Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>[Yes, violating my EOD. I hadn't seen this yet.]

You are determined to win and never let this thread that no one else is
reading die.

>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>Olivier Miakinen <om+news@miakinen.net> wrote:
>>>>Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
>>>[Just addressing some points where it still might make *some* sense:]

>>>[...]

>[Just addresing 'new' aspects:]

Goody goody gumdrops

>>>>> 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.

>>> Except for floods, probably none of these, with the possible exception
>>>of "spam", are sufficient grounds for cancellation and are just what I
>>>wrote, articles which some people - in this case you - don't like for
>>>some reason.

>>You are unbelievable. Advertising is off topic in every newsgroup (unless
>>it's specifically on topic like a *.forsale group from individuals but not
>>retailers), and in specific hierarchies or specific newsgroups advertising
>>can be considered to be abusive.

> Wow, you talking about 'abusive', 'abuse', etc., when I was not
>allowed to use that term in the thread about (non-)forgery. How things
>can change!

Nice moving of the goalposts. I am consistently using the word "abuse" to
discuss what is likely to violate a News administrator's AUP that could
get a user TOSsed. You refused to accept that one user's use of a
specific invalid email address precluded another user from using it,
calling it "abuse", 'cuz you wanted to move the goalposts from what is
AUP to a News administrator to the perceptions of other Usenet users,
whom you had the nerve to presume to speak for even though none of them
asked you to.

Advertising where it is explicitly stated to be off topic can indeed be
against AUP and therefore abuse. A News administrator may TOS a user for it.

> Duh! Yes, it can be and often is considered abusive,

Wow. You suddenly find that you are indeed capable of using the term
"abuse" in a way that's consistent with what a News adminisitrator might
TOS a user for who violated AUP.

I knew you could do it. Congratulations.

>but is it (justifiable) *cancellable* by a Joe User?

Justification acceptable to you is irrelevant.

You have no say in the matter. You have no say whatsoever. You claim to
be a News administrator. Your authority ends with the choices you make
in administering your News server and rules you impose on your own
users. You have no authority over users on other News servers.

Every News administrator and every user but you and the complainers about
the cancel messages in this thread understands this.

I judge you based on the opinions you espouse. Such opinions aren't held
by anyone else outside this very thread. I don't buy what you claim to
be, not for a minute.

>It it doesn't say so in the charter of the affected group, it's not. Have
>Olivier Miakinen et al shown that the charter of the affected groups *do*
>say so?

It helps to make advertising explicitly off topic when proposing a
newsgroup if the hierarchy itself generally hasn't made advertising off
topic among all its groups, with limited exceptions. From what others
have told us, everyone but you understands that advertising is generally
off topic in all newsgroups in fr.* as no one has contradicted this.

You didn't contradict this either.

>>You claim to have been a News administrator for two decades. How are you
>>unaware of this?

> Please keep your sick snide remarks to yourself.

Welcome to Usenet. Let me be the first to inform you that there will be
snide remarks.

> That you have severe problems with reading for comprehension, doesn't
>mean I am unaware of anything.

You were unaware that advertising is off topic everywhere, with limited
exceptions, and that under certain circumstances it will violate AUP
and could get a user TOSsed. Where advertising is off topic generally,
then there's nothing unusual about issuing cancel messages as a counter
measure. Cancel issuers, when they were far more common in the past,
certainly did that.

It's another curious fact that you are oblivious to but claiming to be a
News administrator.

>>> As to "spam": If these are just commercial (or non-commercial)
>>>articles, but are not posted in bulk *and* substantively identical, they
>>>are *not* cancellable spam in a Usenet context.

>>It's cancellable as advertising in newsgroups or entire hierarchies in
>>which advertising is disallowed. In alt.*, proponents may have declared
>>advertising abusive in the newgroup message itself. In an administered
>>hierarchy, the hierarchy administrator may have declared advertising to
>>be abusive in some or all groups in the hierarchy.

>>> Just saw that fr.* apparently has a relatively low threshold
>>>(Breidbart Index 4 in 30 days:

>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index#Thresholds>

>>Dude. That applies to the cancellable spam threshold and not advertising.

> Duh, dude! Exactly *which* part of "(or non-commercial)" didn't you
>understand!? Of course for BI-type spam, the kind of content (commercial
>or non-commercial) is irrelevant, hence my "(or non-commercial)".

You've made this so convoluted that it's totally meaningless.

I'll repeat myself: Three decades ago, Tim Skirvin wrote one of the FAQs
advising spam cancellers on maintaining their own reputations so that
their specific spam cancels would be widely accepted. The FAQ didn't
attempt to define "spam" but "cancellable spam". Exceeding thresholds as
calculated by the Breidbart Index was evidence that spam might be
cancellable to a News administrator that wanted such a cancel message.

