Le 16/01/2024 à 21:03, Spaceship a écrit :

> que dalle.

Hum.

Le 17/01/2024 10:34, Eric M a écrit :
> Le 16/01/2024 à 21:03, Spaceship a écrit :
>
>> que dalle.
>
> Hum.

Évidemment. Un pseudo nouveau qui écrit en français, qui semble au courant
de ce qui se dit sur fr.* sans y avoir jamais mis les pieds, et qui répète
exactement les mêmes plaintes que llp, bien sûr que c'est llp.

Au fait, j'ai aussi une nouvelle preuve que llp c'est Frank : je l'avais
écrit Franck sur fuad alors que ce pseudo avait disparu aussi vite qu'il
était apparu et llp a corrigé en Frank dans sa réponse ici.

[suivi poubelle]

--
Olivier Miakinen

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
> Olivier Miakinen a écrit :
> > On 16/01/2024 07:06, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship had written :
> > However, on 16/01/2024 21:34, the anonymous hateful llp aka Spaceship wrote :
>
> Sorry, but I'm not Spaceship, nor Frank, nor Victor, nor any other.

Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear
that you are *not* referring to me.

Same request to Olivier Miakinen.

[...]

Le 17/01/2024 à 16:17, Frank Slootweg a écrit :

> Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear
> that you are *not* referring to me.

Well, you have a problem :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZveA-NAIDI

Le 17/01/2024 à 10:44, Olivier Miakinen a écrit :

> [suivi poubelle]

And what about the technical side, ollie?
You know, the part you have no answer for and take great care to avoid.

As always, you have no argument to put forward against the obvious
errors that have been documented.

Nothing, nada, que dalle, nulla, ingenting, нищо, 아무것도.
You ring as hollow as a church bell.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 17/01/2024 à 16:17, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> > Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear
> > that you are *not* referring to me.
>
> Well, you have a problem :
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZveA-NAIDI

Nothing new, to be [f|F]rank I use that pun quite often.

Le 17/01/2024 à 10:34, l'inspecteur d'Eric M a écrit :

> Le 16/01/2024 à 21:03, Spaceship a écrit :
>
>> que dalle.
>
> Hum.

Quelle enquête!
Résolue dès la première ligne quand on est moins con, ducon.

Le 17/01/2024 à 21:26, Frank Slootweg a écrit :

>>> Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear
>>> that you are *not* referring to me.
>> Well, you have a problem :
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZveA-NAIDI

> Nothing new, to be [f|F]rank I use that pun quite often.

Sorry for this joke, nobody thinks you're somebody else :)

Le 17/01/2024 16:17, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>>
>> Sorry, but I'm not Spaceship, nor Frank, nor Victor, nor any other.
>
> Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear
> that you are *not* referring to me.
>
> Same request to Olivier Miakinen.

Do not worry, the "Frank" llp is talking about is the pseudo that he took
in order to collect informations when he wanted to create his own news
server. It was simply the first name "Frank" with no family name.

This pseudo was used for a very short period of time, exactly the same
that llp did with other pseudos such as "Jean Martin" or "victor" or
"Spaceship", and also "samsung01" on local groups of aioe.org.

Once again, the fight that the anonymous hateful llp is leading against
cancellations is a non-problem, and it does not deserve to be given the
slightest interest.

[fu2: junk]

--
Olivier Miakinen

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 23:01:54 +0100, Olivier Miakinen wrote:

>
> Once again, the fight that the anonymous hateful llp is leading against
> cancellations is a non-problem, and it does not deserve to be given the
> slightest interest.

If you're afraid of peoples political opinions that are not like yours
then the cancels are a non-problem, as long as you have the same opinions
as the people making the cancels. People are too stupid to let them see
opinions that are different so thanks that there are people to remove
them. How else will we make the world our way if people can say things we
don't agree with?

Olivier Miakinen a émis l'idée suivante :
> Le 17/01/2024 16:17, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I'm not Spaceship, nor Frank, nor Victor, nor any other.
>>
>> Please do not mention my first name in this fight, without making clear
>> that you are *not* referring to me.
>>
>> Same request to Olivier Miakinen.
>
> Do not worry, the "Frank" llp is talking about is the pseudo that he took
> in order to collect informations when he wanted to create his own news
> server.

When will you stop lying ?

> This pseudo was used for a very short period of time, exactly the same
> that llp did with other pseudos such as "Jean Martin" or "victor" or
> "Spaceship".

