Paganini: a rogue server ?
As well as its conception of usenet access: "a PRIVILEGE"
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 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.
Ivo ==> gives open, anonymous access.
llp ==> requires signup and identification of users, and can deny such requests in secret with no accountability.
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.
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
On 15.02.2024 um 22:52 Uhr llp wrote:
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via theWhy do others process them if they don't use Cancel-lock?
paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
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?
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.
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.
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.
do so. (And you will go to jail for it)
Encrypted Email Service Tuta Denies It's a 'Honeypot' for Five Eyes >Intelligence[end quote]
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 LawsEmails
DuckDuckGo's New Free Program Beta Promises to Strip Ad Trackers From Your
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.
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.
. . .
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.
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 :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
. . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
On 26/02/24 21:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.
Longer than it took you to realize you were talking about something you
knew nothing about?
You know, I'd never heard of Cancel-Key or Cancel-Lock before this
thread, either. Unlike you, I was able to figure that out.
As you probably know, abusive cancellations are issued via the paganini server and concern the fr hierarchy.
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.
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.
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
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.
Usenet is a hard place, Adam. Look at your sacrifices and contributions.
immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
On 26/02/24 21:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.
Longer than it took you to realize you were talking about something you
knew nothing about?
You know, I'd never heard of Cancel-Key or Cancel-Lock before this
thread, either. Unlike you, I was able to figure that out.
It's in every single article you post through Ray's server, sweetcheeks.
It has to do with 1st and 2nd party cancels only, not 3rd party cancels.
3rd party cancels are not verifiable with cancel lock.
On 26/02/24 22:12, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
On 26/02/24 21:38, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
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.
Longer than it took you to realize you were talking about something you >>>knew nothing about?
You know, I'd never heard of Cancel-Key or Cancel-Lock before this >>>thread, either. Unlike you, I was able to figure that out.
It's in every single article you post through Ray's server, sweetcheeks.
It has to do with 1st and 2nd party cancels only, not 3rd party cancels. >>3rd party cancels are not verifiable with cancel lock.
That's right. 3rd-party cancels fail the cancel-key test, because they
are illegitimate, sweetcheeks.
Servers which check the cancel-key/lock will not accept them, honeybun.
Ricardo Hernandez <rhernandez@unojuan.mx> wrote:
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
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.
Usenet is a hard place, Adam. Look at your sacrifices and
contributions.
It's so odd that there have been no shortage of people slamming me,
but there's just this one fuckhead who hides behind would-be
anonymizing servers, setting up sockpuppet after sockpuppet to do so.
It's amazingly cowardly. You truly think this has thwarted my many
teams of henchmen from finding you in short order to beat you to
death?
You fail to understand the basic principle of Usenet: News administrators
run Usenet. The issuer of the cancel message does not run Usenet.
As llp pointed out, it may not be a best practice given that the
mechanism isn't set up to verify the canceller's identity. Regardless,
it's possible to act upon these cancels. >
This is how Usenet works. It's never illegitimate to send a control
message.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:17:44 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,656 |