I'm going to explain something that's obvious to everybody else on Usenet
but you have utterly failed to grasp: Application of the Breidbart Index
has never taken into account topicality but repetitiveness. Posting the
same on-topic article over and over and over and over again can exceed
BI thresholds.

Thanks to spam cancelling and filtering built into Cleanfeed and
other countermeasures deployed at the server level BEFORE Usenet is
presented to users, this very specific type of abuse is no longer widely
encountered by Usenet users.

Advertising, whether commercial or noncommercial, is off topic except
where it's considered to be on topic. Because the consideration is
topicality and not repetitiveness, BI thresholds are irrelevant.

>>> N.B. You probably don't want to read what it says directly below
>>>'Thresholds' on that page! :-()

>>> Your other examples of "spam", namely "(sale of THC gummies, of
>>>illegal false documents, or with a .zip containing a virus)" are *not*
>>>valid grounds for cancellation. They're just what you don't like or
>>>consider 'wrong', i.e. your opinion.

>>Actually, he considers it abuse if advertising is treated as abuse
>>throughout newsgroups in the fr.* hierarchy.

> Yes, he considers it abuse. But exactly where is the "if" clause
>proven? All the time, you take their word for it and when I don't
>(without some kind of proof), I'm for some reason the bad guy.

You've entirely lost credibility with me. Not a single user of fr.*
newsgroups has made any explicit statement that advertising generally
isn't considered to be off topic in fr.* newsgroups.

You went out of your way to state that articles with attachments,
including attachments that are zipped archives, AREN'T valid targets for
cancellation because they don't meet the criteria for cancellable spam
in Tim Skirvin's FAQ.

Again, they don't have to be cancellable spam to be abuse. It's abuse,
period, and he's using a cancel message to counter it.

Spaceship <spaceship@world.invalid> wrote:
>Le 19/01/2024 à 09:44, 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.

>It's funny to see you riding your white horse when you're doing the same
>thing you accuse Frank of doing.

I try to use words to communicate. Other people used words in a way that
thwarts communication.

>Who the hell do you think you are to say that someone is taking sides
>just by using a single word?

The word in question, "rogue", was a value judgement.

>You use *whole paragraphs* that show you've taken sides in this quarrel,
>so stop your act.

As this is Usenet, an entirely free and open method of mass
communication, I am always on the side of individual choice.

That should have been clear from my very first followup.

>>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.

>No. I am talking about the unproperly formatted cancels, that doesn't
>respect the conventions established decades ago. *You* want to deviate
>the discussion onto something else.

I literally don't care because it's irrelevant to whether it's been
issued to begin with. Also, I don't believe for a moment that you care
about syntax either. It's just something else for you to say.

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

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

>Miakinen uses cancels to censor people, not articles that could be
>canceled for any good reason.

>He cancels on the From header and, in effect, cancels *all* the person's
>articles, *including* those that are *perfectly* in charter and that
>*respect* ALL good practices.

What's the percentage that you would apply on his behalf? 1% on topic?
10% on topic? 33% on topic?

If the poster's reputation is some high threshold for abuse among the
articles that he posts, I don't see why the canceller has any obligation
to make exceptions for the occassional on-topic article.

>Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other
>information. This is what miakinen do every single day.

As the cancels haven't been widely accepted throughout Usenet, then cancels
aren't censorship.

Are NoCeMs censorship, similarly? They might be accepted on certain
servers that do not accept cancels. You never address this.

>>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.

>What seems irrelevant to me are the answers given by a person who seems
>to have only this one word in his dictionary, who uses it when he has
>irrelevant things to say and who only knows how to deflect onto subjects
>that aren't the ones we're talking about.

>So I will use 'irreleant' too.

Very well. But that is literally my point. Usenet is what as resulted
form individual choice. My opinion on how a News server might be
administered is indeed irrelevant.

>>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'm not interested in anything you've just said that's irrelevant.

I did raise the issue of NoCeMs, which, if accepted, would hide a
specific article from users of a server as an accepted cancel would
against the same article.

It's very curious that you continue to refuse to address NoCeMs.

>It's so very curious to see you always steer the initial topic towards
>others you seem to prefer.

>Why should I talk about *Nocem* or criticize them since all I do is
>pointing out flagrant errors in Miakinen's *cancels* ?

>Dude, what was the point of all that irrelevant paragraph?

I'm trying to gage the level of hypocrisy.

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

>If miakinen add the Sender header field, remove the nonsense spamcancel
>pseudo-site, I will say his cancels are fully following long established
>conventions.

>Removing or not the cmsg convention is not critical as I already said it
>in my first article. It was just a question.