I've already told you that these pseudonyms are not mine.
Don't you ever stop lying ?
I use "llp" to post on big8 groups and on the "fr" hierarchy.

> Once again, the fight that the anonymous hateful llp is leading against
> cancellations is a non-problem, and it does not deserve to be given the
> slightest interest.

Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.

You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other
servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.

llp
Admnin of news.usenet.ovh

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
> Olivier Miakinen a émis l'idée suivante :
[...]
> Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
> respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
>
> You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
> to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other
> servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.

[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]

Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
creating/sending them.

Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two
other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel
articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two
other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.

Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has
been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change
this malpractice to become accepted practice.

And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users
(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>>Olivier Miakinen:

>[...]

>>Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
>>respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.

>>You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
>>to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other
>>servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.

>[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]

> Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
>absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
>creating/sending them.

Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.

But let's say that the two servers in question were migrated over to modern
installations and acted on NoCeMs. Would the dispute be any different?

> Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two
>other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel
>articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two
>other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.

Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do
that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in
order to do that.

> Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has
>been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change
>this malpractice to become accepted practice.

> And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users
>(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
> >>Olivier Miakinen:
>
> >[...]
>
> >>Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
> >>respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
>
> >>You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
> >>to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other
> >>servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
>
> >[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
>
> > Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
> >absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
> >creating/sending them.
>
> Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
> old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.

Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?

If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
is.

So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
articles which some people don't like for some reason.

I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't
send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.

> But let's say that the two servers in question were migrated over to modern
> installations and acted on NoCeMs. Would the dispute be any different?

Well, amongst admins (and other parties interested in how news servers
should (not) be run), there probably wouldn't be any/much dispute.

Amongst the other parties, the dispute would indeed be much the same,
because it's basically a fight over who can (not) cancel whose articles
and why (not).

> > Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two
> >other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel
> >articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two
> >other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.
>
> Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do
> that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in
> order to do that.

Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have
admin approval and does *not* have admin access on these two servers,
but still feels it's right what he does?

That he can't do it The Right Way (TM), is no excuse for doing it the
wrong way.

That's why I said this:

> > Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has
> >been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change
> >this malpractice to become accepted practice.
>
> > And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users
> >(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.

Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
>>
>> > Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
>> >absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
>> >creating/sending them.

That is the point of the anonymous hateful llp. But not of all the other
admins and users who are very happy that my bot cancels e.g. more than
100 spams a day from Google groups.

>> Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
>> old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.

Note that llp pretends there are only two old servers. In reality, there are
at least six servers, some of them very old and barely administrated, but
some of them also accept NoCeM and though accept the cancels. A few months
ago they were at least eight :
- aioe
- alphanet
- birotanews
- free
- nemo
- paganini
- pasdenom
- usenet-fr

Note that the anonymous hateful llp, though of course he will pretend the
contrary, is directly responsible of the stopping of alphanet. He is so
proud of that, that he shows 'Alfa N(etwork) E(n) (T)ravaux' for 'AlfaNET'
in his Organization.

>
> Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
> 'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?

Too bad you can not ask anymore to the admins of aioe and alphanet, who
were clearly supporting them (and aioe was the first to cancel the flood
of Socratis, first in it.* hierarchy then in fr.* hierarchy). But you
can ask to the admins of birotanews (Pierre Pallier), Nemo (Julien
Arlandis), paganini (Ivo Gandolfo) and pasdenom (Stéphane Grégoire).

About free and usenet-fr, I agree they are barely administrated, however
there are a few users on one of them and many on the other one, who
benefit from the cancels.

Note that all the six other admins are real persons, not an anonymous
hateful who is sometimes llp, sometimes victor, sometimes Spaceship, and
many other pseudonyms.

> If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
> is.

Apart from the fact that some servers accept cancels and not NoCeMs, that
some servers accept NoCeMs and not cancels, and that some servers accept
both, what ethical difference do you make between authenticated cancels
and authenticated NoCeMs ?

> So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
> (in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
> articles which some people don't like for some reason.

The reality is that none of these cancels are based on the contents of
the articles. Some are for spams (sale of THC gummies, of illegal false
documents, or with a .zip containing a virus), some are for floods
(from identities that post dozens or hundreds of random articles in
random newsgroups of the hierarchy). All the cancelled articles are not
only abuses *on* the network but abuses *of* the network.

