliveb didn't
have that many connections.
However, I'm glad it's being done and I hope it continues. If the
person doing it would step forward, I'd praise him/her.
--
The Miami Police Department's Vice Squad has an annual budget of $1.5M.
Each episode of the TV show "Miami Vice" costs $1.6M.
Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comjbuck@epicen.UUCP (Joe Buck) (11/03/85)
In article <5667@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >The fact that it was being done at oliveb was quite obvious after >the first three articles. I looked at the path and I knew oliveb didn't >have that many connections. No, Phil. It could have been done by a system administrator at a machine with a connection to oliveb. The guilty party could have changed his/her system name to match that of the article s/he wanted to cancel, then call oliveb (or any other site that doesn't have the NOSTRANGERS feature of some of the newer UUCP's). oliveb would have accepted the name and host as being authentic. There are easier ways to do the trick as well (but I'm not eager to tell non-system administrators how to do it). -- Joe Buck | Entropic Processing, Inc. UUCP: {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!epicen!jbuck | 10011 N. Foothill Blvd. ARPA: dual!epicen!jbuck@BERKELEY.ARPA | Cupertino, CA 95014
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (11/05/85)
>The fact that it was being done at oliveb was quite obvious after >the first three articles. I looked at the path and I knew oliveb didn't >have that many connections. > >However, I'm glad it's being done and I hope it continues. If the >person doing it would step forward, I'd praise him/her. > > Phil Ngai How do you know? Maybe the articles that were being deleted were the kind *you* think belong on net.sources. Did you see them before they were cancelled? If the person doing it would step forward, I'd favor cutting of their net privileges. Of course, that's what I favor anyway... Ken Arnold
mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing) (11/05/85)
In article <5667@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >The fact that it was being done at oliveb was quite obvious after >the first three articles. I looked at the path and I knew oliveb didn't >have that many connections. > >However, I'm glad it's being done and I hope it continues. If the >person doing it would step forward, I'd praise him/her. >-- Aren't you in the least bit interested in what the offending articles contained? Shouldn't you be upset at this wanton disregard for net rules? Mark F. Flynn Department of Physics Washington University St. Louis, MO 63130 ihnp4!wuphys!mff "There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark." P. Floyd
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (11/08/85)
In article <386@wuphys.UUCP> mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing) writes: >Aren't you in the least bit interested in what the offending articles >contained? Nope, not at all. I don't want to read requests for the source to rogue. >Shouldn't you be upset at this wanton disregard for net rules? The rules are you should only post source to net.sources. I'm upset at people who break that rule. Note: I have not and don't intend to cancel other's articles, no matter how much they might deserve it. That doesn't mean I can't be glad someone else is weeding out the garbage. -- The California Lottery may be a tax on the stupid, but at least some of the proceeds are used for education. Phil Ngai +1 408 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
bet@ecsvax.UUCP (Bennett E. Todd III) (11/08/85)
In article <5667@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > ... However, I'm glad it's being done and I hope it continues. If the >person doing it would step forward, I'd praise him/her. Mark Flynn (mff@wuphys) replied: >Aren't you in the least bit interested in what the offending articles >contained? Shouldn't you be upset at this wanton disregard for net rules? and Ken Arnold (arnold@ucsfcgl) stated: >How do you know? Maybe the articles that were being deleted were the >kind *you* think belong on net.sources. Did you see them before they >were cancelled? > >If the person doing it would step forward, I'd favor cutting of their >net privileges. Of course, that's what I favor anyway... This isn't a straightforward question. According to conventions of proper, responsible behavior on USENET, Ken is justified in his vehement response. If people behaved properly and responsibly, then all would be well. Unfortunately, the vast majority of postings in net.sources don't belong there; net.news.group has vetoed net.sources.d (BIG mistake); USEnetters are consistently ignoring the rules for posting to net.sources, and DAMNall can be done about it. It has been discussed, repeatedly. Noone approves of removing net.sources in favor of mod.sources; there is no mechanism in place for controlling inappropriate postings in net.sources; people continue to ignore the rules. I am inclined to assume that whoever decided to censor net.sources simply cancelled discussions taking place there; I don't think (s)he would be inclined to cancel sources, because I don't see this as vandalism. I have gotten a look at quite a few of the articles that were clobbered, and they are all completely inappropriate for net.sources. Inasmuch as there is NO way to get the mob of jabbering idiots to behave themselves, or to approve any mechanism of enforcement, I applaud the actions of whoever it was originating the Cancel messages -- and I sincerely wish (s)he would resume, as net.sources has resumed being an awful mess. I also approved of the subway vigalante, for the same reasons. When a society is unable to control a destructive abuse, I approve of responsible individuals taking the law into their own hands. -Bennett Todd -- "Hypocrisy is the vaseline of social intercourse." (Who said that?) Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695 UUCP: ...{decvax,seismo,philabs,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!duccpc!bet
grady@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Steven Grady) (11/10/85)
In article <6040@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <386@wuphys.UUCP> mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing) writes: >>Aren't you in the least bit interested in what the offending articles >>contained? > >Nope, not at all. I don't want to read requests for the source to rogue. Ahem. That's an assumption which might not be correct. Maybe s/he thought "Hmm.. No REAL HACKER would be interested in this program. Cancel" or "Hmm. Another program that those DAMN HACKERS are throwing around. Cancel", etc.. If we can't see the posting, we can't tell what it is.. Steven (grady@ingres.BERKELEY.EDU)
spaf@gatech.CSNET (Gene Spafford) (11/12/85)
Let us all accept as a "given" that there are a lot of bozos out there
who post all sorts of inappropriate nonsense to net.sources. What, then,
do we do about it?
Posting faked cancellation messages doesn't help. The articles have
already appeared and been circulated, adding to the load, and have
already been read and/or archived at many sites. Since the
cancellation is faked and from a different site, its propagation
pattern will be different -- leading to the cancellation arriving
before the offending article in some places, and leading to the
cancellation arriving weeks after the article in others. Last of all,
the cancellation messages add to the overall traffic and load on the
network -- N.G.
The first thing that could be done is to encourage your users to
post to mod.sources. Use it yourself, in fact, rather than
posting to net.sources. I don't bother to even read net.sources
anymore because of the junk and the volume, and I'm sure I'm
not the only one. I also don't buy people's arguments about
net.sources is for "less mature" software which shouldn't be
posted to mod.sources. Hell, I'm *not interested* in less
mature software which someone just posted without documentation,
won't unshar, and has more bugs than I'd care to think about.
The second suggestion I have is to prepare a letter ahead of time
that reads something like:
This reply is about your recent posting to the net.sources
newsgroup. I believe that your posting was inappropriate for the
stated purpose of the newsgroup: publishing source code and
documentation. Requests for copies of source code should be posted
in net.wanted.sources. Bug fixes and enhancements to already-posted
code should be submitted to net.sources.bugs. Requests for
clarification of posted items should be directed *by mail* to the
author(s) of the software in question.
If you have not already done so, read the items in the newsgroup
net.announce.newusers. If you have read those articles, please read
them again. It is very clearly stated in a number of places that
net.sources is *not* for discussion or requests. You are being rude
by not observing established net etiquette for net.sources. You
also should consider cancelling your article.
Then, every time you read "net.sources" and stumble across a posting
that you feel is not appropriate to the group, simply "reply"
and include the form letter. "cc" a copy to "root" at the site
where the poster is. Imagine someone getting 50 copies of such mail.
Imagine what the sys admin will do upon receiving 50 copies of
such mail. Or 100 copies. Or 200.
It won't cure the problem entirely, but I bet if enough of you want to
do it, it will sure cut down on the number of repeat offenders.
Just remember to be polite. Assume that the person on the other
end is simply ignorant and not a jerk. Being rude will likely
cause the person to respond in kind, and you will accomplish
nothing worthwhile. In fact, the person may post again
simply to show that s/he won't be intimidated.
This method works in other groups, too.
--
Gene "wedding done, thesis to go" Spafford
The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf%GATech.CSNet @ Relay.CS.NET
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafrick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (11/14/85)
I can remember times when I've mentioned that "gee, wouldn't it be great
if SAs would just cancel this junk", so I can't complain that someone
is finally removing stuff from net.sources.