You told me to re-read a specific FAQ written three decades ago that you
state is relevant today. I found something in it that points to what
would have been bad practice at the time, that a user who couldn't add
the Control header in his own newsreader could put the command on
Subject instead, and that not only would the server accept it as a
command but it would append the Control header.

I hope no such server exists today and I am horrified that such a server
ever existed.

It was a huge hint that, if the FAQ were as relevant to modern times as
you claimed it was, lots of it needs revision.

>If miakinen stop his censorship, I will stop saying he is a rogue canceler.

>It's as simple as that.

Your position makes no sense.

Here's a hypothetical. Two groups of cancel messages are issued targeting
the same set of articles. One group complies with the syntax you want
complied with, the other group does not.

Your criteria for "rogue" is entirely syntax compliance. You don't have an
issue with the set of articles that was targeted. But elsewhere you've
proclaimed many cancels to be censorship.

If the bot were reprogrammed for syntax compliance, I'd be very curious
to see if you would then entirely stop objecting to the issuance of
cancels in future, even the ones you've labeled to be censorship.

I don't believe you would, but we'll never know.

>>[Soooo many irrelavant things]
>>You don't speak for any user. A user of the server that accepts third

>Who the hell do you think you are?
>I speak for *myself* as a news.free.fr *user* (unlike you).

>Whether you like it or not, I speak for myself and you can't oppose any
>limitation to that because *you* *are* *irrelevant* *to* *me*.

Is it not a user's own choice to be a user on a server that accepts cancels
instead of a server that does not? Why would anyone be a user on a
server that doesn't meet his needs, given the existence of servers that
do? Such behavior is against interest. Clearly, these users do not
believe that the articles that were canceled were either censored or
shouldn't have been canceled. It appears that they didn't want to read
them, given the fact that they use said News server.

In my judgment, people should act in their own interest and not against
interest.

>>Your opinion isn't controlling here.

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

>These are your own words, so start applying them to yourself before
>giving moral lessons to others.

I'm avoid giving a moral lesson. I've stated a fact. I don't need to
make a judgment on whether a cancel message has been issued morally. All
I need to observe is that you, a user, have no say in whether another
user issues cancels if the cancels aren't abuse.

>And given the number of enormities already pointed out by Frank and llp
>in your comments, I think it would be more reasonable if we left it at
>that. Indeed, I don't think you can be of any help to miakinen to
>correct his cancels.

I would never offer any such help because I haven't bought into your
argument that the syntax from an FAQ that hasn't been revised in three
decades is useful today.

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> > Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
> >which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow
> >these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
> >(not just says) otherwise.
>
> Admins have the -right- to mismanage their systems in ways that affect
> their users, as long as they don't affect other systems. If a specific
> admin chooses to accept cancels, or run systemd, or shut their machine
> down at prime times to run backups, that's not something anyone else on
> the net has any right to contorl.

Thanks for your response.

Fully agreed and I'm not disputing that in any way.

I could try to restate (to you) what *is* my point/position/
opinion/<whatever>, but in this 'discussion', I've encountered so much
misunderstandings', misinterpretations, misrepresentations, hypocrisy,
(vile) insults, abuse, etc. that I'm trying to step out, at least as far
as Adam H. Kerman is concerned.

Thanks again for your response.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
>>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>>> Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
>>>which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow
>>>these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
>>>(not just says) otherwise.

>>Admins have the -right- to mismanage their systems in ways that affect
>>their users, as long as they don't affect other systems. If a specific
>>admin chooses to accept cancels, or run systemd, or shut their machine
>>down at prime times to run backups, that's not something anyone else on
>>the net has any right to contorl.

> Thanks for your response.

> Fully agreed and I'm not disputing that in any way.

> I could try to restate (to you) what *is* my point/position/
>opinion/<whatever>, but in this 'discussion', I've encountered so much
>misunderstandings', misinterpretations, misrepresentations, hypocrisy,
>(vile) insults, abuse, etc. that I'm trying to step out, at least as far
>as Adam H. Kerman is concerned.

> Thanks again for your response.

Let's acknowledge the huge backpedal here as Frank Slootweg is now
desperate to salvage his reputation, such as it was.

If that had ever been your stated position, and you hadn't argued in
followup after followup after followup about the morality of issuing
third-party cancels, and then finally, if you hadn't taken the canceller
to task for cancelling articles that weren't cancellable spam as defined
in Tim Skirvin's well-known FAQ but were abuse, then there would have
been nothing for me to say.

Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but
non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically
included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
to include viruses.

Your opinions should not be listened to, especially given that you
advocated for NOT canceling articles that would universally be
considered to be abusive.

If you continue to post along these same lines in other threads, I will
continue to call you out. You are dangerous to Usenet. Wow.