Spams are mainly cancelled based on the Subject: header, floods mainly
based on the From: header. Some spams such as those with a .zip virus
are cancelled by the From: header.

> I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't
> send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.

Neither do I for the articles I don't like. I filter/killfile fake news
about the covid 19 for example, and my bot would never cancel those
articles. But the bot cancels spam and flood.

>> But let's say that the two servers in question

At least six servers, eight a few months ago, and most of them also
accept NoCeMs. But their admins find my cancels useful, and most of their
users too.

Though their servers are now dead, I can add that I also had the agreement
and active support of the admins of aioe (Paolo Amoroso) and alphanet (Marc
Schaefer), and they are not anonymous either.

>> were migrated over to modern
>> installations and acted on NoCeMs. Would the dispute be any different?

Good point.

> Well, amongst admins (and other parties interested in how news servers
> should (not) be run), there probably wouldn't be any/much dispute.

But there is no dispute amongst the admins! (except for the anonymous hateful
llp, who indeed is technically an admin now that he created his own server).
Only he, his multiple pseudos, and a handful of other anonymous hatefuls,
fight against the cancels, mainly because they have a personal grudge against
me, or against Eric Marillier who also supports the cancels.

***

Final note : it is very hard for me to speak in English, so I think that
I will stop responding. I think that all that had to be said has already
been said. Now it's up to you if you decide to believe to what says the
anonymous llp (along with its other pseudos victor and Spaceship, and
maybe others that could be created afterwards). Or if you have the courage
to come and look at French-speaking newsgroups such as fr.usenet.abus.d,
to have a better understanding of the situation.

Best Regards,
--
Olivier Miakinen
33, rue Babeuf
94600 Choisy-le-Roi
France

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:

>>>[...]

>>>>Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
>>>>respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
>>>>You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
>>>>to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other
>>>>servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.

>>>[Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]

>>> Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
>>>absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
>>>creating/sending them.

>>Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
>>old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.

> Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
>'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?

By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken
sides in this quarrel.

> If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
>is.

I just restated the reason, which has been stated and stated and stated
throughout the thread. It's quoted above.

> So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
>(in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
>articles which some people don't like for some reason.

For a specific reason: being highly disruptive

As long as the issuer of the cancels is sticking with criteria he's
stated without going beyond, as long as he's maintaining his own
reputation, the cancels aren't rogue.

> I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't
>send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.

That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users
of the two servers want this. I guess I don't see the problem in that
there's a choice to use servers that don't acccept cancels, versus these
two specific servers that honor cancels. The user has a clear choice.

>>But let's say that the two servers in question were migrated over to modern
>>installations and acted on NoCeMs. Would the dispute be any different?

> Well, amongst admins (and other parties interested in how news servers
>should (not) be run), there probably wouldn't be any/much dispute.

We aren't discussing the rest of Usenet. We are discussing llp versus
other regulars of the newsgroups in the fr.* hierarchy.

> Amongst the other parties, the dispute would indeed be much the same,
>because it's basically a fight over who can (not) cancel whose articles
>and why (not).

NoCeMs aren't cancels. The difference, obviously, is that the two servers
if replaced with modern servers would no longer be set up to process any
third-party cancels.

The issue was NEVER about who can send a third-party cancel. That's ANY
Usenet user who isn't prevented from doing so by his News administrator and
isn't committing abuse. Yes, I know what RFC 1036 said about third-party
cancels being nonstandard, but that was one of its myriad provisions that
wasn't widely implemented. Cancels as a spam countermeasure were issued
for years contrary to the clearly-stated intent of RFC 1036.

Whether a cancel is processed is up to the News administrator. Yes?
That's why it doesn't matter if non-abusive third party cancels are
issued.

But you didn't answer the question. You mistated the dispute. Would llp
have the same objection if the two servers in question were replaced with
modern servers and the NoCeMs already being issued were honored?

>>> Only with approval of and in cooperation with paganini.org and the two
>>>other servers, he/they could issue *local* cancel *commands* (not cancel
>>>articles), but AFAICT, he does *not* have admin approval on the two
>>>other servers and for paganini.org it is (AFAICT) a non-issue.

>>Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do
>>that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in
>>order to do that.

> Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have
>admin approval

No such approval is required. He needs only not to be prevented from
doing so by his own News administrator.

>and does *not* have admin access on these two servers,
>but still feels it's right what he does?

