As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the paganini
server and concern the fr hierarchy.

A recent example of perfectly themed messages for which a cancel was
issued via the paganini server:

Some messages (from the "gegeweb.eu" server)
<mn.5a5e7e829d92e3a5.145333@hotmail.com>
<mn.42567e82e1c505c9.145333@hotmail.com>

Some cancels:
<Cancel.mn.5a5e7e829d92e3a5.145333@hotmail.com>
<Cancel.mn.42567e82e1c505c9.145333@hotmail.com>

A further step in the censorship that Olivier and Ivo (?) want to
establish has just been taken.
Messages denouncing these abusive cancellations on fr.usenet.abus.d
have also just been deleted under a fallacious pretext.
This group was expressly created to talk about this.

The cancels (examples):
<Cancel.2ptssipgb1hd46nhomjmkeg26fdjt76n1m@news.usenet.ovh>
<Cancel.119qsihjvh8q2bbjuv0e77hlv0g91bdq10@news.usenet.ovh>
<Cancel.psmssip7jus86bfo8sk0v7o1v4vr9rodcm@news.usenet.ovh>
<Cancel.pqgqsiltaa1ob3879stmf2urdm40u01ff3@news.usenet.ovh>

Of course, the scope of these rogues cancel is very limited
as no well-configured server will honor them.

But I think it's important to point out to the server admin
community and to the users of these servers what the paganini
server has become.
As well as its conception of usenet access: "a PRIVILEGE"
(see <uql3i6$hhm8$1@paganini.bofh.team>)

Sincerely

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:52:32 +0100
llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:

> Paganini: a rogue server ?

Ivo can cancel whatever he wants on his server.

Are you ever going to stop this concern trolling wankfest?

> As well as its conception of usenet access: "a PRIVILEGE"

Ivo is correct. Usenet access is a privilege, not a right. And Ivo is allowing anonymous, unauthenticated access while you do not. He is clearly supporting free speech, while your actions don't. When you open up and allow unauthenticated access (which you won't do) then you might have a point. By requiring authentication you are far more restricting users than Ivo does. Ivo only restricts after the fact. You do by default.

I don't just say this because I am using Ivo's server. I say it because you are a hypocrite.

Ivo ==> gives open, anonymous access.
llp ==> requires signup and identification of users, and can deny such requests in secret with no accountability.

Ivo can only deny access after the fact. Llp censors up front. So Llp can lie and deny any censorship is going on while Ivo must admit he is blocking an article. So who is being duplicitous and shady here?

Llp is trying to get the only anonymous Usenet peer (paganini) de-peered. And llp is hypocritically complaining about censorship while trying to get the true free speech peer censored.

The toxic concern trolling is a form of abuse.

Anonymous avait énoncé :
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:52:32 +0100
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>
>> Paganini: a rogue server ?
>
> Ivo can cancel whatever he wants on his server.

On *his* server yes.
These cancels are designed to target Free users
(one of France's leading ESFs).

>
> Are you ever going to stop this concern trolling wankfest?

Oh, you're an undercover French user.
Eric, Olivier or the other ?

>> As well as its conception of usenet access: "a PRIVILEGE"
>
> Ivo is correct. Usenet access is a privilege, not a right. And Ivo is
> allowing anonymous, unauthenticated access while you do not.

And I'm right not to. When I see all the abuse that comes out of his
server. I'm not surprised he allows these rogues cancels

> He is clearly
> supporting free speech, while your actions don't. When you open up and allow
> unauthenticated access (which you won't do) then you might have a point. By
> requiring authentication you are far more restricting users than Ivo does.
> Ivo only restricts after the fact. You do by default.

Anyone who wants access can request it.
It's the same thing for the others server.

[cut]
> Ivo ==> gives open, anonymous access.
> llp ==> requires signup and identification of users, and can deny such
> requests in secret with no accountability.

Everyone can read messages without needing an account.
To post, you need an account. This seems natural to avoid becoming,
like the Paganini server, a rogue server.