Adam H. Kerman a exprimé avec précision :
> Spaceship <spaceship@world.invalid> wrote:
>> Le 19/01/2024 à 09:44, Adam H. Kerman wrote :

[cut]

>>> You don't speak for any user. A user of the server that accepts third
>
>> Who the hell do you think you are?
>> I speak for *myself* as a news.free.fr *user* (unlike you).
>
>> Whether you like it or not, I speak for myself and you can't oppose any
>> limitation to that because *you* *are* *irrelevant* *to* *me*.
>
> Is it not a user's own choice to be a user on a server that accepts cancels
> instead of a server that does not? Why would anyone be a user on a
> server that doesn't meet his needs, given the existence of servers that
> do? Such behavior is against interest. Clearly, these users do not
> believe that the articles that were canceled were either censored or
> shouldn't have been canceled. It appears that they didn't want to read
> them, given the fact that they use said News server.

1) Most of them are unaware that messages have been deleted.

2) They use free.fr because this French ISP's support is provided
exclusively via private groups in the proxad.* hierarchy for some
services. And it's simpler for them to use a single nntp server.
Don't you think this is normal?
Why should they use a second server because of Olivier Miakinen's
cancellations?

Your theories are interesting, but they clash with the reality.
A reality I know well, having been a customer of this ISP and therefore
a user of news.free.fr. And I had to switch to another newsgroup server
because of Olivier Miakinen's abusive cancels. I think I've already
mentioned Pierre Aribaut's 3600 perfectly themed messages that were
deleted in one go (a year's worth of messages!).

[cut]
> I'm avoid giving a moral lesson. I've stated a fact. I don't need to
> make a judgment on whether a cancel message has been issued morally. All
> I need to observe is that you, a user, have no say in whether another
> user issues cancels if the cancels aren't abuse.

See above ;-)

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

Adam H. Kerman a émis l'idée suivante :
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman a formulé ce vendredi :
>>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Olivier Miakinen <om+news@miakinen.net> wrote:
>>>>> Le 18/01/2024 20:07, Frank Slootweg answered Adam H. Kerman :
>
>>>> [Just addressing some points where it still might make *some* sense:]

[cut]

>>>> AFAICT, yours are not "authenticated" cancels, they're cancels.
>
>>> He's not talking about cancellock. That applies only to authenticating
>>> first- and second-party cancels, Pattern matching in his headers can
>>> establish that the cancels being accepted were issued by him.
>
>> Sorry, it is not "authenticated" cancels.
>
>>>> And about your question: For NoCeMs, the *admin* of the *affected* server
>>>> gets to decide whether or not to process them. In your cancel case, you
>>>> 'decide' for them, which you shouldn't, for the reasons I gave.
>>> Wrong. You keep repeating this. It's still wrong.
>
>>> No one but a News administrator can decide to honor cancels. The issuer
>>> of the cancel message is not forcing any News administrator to process
>>> it. That's not how Usenet works.
>
>> You're making a mistake.
>> When I created the news.usenet.ovh server, I had to modify the basic
>> configuration to refuse these imposed cancels.
>> By the way, before version 2.7, inn2 accepted cancels like Olivier
>> Miakinen's by default.
>
[cut]

>> Free's server accepts all cancels of this type: before this problem
>> did not exist and now this server is little administered.
>
> Again: It's a choice. That Usenet has one News server that accepts
> third-party cancels, an uncommon way to administer a News server, and that
> 99% or more News servers do not accept all third-party cancels, is not a
> problem of any kind.
>
> You keep defining the situation as a "problem" that is not a problem.

As a former Free user, I can tell you that this is a problem.

> This server has users. We presume that the server meets its users needs.
> If it doesn't, its users will choose to become users on server that do
> not accept all third-party cancels.

They use free.fr because this French ISP's support is provided
exclusively via private groups in the proxad.* hierarchy for some
services. And it's simpler for them to use a single nntp server.
Don't you think this is normal?
Why should they use a second server because of Olivier Miakinen's
cancellations?

Your theories are interesting, but they clash with the reality.
A reality I know well, having been a customer of this ISP and therefore
a user of news.free.fr. And I had to switch to another newsgroup server
because of Olivier Miakinen's abusive cancels. I think I've already
mentioned Pierre Aribaut's 3600 perfectly themed messages that were
deleted in one go (a year's worth of messages!).

>> In fact, for Olivier Miakinen, this server is the key to cancellations:
>> it's probably the main reason why he refuses to make Nocems, because
>> Free's admins will never accept his nocems.
>
> I don't agree that his cancels and NoCeMs should be issued for two
> different sets of articles. I don't have to agree, though. He's the one
> issuing them.

Maybe my English isn't good enough, i apologize for that.
Olivier doesn't produce any Nocem.
He's not interested because he targets "news.free.fr", which doesn't
accept nocems.