That's his opinion. It's not your place to second guess him.

> That he can't do it The Right Way (TM), is no excuse for doing it the
>wrong way.

Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion. That's not how
Usenet works. That's not how any of it works.

> That's why I said this:

>>> Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has
>>>been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change
>>>this malpractice to become accepted practice.

>>> And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users
>>>(and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.

Le 18/01/2024 à 20:07, Frank Slootweg a écrit :

> Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have
> admin approval and does *not* have admin access on these two servers,
> but still feels it's right what he does?

Your opinion can be heard but it's only your opinion.
In fact, nobody here can tell the people of the fr.* hierarchy how to
manage their cancels, this discussion only exists because a troll launched
it (and he's good at trolling, it was the 27th of december and we're still
here). You've also seen his avatars and his mafia, so now we can say no
authority will come and stop Olivier because there is no authority on
usenet, what llp never understood.

I think maybe some people here are annoyed or fed up with all this french
people discussing things that should stay on the fr.* hierarchy, so we
should stop. And for the last time I hope, EOT, good night and good luck
:)

Olivier Miakinen <om+news@miakinen.net> wrote:
>Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :

>>>> Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
>>>>absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
>>>>creating/sending them.

>That is the point of the anonymous hateful llp. But not of all the other
>admins and users who are very happy that my bot cancels e.g. more than
>100 spams a day from Google groups.

>>>Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
>>>old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.

>Note that llp pretends there are only two old servers. In reality, there are
>at least six servers, some of them very old and barely administrated, but
>some of them also accept NoCeM and though accept the cancels.

Why would a server be set up to accept BOTH cancels AND NoCeMs for the
same articles? I thought we were told that NoCeMs were being issued for
the articles in question.

>. . .

Olivier Miakinen a exprimé avec précision :
> Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
>>>
>>>> Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
>>>> absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
>>>> creating/sending them.
>
> That is the point of the anonymous hateful llp.

You should rather answer technical questions and stop harassing
and denigrating your interlocutors.

> But not of all the other
> admins and users who are very happy that my bot cancels e.g. more than
> 100 spams a day from Google groups.

Would you like us to ask the other directors for their opinion?
I think Eternal-September's already made that clear in the past.
Do other servers accept your cancels?
Have you ever wondered why they don't?

And for the number, look at this:
https://www.novabbs.com/SEARCH/search_nocem.php?stats=daily&msgid=

>
>>> Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
>>> old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
>
> Note that llp pretends there are only two old servers. In reality, there are
> at least six servers, some of them very old and barely administrated, but
> some of them also accept NoCeM and though accept the cancels. A few months
> ago they were at least eight :

> - aioe
> - alphanet
This two server not running

> - birotanews
This is a *personnal* server: one user.

> - free

The admins of this server didn't ask you anything.
They accept any cancel and manage almost nothing: Tai/Google spam is
still there and several of their servers are malfunctioning.
But you know all this and you take advantage of it to impose your
vision of flood and who should be deleted. Like Pierre Aribaut's 3600
perfectly themed messages (1 year's worth of messages deleted in 1 go).

> - nemo
> - pasdenom
"pasdenom" uses nocems, not need of these cancels
And the only feed of "nemo" is pasdenom.

> - paganini

Yes, these cancels exist through this server.
But he accept Nocem: no need of cancel for spam.

> - usenet-fr

This is the server you use: if the admins agree, why do you use the
paganini server for your cancels ?
Is it because they disagree?

> Note that the anonymous hateful llp [cut]

No need to read any more of these misplaced attacks.

In conclusion:
- Nocems only do things if the server admin wants them to.
- Cancels are imposed on the "free.fr" server because its admin
no longer really manages its servers (anyone can send cancels).
- I understand from the discussion here that with version 2.7,
inn2 will no longer accept these cancels in the default
configuration

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

Frank Slootweg a formulé la demande :
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>>>> Olivier Miakinen:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>>> Rather than dumping your lies on this group too,
>>>> respond to the technical observations made or return to your sandbox.
>>>> You don't seem to have understood how usenet works and why your desire
>>>> to cancel messages cannot succeed outside of paganini.org and two other
>>>> servers that seem to accept absolutely all cancels.
>>> [Not taking sides in the behind-the-scenes quarrels:]
>>> Indeed. As has been said many, many times in this thread, there is no,
>>> absolutely no, excuse for these cancels and Olivier should stop
>>> creating/sending them.
>>
>> Oh, c'mon. It's been explained that the two servers in question are very
>> old, barely administered, and aren't set up for NoCeMs.
>
> Yes, I know, but does that mean they should be subject to these
> 'rogue' cancels? Did these admins ask for these cancels?