I *can* complain that they are doing so (1) without telling us who
is doing it, (2) without telling us that they were about to start
doing it, and (3) without telling anyone their criteria for
"inappropriate".
The increasing "cowboy" nature of the net ("Well, I WANT the group
and I'M GONNA CREATE IT") is not helping anyone. Please, if you
decide to start screwing with newsfeeds
* AT LEAST TELL US WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DO*
please? Thank you.
--
Rick Keir -- right next to the Oyster Tank -- UWisc - Madison
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rickarnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (11/16/85)
Bennett E. Todd III writes: >and Ken Arnold (arnold@ucsfcgl) stated: >>How do you know? Maybe the articles that were being deleted were the >>kind *you* think belong on net.sources. Did you see them before they >>were cancelled? >> >>If the person doing it would step forward, I'd favor cutting of their >>net privileges. Of course, that's what I favor anyway... > >This isn't a straightforward question. According to conventions of >proper, responsible behavior on USENET, Ken is justified in his >vehement response. If people behaved properly and responsibly, then >all would be well. ... I am inclined to assume that whoever decided >to censor net.sources simply cancelled discussions taking place there; >I don't think (s)he would be inclined to cancel sources, because I >don't see this as vandalism. I have gotten a look at quite a few of >the articles that were clobbered, and they are all completely >inappropriate for net.sources. Inasmuch as there is NO way to get the >mob of jabbering idiots to behave themselves, or to approve any >mechanism of enforcement, I applaud the actions of whoever it was >originating the Cancel messages -- and I sincerely wish (s)he would >resume, as net.sources has resumed being an awful mess. When a >society is unable to control a destructive abuse, I approve of >responsible individuals taking the law into their own hands. I, too, approve of *responsible* citizens taking the law into their own hands. Of course, I consider myself the only competent judge of who is responsible, and you probably think the same way. Your assumption that whoever was doing this wouldn't cancel sources because *you* don't see them as vandalism is hardly the point. The question is really what this self-appointed "responsible citizen" considers vandalism -- since you (presumably) are not this person, your opinions are not governing the cancellations. Taking the law into your own hands is really only responsible if it is done *publicly*. oliveb!facist, in order to be acting responsibly, would have had to have posted something like "I am tired of junk in net.sources, and since people aren't cutting it out, I am going to do something about it which I regret, which is canceling articles which are not sources, but are discussion of sources. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but some brakes need to be put on." Then I (and you) would know what there criteria were, and could support him (which I probably would have, reluctantly). Sneaking around like a thief and trying to hide what you are doing and who you are is cowardly, irresponsible, and disrespectful of the rule-abiding people (like you and I) on the net. Need I repeat that two wrongs don't make a right? Cheez.... Ken Arnold
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (11/16/85)
> I don't bother to even read net.sources > anymore because of the junk and the volume, and I'm sure I'm > not the only one. I also don't buy people's arguments about > net.sources is for "less mature" software which shouldn't be > posted to mod.sources. Hell, I'm *not interested* in less > mature software which someone just posted without documentation, > won't unshar, and has more bugs than I'd care to think about. On the other hand I haven't seen anything in mod.sources in over a month. Why should I post to mod.sources when I'm certain a lot of the net will never get my program? -- Name: Peter da Silva Graphic: `-_-' UUCP: ...!shell!{graffiti,baylor}!peter IAEF: ...!kitty!baylor!peter
jpn@teddy.UUCP (11/18/85)
In article <441@graffiti.UUCP> peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >> I don't bother to even read net.sources >> anymore because of the junk and the volume > >On the other hand I haven't seen anything in mod.sources in over a >month. Why should I post to mod.sources when I'm certain a lot of >the net will never get my program? I suggest that you fix your software, or get your feed to resume sending moderated groups through. I suspect that you are in a very small minority. Perhaps you should complain to your site administrator. How many persons reading this cannot recieve mod.sources? The second question is "why not?" Even very old software can handle mod groups (it doesn't deal with them "properly", but you should be able to recieve them!), all it takes is that your site, and the site that feeds you set your configuration properly (i.e. pass along mod.all)! John P. Nelson, Moderator, mod.sources (decvax!genrad!panda!jpn seismo!harvard!wjh12!panda!jpn)