Sincerely.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
[cut]
>
> You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally
> apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
> That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles
> despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
>
> You have been trolling.
>
> That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
>
[cut]
>
> They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue
> to ignore you in future.
>
> For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.

Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.

Just 2/3 info for your perusal (sorry but I have the rule to don't feed
the troll's, I reply just to you):

- I support and approve Olivier using my server to delete abuse's
involving fr.* because in addition to being a person who has proven to
be reliable, he also has an excellent history on Usenet. And my server
are french (hosted on OVH at Gravellines, north of Paris). And I have
received some email (almost from newsadmin) saying thanks for this.

- The people who complain about this (all the users listed in another
post in this thread, Zorro etc) have a past as abusers on several
servers, including aioe.org, and its admin (Paolo Amoroso) has in the
past issued both NoCem and cancel for these abusers (just look
news.lists.filter.nocem and control.cancel), the same thing Marc
Schaffer did with alphanet.ch (until both services closed). It seemed
like a good idea to continue this service, and I contacted both of them
and had them send me their source codes. Soon we will also issue Nocem
in addition to cancels (for their happiness) like Aioe and Alphanet did.
And now guess which server those users are using? Yeah, exactly.

- I asked (and obtained) to view the source code written by Olivier.
Even though I am not an expert in the language he chose to write the
bot, I can assure you that he is perfectly capable of doing the job he
was written for, with an error rate of less than 1%. And the filter's
are only on the abuse (I check daily the log's).

If you need other info can just write me an email, I will happy to reply.

Sincerely

--
Ivo Gandolfo

Ivo Gandolfo a émis l'idée suivante :
> On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> [cut]
>>
>> You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally
>> apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
>> That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles
>> despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
>>
>> You have been trolling.
>>
>> That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
>>
> [cut]
>>
>> They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue
>> to ignore you in future.
>>
>> For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
>
>
> Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.
>
> Just 2/3 info for your perusal (sorry but I have the rule to don't feed the
> troll's, I reply just to you):
>
> - I support and approve Olivier using my server to delete abuse's
> involving fr.* because in addition to being a person who has proven
> to be reliable,

3600 messages from Pierre Aribaut (a year's worth of messages)
perfectly themed and deleted on a whim in one go !!
I have the mids if you want.

> he also has an excellent history on Usenet.

Not when he make cancel. These have always been controversial because
they can't restrict themselves to cancelling spam and only spam.
Not messages from those who have an opinion he doesn't like.

[cut]
> - The people who complain about this (all the users listed in another
> post in this thread, Zorro etc) have a past as abusers on several
> servers

Sorry, but that's not the truth.

[cut]
> - I asked (and obtained) to view the source code written by Olivier.
> Even though I am not an expert in the language he chose to write the
> bot, I can assure you that he is perfectly capable of doing the job
> he was written for,
> with an error rate of less than 1%. And the filter's are only on
> the abuse (I check daily the log's).

So you've seen the <un9ljj$16r4$1@cabale.usenet-fr.net> article by
Olivier Miakinen, who has admitted to mistakenly deleting many
legitimate articles between December 5, 2023 and January 5, 2024.
All this, because he wanted to erase a supposed "flood".

Take into account the opinions of other newsmasters who have also
expressed their views (see for example
<news:m25ylayonf.fsf@raybanana.net>).

Free.fr users haven't asked you for anything. Neither did their
newsmaster.

That's what's been creating a bad atmosphere in the French hierarchy
for the last three years: the desire to cancel anything that displeases
a small group of people.

Let user used killfile to hide Zorro or Martial and other people like
this. It's very simple to do and it's a personnal choice.
You should not interfere. You should not interfere, or only on *your*
server or servers who have requested it.

Sincerely.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On 1/20/24 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.

That's ironic, coming from a very persistent high-effort troll.

For the record, the only reason I un-killfiled you is that other people
were replying to your messages and it made threads confusing.

On 21/01/2024 10:56, llp wrote:
>
> 3600 messages from Pierre Aribaut (a year's worth of messages)
> perfectly themed and deleted on a whim in one go !!
> I have the mids if you want.
>

A little search with Google (and the M-Ids on fuad) was enough to see
that the reason for the cancellation was (not exactly in this order)
spam, failure to comply with the chart, BI, and so on and so forth. If
there is a definition of an abuser, this person is the exact example of it.

> Sorry, but that's not the truth.
>

Oh no? and why do those administrators or the users of the groups
infested by those people think differently? I was there and I saw it,
and I still think the same way. And in any case, you just need to look
at Google's historical memory or the nocem/cancel group to see it.