Free.fr admin never ask for these cancels.
If the admin of the server used by Olivier (usenet-fr.net) agrees,
why does Olivier use the "Paganini" server?

> If you think there's an excuse for these cancels, please say what it
> is.
>
> So far the consensus (oops, there's that dirty word again! :-)) here
> (in this group) seems to be that these cancels are just canceling
> articles which some people don't like for some reason.
>
> I don't like lots of articles for some reason or another, but I don't
> send out cancels (or NoCeMs), I just filter/killfile.

Me too.

[cut]

>> Why would anyone who isn't the News administrator have the ability to do
>> that? He'd have to take over as News administrator of the two servers in
>> order to do that.
>
> Exactly! So the person who sends out these cancels does *not* have
> admin approval and does *not* have admin access on these two servers,
> but still feels it's right what he does?
>
> That he can't do it The Right Way (TM), is no excuse for doing it the
> wrong way.
>
> That's why I said this:
>
>>> Anyway, this subject is no longer up for discussion, because all has
>>> been said over and over and no amount of foot-stamping can/will change
>>> this malpractice to become accepted practice.
>>> And, as has been said umpteen times, don't cancel, but educate users
>>> (and yourself) to use/create their killfiles/filters.

I agree with you

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

Le 18/01/2024 à 22:28, Eric M a écrit :

> launched it (and he's good at trolling, it was the 27th of december and

Says the one who's an expert in the field, who's a long-time cancealer
and who found himself out of a job because he was cut off.

> I think maybe some people here are annoyed or fed up with all this
> french people discussing things that should stay on the fr.* hierarchy,
> so we should stop. And for the last time I hope, EOT, good night and
> good luck :)

You want to stop the discussion for just *one* reason. You are incapable
of contradicting all the errors pointed out in the cancels issued, too
busy issuing cancels against people *you* have named and with
*falacious* reasons.

Few errore in cancels (all documented) : No mandatory header field,
nonsense 'spamcancel' pseudo-site, usage of a removed convention,
falacious reason given and sooooooooooooo on.

Unluckily for you, there are people who oppose your little dictatorship,
which is only effective on a handful of very badly managed servers
(they've already been named).

In fact, you want to stop because you have *no* argument other than your
endless nonsense that everyone here and on fr is tired of.

You think no one sees your desperate efforts to end the discussion
rather than respond to the errors that have been highlighted?

You're ridiculous, that's a fact. But is it still worth pointing out?
Go back to your sandbox.

Le 18/01/2024 à 22:24, Adam H. Kerman wrote :

> By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken
> sides in this quarrel.

By saying this, you've obviously chosen your side too :-)

> As long as the issuer of the cancels is sticking with criteria he's
> stated without going beyond, as long as he's maintaining his own
> reputation, the cancels aren't rogue.

That's the *real* problem.

The *bad* reputation you're talking about is located here:
https://www.aduf.org/viewtopic.php?t=290845

miakinen is a serial canceler, bothering users with his dictatorship and
forced to leave their favorites news server to gain refuge on anothers
to protect themselves against his abuses.

Why should users accept this? If they want to stay on a particular
newsserver they don't have to be forced to leave it to protect their posts.

There's a document for cancellations in the fr hierarchy and miakinen
doesn't respect it. He's targeting individuals, chosen by him alone, and
he's using the votes for falacious reasons because he has absolutely no
control over what he's supposed to be doing.

It's called 'censorship' from short-dicked dictator.

> That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users
> of the two servers want this. I guess I don't see the problem in that

Nope.
miakinen said that and *you* believed him.

Why? Because *you* have chosen his side without any proof of what
miakinen claims.

Either you have proof that free users have clearly accepted these
cancels, or it would be better not to convey undocumented false
informations, especially because you don't know the full story and
background of miakinen, eric m and other little dictators ruling on 'fr'.

Btw, the previous link shows the opposite of what miakinen shamelessly
claims.

> We are discussing llp versus other regulars of the newsgroups in the fr.* hierarchy.

You've clearly written *again* which side you're on. It's not llp
against the world.