> Llp is trying to get the only anonymous Usenet peer (paganini) de-peered.

I ask Ivo only *one* thing: stop posting rogues cancels.
Do what he want on his local server or via Nocem.
But third party cancel is an other thing.

> And llp is hypocritically complaining about censorship while trying
> to get the true free speech peer censored.

There is many many server who permit free speech without
being a rogue server. Think about it

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:22:29 -0000 (UTC), Anonymous wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 22:52:32 +0100 llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>
>> Paganini: a rogue server ?
>
> Ivo can cancel whatever he wants on his server.

Ivo controls his own server which includes allowing cancels to be
posted. I really don't see any issue with that as it is up to each server
to use the cancels or not. Servers should stay up to day as they can.

But an issue with the actual cancels as they are used to just delete
messages the maker of the cancels doesn't like which is clear is
censorship. Never saw an answer from the senders of these cancels if they
cancel on the opinions in the messages. Looks like it is clear that they
do.

If you ask they don't answer just say you are someone else. I think
they can't defend what they do.

On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:

> As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
> paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to muell456@cartoonies.org

Thus spake Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de>
> On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:
>> As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>> paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
> Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

There are basically 4 types of servers when it comes to cancel
processing:

1. Those that process all cancel messages
2, those that process no cancel messages at all
3. those that only process cancel messages only when the target article
has a cancel lock and the cancel message has the corresponding cancel
key.
4. those that process cancel messages when the target article
has a cancel lock and the cancel message has the corresponding cancel
key or the target article has no cancel lock.

There is no information available on the net on what servers have
implemented which type of cancel processing and why.

--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
https://www.eternal-september.org

Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:

>>As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

>Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels. He's
complaining about third-party cancels that are issued as an abuse
countermeasure because they are acted upon at a few specific servers
that aren't set up to act upon NoCeMs due to age.

We all understand what the issue is. Anybody can issue NoCeMs or cancel
messages as abuse countermeasures, as long as the issuance itself isn't
in such great quantity that it's a denial of service attack which is its
own form of abuse. Any News administrator can act on these. It depends
on the reputation of the issuer of the countermeasure whether they
should be acted upon.

There has never been anything for us to discuss. Accept them, don't
accept them. The News administrator makes that choice. If the user
doesn't care for the way the News administrator presents Usenet to him,
then he should become a user on another server.

Adam H. Kerman a émis l'idée suivante :
> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>> On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:
>
>>> As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>> paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
>
>> Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?
>
> Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels. He's
> complaining about third-party cancels that are issued as an abuse
> countermeasure because they are acted upon at a few specific servers
> that aren't set up to act upon NoCeMs due to age.
>
> We all understand what the issue is. Anybody can issue NoCeMs or cancel
> messages as abuse countermeasures, as long as the issuance itself isn't
> in such great quantity that it's a denial of service attack which is its
> own form of abuse. Any News administrator can act on these. It depends
> on the reputation of the issuer of the countermeasure whether they
> should be acted upon.
>
> There has never been anything for us to discuss. Accept them, don't
> accept them. The News administrator makes that choice. If the user
> doesn't care for the way the News administrator presents Usenet to him,
> then he should become a user on another server.

I don't share your analysis.

There was a time when this kind of problem was quickly solved (on the
fr hierarchy at least) because nobody would have put up with these
rogue cancels and no administrator worthy of the name would have
continued to host such a crazy canceller.

Let me remind you that the problem isn't cancels against real spam.
It's cancels for imaginary offenses of opinion disguised as the
fight against spam or flood.
Like many of the server administrators here, I'm taking part (by
issuing nocems or rejecting spam at source) in the fight against
real spam.

On the other hand, I fight, and will continue to fight, against
censorship and the petty censors who would like to silence anyone
who doesn't support them.

Sincerely

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

Le 16/02/2024 à 15:15, "Adam H. Kerman" a écrit :

> Not this again.

With llp it's always the same, flame war after flame war, he can go on for
years, please don't participate in his trolls, they are not even original
or funny, complete waste of time.