And just for your information: https://xkcd.com/1357/

>
> So you've seen the <un9ljj$16r4$1@cabale.usenet-fr.net> article by
> Olivier Miakinen, who has admitted to mistakenly deleting many

I have no idea if you are a believing Christian, but I want to quote you
a phrase from the Bible, which seems very explanatory to me (even though
I am an atheist): "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
This is just one of the reasons why I support and help Olivier,
transparency and honesty, things that evidently you neither possess nor
are able to apply and/or understand, see the link above.

EOD, HAND.

--
Ivo Gandolfo

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 1/20/24 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.

>That's ironic, coming from a very persistent high-effort troll.

>For the record, the only reason I un-killfiled you is that other people
>were replying to your messages and it made threads confusing.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but
> non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically
> included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
> to include viruses.

Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last
sentence, isn't it!?

It's just another example of your countless misrepresentations.

Whether that's because of not reading for comprehension or malicious
intent is no longer a question. Your vicious, vile insults cleared that
up.

Ivo Gandolfo <usenet@bofh.team> wrote:
> On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> [cut]
> >
> > You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally
> > apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
> > That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles
> > despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
> >
> > You have been trolling.
> >
> > That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
> >
> [cut]
> >
> > They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue
> > to ignore you in future.
> >
> > For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
>
>
> Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.

It would be nice if you'd commented on what I *actually* wrote,
instead of Adam H. Kerman's misrepresentations/straw men. But
considering your next paragraph, there's probably little chance of that.

> Just 2/3 info for your perusal (sorry but I have the rule to don't feed
> the troll's, I reply just to you):

[...]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 12:35:43 +0100, Ivo Gandolfo <usenet@bofh.team> wrote:
>On 21/01/2024 10:56, llp wrote:
>> 3600 messages from Pierre Aribaut (a year's worth of messages)
>> perfectly themed and deleted on a whim in one go !!
>> I have the mids if you want.
>
>A little search with Google (and the M-Ids on fuad) was enough to see
>that the reason for the cancellation was (not exactly in this order)
>spam, failure to comply with the chart, BI, and so on and so forth. If
>there is a definition of an abuser, this person is the exact example of it.
>
>> Sorry, but that's not the truth.
>
>Oh no? and why do those administrators or the users of the groups
>infested by those people think differently? I was there and I saw it,
>and I still think the same way. And in any case, you just need to look
>at Google's historical memory or the nocem/cancel group to see it.
>And just for your information: https://xkcd.com/1357/
>
>> So you've seen the <un9ljj$16r4$1@cabale.usenet-fr.net> article by
>> Olivier Miakinen, who has admitted to mistakenly deleting many
>
>I have no idea if you are a believing Christian, but I want to quote you
>a phrase from the Bible, which seems very explanatory to me (even though
>I am an atheist): "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
>This is just one of the reasons why I support and help Olivier,
>transparency and honesty, things that evidently you neither possess nor
>are able to apply and/or understand, see the link above.
>EOD, HAND.

takes two christians to walk on water . . . one to walk on the water
and the other not to walk on the water . . . err, maybe that was the
joke about how many zen buddhists it takes to screw in one light bulb?
atheist is not a religion, belief, philosophy, but is scientific fact;
if i could walk across a frozen lake would that make me a "christian"?

Ivo Gandolfo a utilisé son clavier pour écrire :
> On 21/01/2024 10:56, llp wrote:
>>
>> 3600 messages from Pierre Aribaut (a year's worth of messages)
>> perfectly themed and deleted on a whim in one go !!
>> I have the mids if you want.
>>
>
> A little search with Google (and the M-Ids on fuad) was enough to see that
> the reason for the cancellation was (not exactly in this order) spam, failure
> to comply with the chart, BI, and so on and so forth. If there is a
> definition of an abuser, this person is the exact example of it.

It's a lie.
The messages of "Pierre Aribaut" was, like i said, perfectly themed.
(and these 3600 mid's are not in fuad).
If you want the 3600 mids, I can send them to you.

You lecture others, but you clearly lack the objectivity to defend
Olivier past abuses.

>
>> Sorry, but that's not the truth.
>>
>
> Oh no? and why do those administrators or the users of the groups
> infested by those people think differently?

The administrator server of free.fr never do nothing against
the account of "Pierre Aribaut": he never post spam.
The administrator of the other servers (e-s, i2pn2, pasdenom etc)
never do nothing against him.

But because of Olivier Miakinen's abusive cancels, he had to use a
server that uses cancelkey/cancelLock to be protected from Olivier's
abusive cancellations on most servers. And he's not the only one.

[cut]
>> So you've seen the <un9ljj$16r4$1@cabale.usenet-fr.net> article by
>> Olivier Miakinen, who has admitted to mistakenly deleting many
>
> I have no idea if you are a believing Christian, but I want to quote you a
> phrase from the Bible, which seems very explanatory to me (even though I am
> an atheist): "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
> This is just one of the reasons why I support and help Olivier, transparency
> and honesty, things that evidently you neither possess nor are able to apply
> and/or understand, see the link above.