We are talking about the improperly formatted cancels Olivier send every
single day. No mandatory sender header field, nonsense 'spamcancel'
pseudo-site, usage of a removed convention, falacious reasons given and
so on...

llp had nothing to do with incompetence of miakinen.

> NoCeMs aren't cancels. The difference, obviously, is that the two servers
> if replaced with modern servers would no longer be set up to process any
> third-party cancels.

Does it helps either miakinen to correct the documented errors? Nope.
Why? Because he has an oversized ego, doesn't accept contradiction.

He has absolutely no legitimacy to override the document in force in the
fr hierarchy regarding cancellations.

> The issue was NEVER about who can send a third-party cancel.

Already explained and documented contrary to all miakinen's comments,
which are just rumors to persuade users who don't know the whole story.
This is called manipulation, and although he's also very bad at it, some
people may fall for it.

miakinen cancels are improperly formated. No mandatory sender header
field, nonsense 'spamcancel' pseudo-site, usage of a removed convention,
falacious reasons given, and so on (bis repetita).

> Usenet user who isn't prevented from doing so by his News administrator and
> isn't committing abuse. Yes, I know what RFC 1036 said about third-party
> cancels being nonstandard, but that was one of its myriad provisions that
> wasn't widely implemented. Cancels as a spam countermeasure were issued
> for years contrary to the clearly-stated intent of RFC 1036.

There are two main reference documents for third-party cancels, that I
used to prove miakien doesn't follows conventions.

https://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/faq-care.html#cancel-message and
http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/

Just look at miakinen cancels and compare with what is required.
It's as simple as that or show me a document saying the contrary.

Guess what? You can't because there is none.

Sender is mandatory.
'spamcancel' is nonsense because of cyberspam dedicated to this type.
cmsg convention was removed from the protocol in 2009.

> Whether a cancel is processed is up to the News administrator. Yes?
> That's why it doesn't matter if non-abusive third party cancels are
> issued.

Third-party cancels can't have the Cancel-Key header field (because
sender don't know the secret) required to be processed by 99,99% of the
servers still in operation today. The person who doesn't understand this
is obviously stuck in another century.

And for the few other servers, use local cancel commands and don't
bother others with all this shit who make trafic and use space for
nothing on 99,99% of the rest of the world.

You get the idea?

> That's his opinion. It's not your place to second guess him.

Is it yours to speak for news.free.fr users, a server you've probably
never heard of before?

I can, because I was using it and then had to leave it because of
miakinene's crap.

> Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion. That's not how
> Usenet works. That's not how any of it works.

Well, no, you don't get to declare The One True Religion.
I don't declare it either, I pointed out errors on mikinen cancels,
documented them and still have no contradiction for that and, to date,
they are not corrected either.

Cancels are unproperly formated, sent against individuals for falacious
reasons. Theses are rogue cancels and by declination miakinen a rogue
canceler and paganini a rogue server.

Hello Adam,

I will try not to continue responding llp/Spaceship, but your question is
legitimate and I will respond to it.

Le 18/01/2024 22:28, Adam H. Kerman a écrit :
>
> Why would a server be set up to accept BOTH cancels AND NoCeMs for the
> same articles? I thought we were told that NoCeMs were being issued for
> the articles in question.

The answer is that these servers do not always receive cancels and NoCeMs
for the SAME articles.

Actually it is true that some articles are both cancelled and nocemized,
but some ore only cancelled and some are only nocemized. That is the reason
why these servers accept both.

Another fact that I forgot to mention previously concerns the server free.fr,
one of the two old and barely administrated servers. 'Barely administrated'
does not mean 'not administrated at all'. Indeed, the admin stopped accepting
some cancel articles because of abuse of a user named CriCri, but they still
accept the cancels articles from the miakibot because they are authenticated
by another news server (previously alphanet.ch, now paganini.bofh.team).

And about the other server, usenet-fr.net, the admins Laurent Frigault and
Jean-Claude Michot prefer that my cancels are not originated from it
because they do not have the time to respond to complaints in case there
should exist. However they do not consider that I abuse and so they do not
close my account. And of course the admin of paganini.bofh.team completely
supports me, as did the admin of alphanet.ch before llp made it close by
harassing Marc Schaefer.

--
Olivier Miakinen

Spaceship <spaceship@world.invalid> wrote:
>Le 18/01/2024 22:24, Adam H. Kerman wrote :

>>By labeling the cancels as "rogue", you chose llp's side. You have taken
>>sides in this quarrel.