And so EOT for me :)

On Fri, 16 Feb 24 21:17:39 +0000, Eric M wrote:

> Le 16/02/2024 à 15:15, "Adam H. Kerman" a écrit :
>
>> Not this again.
>
> With llp it's always the same, flame war after flame war, he can go on
> for years, please don't participate in his trolls, they are not even
> original or funny, complete waste of time.

As always you do not try to defend your cancels of legitimate messages
you just accuse anyone that brings it up of being the problem.

I will ask again and be shocked if I get a real answer. Are these
cancels for messages that you do not agree with the opinion of the poster?

Eric M wrote:
> Le 16/02/2024 à 15:15, "Adam H. Kerman" a écrit :
>
>> Not this again.
>
> With llp it's always the same, flame war after flame war, he can go on
> for years, please don't participate in his trolls, they are not even
> original or funny, complete waste of time.
>
> And so EOT for me :)

llp's sig says "Admin of news.usenet.ovh" and I assume that means he can
ignore any cancel messages he wants to on that server, it also means
that anyone who cares about the cancelled messages in the "fr heirarchy"
should use that server as well.
I'd ask what the problem is, except that I don't speak French and really
don't care which .fr messages are deleted and which ones survive.

On 16/02/24 15:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>> On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:
>
>>> As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>> paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
>
>> Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?
>
> Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
third-party cancels invalid.

> We all understand what the issue is. Anybody can issue NoCeMs or cancel
> messages as abuse countermeasures, as long as the issuance itself isn't
> in such great quantity that it's a denial of service attack which is its
> own form of abuse. Any News administrator can act on these. It depends
> on the reputation of the issuer of the countermeasure whether they
> should be acted upon.

If somebody leaves a list of credit card numbers on an open FTP server
with the password "password", it's still considered abusive to download
them and buy things with them, even though it's technically possible to
do so. (And you will go to jail for it)

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 22:54:58 +0100, immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
snip
>do so. (And you will go to jail for it)

that's exactly what the tutanota advertisers have been saying all along
<5016fb37148969033692d8a37e8cbfca@dizum.com> "you're all going to jail"