Clearly you have no idea what moral rigor and honesty are.
Otherwise you wouldn't write so much lies and do not trust someone
like Olivier who has already abusively deleted more than 3,600 posts
by and continues to do so regularly.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

Le 20/01/2024 à 21:19, Adam H. Kerman wrote :

> [Cut]
> The word in question, "rogue", was a value judgement.

That's the way *you* see it. But just because *you* say it doesn't make
it true. It remains simply what *you* think.

> [Cut]
> I'm trying to gage the level of hypocrisy.

When it comes to hypocrisy, you definitely know your stuff.
Your only intention here is to get the last word, even if it means
writing nonsense after nonsense.

> [Cut]
> Your position makes no sense.

Again, it's *your* opinion but just because *you* think the opposite of
me doesn't mean *you* know the truth. At worst, it's *your* truth, but
certainly not *the* truth.

> [Cut]
> If the bot were reprogrammed for syntax compliance, I'd be very curious
> to see if you would then entirely stop objecting to the issuance of
> cancels in future, even the ones you've labeled to be censorship.
> I don't believe you would, but we'll never know.

It's true, you don't know anything about it, so stop making theories and
taking yourself for a spokesperson.

> [Cut]
> I would never offer any such help because I haven't bought into your
> argument that the syntax from an FAQ that hasn't been revised in three
> decades is useful today.

Whether you like it or not, you have no authority to declare a text
obsolete, or even to call it useless, simply because *your* personal
opinion persuades *you* that it is.

A well-written, mature text doesn't need to be revised often. If this
text is not officially declared obsolete or removed, I regret to be the
first to inform you that it may still be applicable and/or useful.

Your position makes *no sense* and is as *stupid* as saying that the
constitution of the United States of America, written in 1789, is
useless today because it is old and has never been revised since 1992
(Correct Wikipedia if the dates are erroneous).

The same goes for the chicken curry recipe, which hasn't changed
significantly, but for which you want to sell me some duck and cumin,
while telling me that the original ingredients are totally useless.

I know it's ridiculous but try to appreciate all my words because I've
worked hard to write things as stupid as yours to show you the level of
hypocrisy/stupidity you've reached.

I'm not refusing debate but as soon as an opinion that isn't yours
appears, you consider it "irrelevant". So the dice are loaded.
(Olivier, get out of this body!)

In fact, your only intention is to have the last word.
Guess what? I can live with that.

Letting a donkey cross the finish line first, so he can convince himself
he's won before the racehorses after drinking more than enough of his
own magic potion, is a divine pleasure. But, even after taking off the
Nike shoes he was wearing to play it cool, it will remain forever *a
donkey*.

As you said, you're always on the side of individual choice, so here is
mine : I'm graciously giving you a special place in my killfile. No
needs of a rogue cancel to do that.

Have a great day and don't forget to celebrate your new gold medal as
the fastest donkey in history!

On 1/20/24 21:19, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> What's the percentage that you would apply on his behalf? 1% on topic?
> 10% on topic? 33% on topic?
>
> If the poster's reputation is some high threshold for abuse among the
> articles that he posts, I don't see why the canceller has any obligation
> to make exceptions for the occassional on-topic article.

So you're giving permission for other people to cancel your articles?

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

>[...]

>>Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but
>>non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically
>>included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
>>to include viruses.

> Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last
>sentence, isn't it!?

That's actually your position, so don't lie about it. I pointed out to
you that articles with attached zipped archives posted to plain text
newsgroups are highly likely to contain viruses.

Articles with attachments of any kind are nonstandard in plain text
newsgroups. Of course it's an appropriate article to target with a
cancel message.

> It's just another example of your countless misrepresentations.

> Whether that's because of not reading for comprehension or malicious
>intent is no longer a question. Your vicious, vile insults cleared that
>up.

It's an example that your advice MUST BE ignored because it's dangerous
to Usenet and comes from a fuckhead.

On 1/21/24 14:29, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but
>> non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically
>> included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
>> to include viruses.
>
> Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last
> sentence, isn't it!?
>
> It's just another example of your countless misrepresentations.
>
> Whether that's because of not reading for comprehension or malicious
> intent is no longer a question. Your vicious, vile insults cleared that
> up.

Just killfile him.

On 1/20/24 19:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
>> which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow
>> these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
>> (not just says) otherwise.
>
> Admins have the -right- to mismanage their systems in ways that affect
> their users, as long as they don't affect other systems. If a specific
> admin chooses to accept cancels, or run systemd, or shut their machine
> down at prime times to run backups, that's not something anyone else on
> the net has any right to contorl.
> --scott
>

Then I take it you'll have no issue if I peer a server that cancels
every message it receives?