>By saying this, you've obviously chosen your side too :-)

No, I'm sticking with words and their meaning. It's unnecessary to
modify them with adjectives.

>>As long as the issuer of the cancels is sticking with criteria he's
>>stated without going beyond, as long as he's maintaining his own
>>reputation, the cancels aren't rogue.

>That's the *real* problem.

>The *bad* reputation you're talking about is located here:
>https://www.aduf.org/viewtopic.php?t=290845

>miakinen is a serial canceler, bothering users with his dictatorship and
>forced to leave their favorites news server to gain refuge on anothers
>to protect themselves against his abuses.

>Why should users accept this? If they want to stay on a particular
>newsserver they don't have to be forced to leave it to protect their posts.

No. What we infer is that user has made a choice to use a specific
server that accepts cancels, and not to use a server that doesn't.

>There's a document for cancellations in the fr hierarchy and miakinen
>doesn't respect it. He's targeting individuals, chosen by him alone, and
>he's using the votes for falacious reasons because he has absolutely no
>control over what he's supposed to be doing.

>It's called 'censorship' from short-dicked dictator.

Are you saying that the articles being canceled were on topic and not
disruptive?

>>That's up to you. For whatever reason, it's been stated that the users
>>of the two servers want this. I guess I don't see the problem in that

>Nope.
>miakinen said that and *you* believed him.

>Why? Because *you* have chosen his side without any proof of what
>miakinen claims.

Whatever you accuse me of here is irrelevant. I'm not a News
administrator. Even if I were, none of you would have a say in how I
administer my News server.

That's been the problem with this entire discussion. None of you has a
say in how specific News servers are administered. There's absolutely
nothing to discuss. paganini doesn't prevent users from issuing
third-party cancels. Various News servers act on third-party cancels.

The user has a choice of which server to use. The ones who remain users
at the servers that act on the cancels have mae a choice. The users who
use servers that do not act on the cancels have also made a choice.

Usenet offers everybody a free choice, both News administrators and
their users. Everybody makes choices, and Usenet, as a network, reflects
the collective choices made by News administrators and their users.

>Either you have proof that free users have clearly accepted these
>cancels, or it would be better not to convey undocumented false
>informations, especially because you don't know the full story and
>background of miakinen, eric m and other little dictators ruling on 'fr'.

No, you don't get to declare a limitation on my options.

My real options are to believe whom I choose to believe, take certain
people to task, and to participate in the thread as I see fit. But,
repeating myself, my opinion is irrelevant. All I can do is to observe
that News administrators have made a choice to act on third-party
cancels or not, and users have made a choice as to which News server to
use.

Just because cancels were issued that you disapprove of doesn't mean
that you get to declare that censorship has taken place. It hasn't. The
articles that were canceled still appear on News servers that don't act
on the cancels.

>Btw, the previous link shows the opposite of what miakinen shamelessly
>claims.

>>We are discussing llp versus other regulars of the newsgroups in the
>>fr.* hierarchy.

>You've clearly written *again* which side you're on. It's not llp
>against the world.

Why do you or anyone else care what my opinion is? It's irrelevant for
how the News servers in question are administered and the choices made
by users to use News servers that act upon cancels.

>We are talking about the improperly formatted cancels Olivier send every
>single day. No mandatory sender header field, nonsense 'spamcancel'
>pseudo-site, usage of a removed convention, falacious reasons given and
>so on...

>llp had nothing to do with incompetence of miakinen.

You went through myriad syntax violations elsewhere in the thread that
I don't recall appearing in USEFOR or Grandson-Of. These two documents,
at the very least, wouldn't state that a X- header is required to comply
with syntax.

>>NoCeMs aren't cancels. The difference, obviously, is that the two servers
>>if replaced with modern servers would no longer be set up to process any
>>third-party cancels.

It's so very curious that you and Frank Slootweg, who have been
criticizing the issuers of cancels, ignore the issue that a modern News
server capable of acting upon NoCeMs, which we have been told are being
issued against the very same articles being cancelled, would also not
present such articles to their users.

I want you to state in this thread why you have never stated an
objection to NoCeMs, just cancels, for the very same set of articles.

>Does it helps either miakinen to correct the documented errors? Nope.
>Why? Because he has an oversized ego, doesn't accept contradiction.

>He has absolutely no legitimacy to override the document in force in the
>fr hierarchy regarding cancellations.

Say he added those headers. Would you then withdraw your objection to
the fact that he will cancel such articles for the indefinite future?

>>The issue was NEVER about who can send a third-party cancel.

>Already explained and documented contrary to all miakinen's comments,
>which are just rumors to persuade users who don't know the whole story.
>This is called manipulation, and although he's also very bad at it, some
>people may fall for it.

>miakinen cancels are improperly formated. No mandatory sender header
>field, nonsense 'spamcancel' pseudo-site, usage of a removed convention,
>falacious reasons given, and so on (bis repetita).

Syntax violation or not, the only one who has any say that he's not
allowed to issue cancels is his own News administrator and not you.

>>Usenet user who isn't prevented from doing so by his News administrator and
>>isn't committing abuse. Yes, I know what RFC 1036 said about third-party
>>cancels being nonstandard, but that was one of its myriad provisions that
>>wasn't widely implemented. Cancels as a spam countermeasure were issued
>>for years contrary to the clearly-stated intent of RFC 1036.

>There are two main reference documents for third-party cancels, that I
>used to prove miakien doesn't follows conventions.

>https://rosalind.home.xs4all.nl/faq-care.html#cancel-message and
>http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/

Of course I've read those. They are more that two decades old, from the
days in which numerous people were using cancels as spam
countermeasures. While the conventions might be a good idea, they
predate Son-Of, which didn't suggest any such syntax.

This isn't a spam countermeasure, and that's not why the cancels you
object to were issued, given that specific disruptive articles from
specific authors were targetted.

>Just look at miakinen cancels and compare with what is required.
>It's as simple as that or show me a document saying the contrary.

>Guess what? You can't because there is none.

At the moment, I have no intention of reviewing USEFOR or Grandson-Of,
all the related RFCs.

>Sender is mandatory.
>'spamcancel' is nonsense because of cyberspam dedicated to this type.
>cmsg convention was removed from the protocol in 2009.

Uh, one of the documents you referenced literally discussed specific
servers still treating Subject: cmsg as a command initiator, then adding
the Control header on the user's behalf.

While current RFCs specifically state NOT to treat it as a command
initiator, its use is still conventional as it makes control messages
more human readable.

>>Whether a cancel is processed is up to the News administrator. Yes?
>>That's why it doesn't matter if non-abusive third party cancels are
>>issued.

>Third-party cancels can't have the Cancel-Key header field (because
>sender don't know the secret) required to be processed by 99,99% of the
>servers still in operation today. The person who doesn't understand this
>is obviously stuck in another century.

Dude. You've raised this before. You are deliberately going down this
tangent as a distraction. Cancel key/cancel lock is for first- and
second-party cancels and is IRRELEVANT for third-party cancels.

Olivier Miakinen <om+news@miakinen.net> wrote:

>Hello Adam,

>I will try not to continue responding llp/Spaceship, but your question is
>legitimate and I will respond to it.

>Le 18/01/2024 22:28, Adam H. Kerman:

>>Why would a server be set up to accept BOTH cancels AND NoCeMs for the
>>same articles? I thought we were told that NoCeMs were being issued for
>>the articles in question.

>The answer is that these servers do not always receive cancels and NoCeMs
>for the SAME articles.

>Actually it is true that some articles are both cancelled and nocemized,
>but some ore only cancelled and some are only nocemized. That is the reason
>why these servers accept both.

I don't understand why you aren't issuing NoCeMs for the same set of
articles, but merely a partial set of articles.

>Another fact that I forgot to mention previously concerns the server free.fr,
>one of the two old and barely administrated servers. 'Barely administrated'
>does not mean 'not administrated at all'. Indeed, the admin stopped accepting
>some cancel articles because of abuse of a user named CriCri, but they still
>accept the cancels articles from the miakibot because they are authenticated
>by another news server (previously alphanet.ch, now paganini.bofh.team).

I'm glad to hear that for otherwise it's just inviting a Denial of
Service attack.

>And about the other server, usenet-fr.net, the admins Laurent Frigault and
>Jean-Claude Michot prefer that my cancels are not originated from it
>because they do not have the time to respond to complaints in case there
>should exist. However they do not consider that I abuse and so they do not
>close my account. And of course the admin of paganini.bofh.team completely
>supports me, as did the admin of alphanet.ch before llp made it close by
>harassing Marc Schaefer.

Thanks for the information.