(using Tor Browser 13.0.9)
https://gizmodo.com/tuta-email-denies-connection-to-intelligence-services-1851022465
>Encrypted Email Service Tuta Denies It's a 'Honeypot' for Five Eyes
>Intelligence
>For years, Tutanota (which recently rebranded to "Tuta") has been a trusted
>email provider. A former Canadian cop has accused it of being a honeypot.
>By Lucas Ropek
>Published November 15, 2023 | Comments (1)
>Photo: Mehaniq (Shutterstock)
>There are only a handful of trusted end-to-end encrypted email providers.
>Of those, Tuta (which has long been known as "Tutanota" but recently
>rebranded ) is one of the more well-known. This week, the company found
>itself on the defensive after being labeled a "front" for law enforcement
>and intelligence services. In an attempt to clear its name, the company
>released a statement denying that it's a honeypot operation, after a former,
>highly placed Canadian intelligence official alleged in court that was the
>case.
>The cop in question, Cameron Ortis, formerly ran a "highly secret unit"
>within the Royal Canadian Mountain Police, but is now on trial for allegedly
>having attempted to sell government intelligence to criminals, CBC reports.
>Related Content
>> Parents Push Congress for Stricter Social Media Laws
>> DuckDuckGo's New Free Program Beta Promises to Strip Ad Trackers From Your
> Emails
>Ortis has denied that he was actually attempting to sell state secrets. In
>his testimony, which was made public this week, Ortis instead said that he
>was involved in a special operation. As part of that operation, agents used
>Tuta, which he described as a "storefront"--or a kind of honeypot--to lure in
>prospective criminals for surveillance, he said. CBC describes the former
>government official's allegations like this:
>...according to Ortis, [another agent] briefed him about a "storefront"
>that was being created to attract criminal targets to an online encryption
>service. A storefront, said Ortis, is a fake business or entity, either
>online or bricks-and-mortar, set up by police or intelligence agencies. The
>plan, he said, was to have criminals use the storefront -- an online end-to-
>end encryption service called Tutanota -- to allow authorities to collect
>intelligence about them.
>"So if targets begin to use that service, the agency that's collecting that
>information would be able to feed it back, that information, into the Five
>Eyes system, and then back into the RCMP," Ortis claimed, in reference to
>the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance, of which Canada is a prominent
>member. Ortis has claimed that some unnamed Five Eyes foreign agent
>introduced him to the honeypot operation and that he didn't notify his
>superiors at the RCMP about it. Follow-up questions about the whole thing
>have mostly led him to say things like "I don't recall," and "that's
>something I can't talk about."
>Tuta has vehemently denied the allegations against it. In a blog post
>published Monday, the company stressed that there was no "backdoor" in its
>service and said that Ortis' allegations were a "complete and utter lie":
> This weekend Tutanota was called a "storefront" and a "honeypot" -
> without any evidence. Tutanota - or now Tuta - is the encrypted email
> service with a focus on privacy, open source and transparency. It is not
> linked to any secret service and there is no backdoor included. It is not
> even necessary to trust our words, as our entire client code is published
> so that anyone can verify that there is no backdoor.
>In its statement, Tuta added that it would be watching Ortis' "case with
>great interest" and that it was "actively working with...[its] legal team
>to fight" the "slanderous claims" that had been made against it.
>It should be pointed out that Tuta does host its client-side code on
>Github, though the company has never fully open-sourced its server-side
>code. The company has stated that this shouldn't matter since all of its
>encryption occurs on the client side, and that's what counts when it comes
>to user privacy.
>It's not clear what evidence (if any) Ortis has that Tutanota is a
>"storefront," as he's claimed. So far, he's provided none. The story is
>interesting, however, for its connection to a verified episode involving
>law enforcement's attempts to backdoor a well-known privacy service. One
>of the people that Ortis is accused of spilling government secrets to is
>Vincent Ramos, the former CEO of Phantom Secure--an encrypted phone company
>that police say frequently sold its devices to drug cartels and other crime
>syndicates. It was previously reported that the FBI once tried to force
>Ramos to install a backdoor into his software so that the agency could spy
>on Sinaloa Cartel members. Canadian law enforcement was notably involved in
>the investigation into Phantom Secure and Ramos and assisted with his
>arrest. In 2019, Ramos was sentenced to nine years in prison.
[end quote]

good guys vs. good guys . . . "put down your books and pick up a gun"
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=stand+for+the+flag+kneel+for+the+cross+meme

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 16/02/24 15:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:

>>>>As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>>>paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

>>>Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?
>>Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

>Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
>third-party cancels invalid.

Could you put on another sockpuppet that makes you look like less of a
moron?

Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
the ability to use the key.

The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

One has nothing to do with the other.

>>. . .

[Nothing to do with anything discussed]

>If somebody leaves a list of credit card numbers on an open FTP server
>with the password "password", it's still considered abusive to download
>them and buy things with them, even though it's technically possible to
>do so. (And you will go to jail for it)

You are fortunate indeed that nobody has made it illegal to operate a
that brain of yours whilst being stupid.

On 19/02/24 05:36, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> You are fortunate indeed that nobody has made it illegal to operate a
> that brain of yours whilst being stupid.

An article with zero semantic content has been detected. Please do not
clog the system with such articles.

Automated Spam Filter <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 19/02/24 05:36, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>You are fortunate indeed that nobody has made it illegal to operate a
>>that brain of yours whilst being stupid.

>An article with zero semantic content has been detected. Please do not
>clog the system with such articles.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to be a 'bot, you'll cross the
Breidbart Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable spam. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.

Just learn to use your killfile. Ask me. I'm here to help.

Adam H. Kerman a formulé la demande :
> immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>> On 16/02/24 15:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>> On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:
>
>>>>> As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>>>> paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
>
>>>> Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?
>
>>> Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.
>
>> Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
>> third-party cancels invalid.

[cut]

> Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
> party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
> the ability to use the key.
>
> The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
> cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
> networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
> doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.

So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman:
>>immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>>>On 16/02/24 15:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>>>On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:

>>>>>>As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>>>>>paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

>>>>>Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

>>>>Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

>>>Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
>>>third-party cancels invalid.

>[cut]

>>Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
>>party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
>>the ability to use the key.

>>The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
>>cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
>>networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
>>doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

>If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.

>So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
>abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)

If a server is using Cancel-lock, then it processes 1st and 2nd party
cancels with the appropriate key. Use of the key means that the News
administrator can process these cancels with confidence that they are not
abuse as he has not set up 1st and 2nd parties as trusted cancellers. This
is why it has nothing to do with 3rd party cancels.

A News administrator can still decide that he trusts a 3rd-party canceller
and process his cancels, without processing any other cancels from
untrusted parties.

As little need as there for this discussion, there is absolutely no need
to discuss Cancel-lock with regard to 3rd-party cancels. Either a server
is set up to process all cancels or no cancels or cancels issued by
trusted cancellers only.

Adam H. Kerman a formulé la demande :
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman:
>>> immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>>>> On 16/02/24 15:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:
>
>>>>>>> As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>>>>>> paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
>
>>>>>> Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?
>
>>>>> Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.
>
>>>> Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
>>>> third-party cancels invalid.
>
>> [cut]
>
>>> Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
>>> party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
>>> the ability to use the key.
>
>>> The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
>>> cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
>>> networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
>>> doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.
>
>> If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.
>
>> So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
>> abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)
>
> If a server is using Cancel-lock, then it processes 1st and 2nd party
> cancels with the appropriate key. Use of the key means that the News
> administrator can process these cancels with confidence that they are not
> abuse as he has not set up 1st and 2nd parties as trusted cancellers.

Yes.

> This is why it has nothing to do with 3rd party cancels.

This conclusion has nothing to do with what you said earlier.
On the contrary, your previous comments demonstrate that
3rd party cancels will be rejected.

> A News administrator can still decide that he trusts a 3rd-party
> canceller and process his cancels, without processing any other
> cancels from untrusted parties.

He can decide what he wants. But no serious newsmaster will do it,
because it's an open door to abuse. There is no authenticated cancel
outside cancel-lock.
To authorize a third party to delete articles, there are nocems.
And these are truly authenticated.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman a formul� la demande :
>>llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 16/02/24 15:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:

>>>>>>>>As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>>>>>>>paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.

>>>>>>>Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?

>>>>>>Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.

>>>>>Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
>>>>>third-party cancels invalid.

>>>[cut]

>>>>Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
>>>>party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
>>>>the ability to use the key.

>>>>The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
>>>>cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
>>>>networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
>>>>doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.

>>>If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.

>>>So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
>>>abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)

>>If a server is using Cancel-lock, then it processes 1st and 2nd party
>>cancels with the appropriate key. Use of the key means that the News
>>administrator can process these cancels with confidence that they are not
>>abuse as he has not set up 1st and 2nd parties as trusted cancellers.

>Yes.

>>This is why it has nothing to do with 3rd party cancels.

>This conclusion has nothing to do with what you said earlier.
>On the contrary, your previous comments demonstrate that
>3rd party cancels will be rejected.

Why would a server operating Cancel-lock reject a 3rd party cancel with
the Cancel-lock process? If there's no key (or no purported key), then
why is the cancel message being sent to the Cancel-lock process at all?

That makes no sense.

It's like saying that a newgroup control message for a newsgroup in a
hierarchy that requires it to be a signed control message (per rone's
control.ctl as modified by the News administrator) but lacks the
hierarchy administrator's key gets sent for processing regardless, and
only then is it rejected for lack of a key. It makes more sense that it's
checked first that it matches the criterion for a signed control message
and THEN gets sent for processing.

>>A News administrator can still decide that he trusts a 3rd-party
>>canceller and process his cancels, without processing any other
>>cancels from untrusted parties.

>He can decide what he wants.

Bonk

So I didn't get it wrong.

>But no serious newsmaster will do it,
>because it's an open door to abuse. There is no authenticated cancel
>outside cancel-lock.

The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

>To authorize a third party to delete articles, there are nocems.
>And these are truly authenticated.

Adam H. Kerman a couché sur son écran :
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman a formulé la demande :
>>> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman:
>>>>> immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/02/24 15:15, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
>>>>>>>>> paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
>
>>>>>>>> Why do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?
>
>>>>>>> Not this again. Cancel-lock is irrelevant to third-party cancels.
>
>>>>>> Cancel-lock is relevant to third-party cancels because it makes
>>>>>> third-party cancels invalid.
>
>>>> [cut]
>
>>>>> Cancel-lock is IRRELEVANT to third-party cancel because just the first
>>>>> party (the author) and the second party (the News administrator) have
>>>>> the ability to use the key.
>
>>>>> The use of cancel lock is limited to allowing first- and second-party
>>>>> cancels to be accepted with confidence on News sites on foreign
>>>>> networks. As it has always been irrelevant to third-party cancels, it
>>>>> doesn't "make" third-party cancels anything at all.
>
>>>> If a server is using Cancel-Lock, third-party cancel will be rejected.
>
>>>> So, yes, Cancel-lock is relevant to protect a message from third-party
>>>> abusives cancels. In fact, that's why it exists at all :-)
>
>>> If a server is using Cancel-lock, then it processes 1st and 2nd party
>>> cancels with the appropriate key. Use of the key means that the News
>>> administrator can process these cancels with confidence that they are not
>>> abuse as he has not set up 1st and 2nd parties as trusted cancellers.
>
>> Yes.
>
>>> This is why it has nothing to do with 3rd party cancels.
>
>> This conclusion has nothing to do with what you said earlier.
>> On the contrary, your previous comments demonstrate that
>> 3rd party cancels will be rejected.
>
> Why would a server operating Cancel-lock reject a 3rd party cancel with
> the Cancel-lock process? If there's no key (or no purported key), then
> why is the cancel message being sent to the Cancel-lock process at all?

That makes no sense.
A server that uses cancel-lock will, of course, check that the cancel
that arrives has the right key. And that's why the third-party cancel
will never succeed in this process: the third party doesn't have the
right key.

[cut - Irrelevant comparison]

>>> A News administrator can still decide that he trusts a 3rd-party
>>> canceller and process his cancels, without processing any other
>>> cancels from untrusted parties.
>
>> He can decide what he wants.
>
> Bonk
>
> So I didn't get it wrong.
>
>> But no serious newsmaster will do it,
>> because it's an open door to abuse. There is no authenticated cancel
>> outside cancel-lock.
>
> The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

>> To authorize a third party to delete articles, there are nocems.
>> And these are truly authenticated.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman:

>>>. . .

>>The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

>If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
>And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
this discussion.

Adam H. Kerman a exposé le 20/02/2024 :
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman:
>
>>>> . . .
>
>>> The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?
>
>> If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
>> And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.
>
> Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out
> of this discussion.

Ok.
Have a nice day

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On 20/02/24 03:24, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman:
>
>>>> . . .
>
>>> The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?
>
>> If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
>> And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.
>
> Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
> this discussion.

Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
doing that through Ray's server.

Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 20/02/24 03:24, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>llp <contact@usenet.ovh> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>The cancel message's author may be verified with PGP-verify, right?

>>>If you have seen this type of cancel, please let me know.
>>>And if you haven't seen any, ask yourself why.

>>Fair enough. I don't know enough about this, so I had better drop out of
>>this discussion.

>Dearheart, if you don't stop pretending to knowledgeable, you'll cross
>the Moron Index threshold, which means that what you've posted has
>become cancellable trolling. You really really really don't want to be
>doing that through Ray's server.

>Just learn to use your brain. Ask me. I'm here to help.

It took you days to come up with that unoriginal thought.