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>Ivo Gandolfo <usenet@bofh.team> wrote:
>>On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>[cut]

>>>You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally
>>>apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
>>>That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles
>>>despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.

>>>You have been trolling.

>>>That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.

>>[cut]

>>>They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue
>>>to ignore you in future.

>>>For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.

>>Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.

> It would be nice if you'd commented on what I *actually* wrote,
>instead of Adam H. Kerman's misrepresentations/straw men. But
>considering your next paragraph, there's probably little chance of that.

Your advice is dangerous and MUST NOT be followed. You took the issuer
of cancels to task for targeting articles with attached zipped archives
that are highly likely to contain viruses.

You are a fuckhead as you are promoting potential harm from Usenet
abuse.

Unless you withdraw your unsolicited advice that the canceller should
stop targeting articles that everybody but you considers to be Usenet
abuse I shall continue to remind the community just how very dangerous
it would be to follow your advice.

>>Just 2/3 info for your perusal (sorry but I have the rule to don't feed
>>the troll's, I reply just to you):

>[...]

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 1/21/24 14:29, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

>> [...]

>>>Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but
>>>non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically
>>>included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
>>>to include viruses.

>> Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last
>>sentence, isn't it!?

>> It's just another example of your countless misrepresentations.

>> Whether that's because of not reading for comprehension or malicious
>>intent is no longer a question. Your vicious, vile insults cleared that
>>up.

>Just killfile him.

As you did!

Oh, wait. You lied about that.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >>Again: The most outrageous position you took was that abusive but
> >>non-spammed articles shouldn't have been cancelled. You specifically
> >>included articles with attached zipped archives that were highly likely
> >>to include viruses.
>
> > Bit of a bummer that I never actually said what you imply in that last
> >sentence, isn't it!?
>
> That's actually your position, so don't lie about it.

Nope, that's not my position, but *your* misrepresentation/straw man.

If it *were* my position, you would/should have quoted chapter and
verse, but you didn't, because you can't. So the one lying here is,
again, you.

[Repeat of over-the-top insult showing you have no argument.]

In article <uojmrg$91u5$5@dont-email.me>, immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 1/20/24 19:55, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>>> Sigh! The cancels are "acted on", because the servers are old servers
>>> which are not/badly managed and have not been re-configured to not allow
>>> these cancels. It's not a conscious approval, unless somebody *proves*
>>> (not just says) otherwise.
>>
>> Admins have the -right- to mismanage their systems in ways that affect
>> their users, as long as they don't affect other systems. If a specific
>> admin chooses to accept cancels, or run systemd, or shut their machine
>> down at prime times to run backups, that's not something anyone else on
>> the net has any right to contorl.
>
>Then I take it you'll have no issue if I peer a server that cancels
>every message it receives?

You're welcome to, since most everyone today doesn't accept cancels. If
you do this while accepting cancels, it's your problem and you are the
one who will lose traffic.

There was a time when everybody accepted cancels but by the mid-nineties
it became clear that this was a bad idea. If cancels are accepted, then
someone will abuse them and if it's not one source it will be another.
The only effective way to deal with this is to not accept cancels.

There was a time when there was a huge debate about this and about how
cancels should be managed. That time was thirty years ago and the subject
was settled so long ago that people are forgetting what happened.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Adam H. Kerman a exprimé avec précision :
> Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
>> Ivo Gandolfo <usenet@bofh.team> wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2024 20:42, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>> [cut]
>
>>>> You have zero credibility with such a comment. In fact, you've literally
>>>> apologized for the posting of articles highly likely to be harmful.
>>>> That you have made statements in favor of distributing such articles
>>>> despite the high likelihood for harm truly makes you a fuckhead.
>
>>>> You have been trolling.
>
>>>> That's incontrovertible proof that you, sir, are a fuckhead.
>
>>> [cut]
>
>>>> They ignored you in the past. They ignore you today. They will continue
>>>> to ignore you in future.
>
>>>> For the good of Usenet, you MUST BE ignored.
>
>>> Thanks Adam, I couldn't have said it better.
>
>> It would be nice if you'd commented on what I *actually* wrote,
>> instead of Adam H. Kerman's misrepresentations/straw men. But
>> considering your next paragraph, there's probably little chance of that.
>
> Your advice is dangerous and MUST NOT be followed. You took the issuer
> of cancels to task for targeting articles with attached zipped archives
> that are highly likely to contain viruses.

Be serious. He never said that.
If Olivier Miakinen only deleted this, there'd be no problem.
But it has deleted thousands of legitimate articles perfectly
themed to the groups posted.

Be helpful: instead, ask the facetious canceller to stop his abusive
cancels of people he don't like. The cancellation of real spam has
never been an issue on the French hierarchy.

Sincerely.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh