Post by Sn!pePost by Marco MoockPost by LeonardkYou helped put him in the spotlight by your efforts to restrict the
free speech of others. Your personal likes or dislikes are not
representative of the conversing community at large. You
deliberately antagonized others who then went after the wrong people.
Is there anybody here who likes spam, address forgery and trollposts?
This is the content many people block and good NNTP server operators
ban such users.
I like freedom of speech, but spam and name forgery are not part of it.
I haven't seen many post originating from alphanet (only the operator
himself IIRC, but I don't read fr.*).
I don't see how he has been involved in having trolls on his server.
Post by LeonardkYou are attempting to ruin paganini. Why Ivo listens to you is
mystifying as he seems to be a reasonable and bright fellow.
I simply asked questions - nothing more. Using a killfile to block
entire servers is the user's choice.
Post by LeonardkIt is people like you who kill Usenet, not those who use it.
No, nobody wants spammers, name forgers or trolls.
Server like Mixmin or aioe were on the killfile of many, many users in
de.*, because some people massively abused it for trollposts
crossposted to non-related groups.
This conversation illustrates the difference between the authoritarian
and libertarian viewpoints and risks generating more heat than light.
IMO the choice of whether to read or to ignore another's posts should
rest with the reader. It requires competence with a killfile but surely
that is far better than censorship. For censored discussions, we might
as well be in a web-forum.
I don't think so. It depends on the nature of the off-topic post.
1) Cancellable spam should be dealt with by spam countermeasures
implemented server-wide. This CANNOT be dealt with by kill file. If the
injecting News site takes no measures to prevent further cancellable
spam from being sent into Usenet, their peers need to seriously consider
whether de-peering is necessary.
2) Forgery must be dealt with at the injecting server. It's not
possible for the reader to deal with by kill file. They should be TOSsed
immediately and not allowed back.
3) Constantly-morphing trolls should be dealt with at the server level.
We get assholes that morph repeatedly in the same thread just to be
annoying. The News administrator should warn them. If they won't behave,
then TOS 'em.
I can be kill filed readily because I never morph. That's not true of
morphing trolls.
4) The constant posters of hate-filled articles might be TOSsed but for
other reasons. More typically, they themselves aren't writing the root
article but infringing upon copyright, reposting it from the Web. They
are crossposting or multiposting or both. That should probably be dealt
with at the injecting server, but that requires a lot of intervention.
If they morph or multi-post, again, that's really not possible to deal
with using a kill file. Cross posting can be dealt with using ordinary
kill file techniques if one has a good newsreader. If one doesn't want
to read political articles in one's non-political newsgroup, then kill
crossposts to *politics* and other known political newsgroups.
5) Trolling without crossposting, multi-posting, or copyright
infringement, without constant morphing, sure, leave that up to the user
to kill file.
There is a unique poster who forges others, re-injecting articles
written by others, AND commits abuse by pre-loading injection headers from
the original article. This blatantly violates RFCs but the injecting
server doesn't prevent it, and other servers are reluctant to junk these
articles in Cleanfeed or its equivalent. Despite not prohibiting this
abuse, no one wants to de-peer this News site. I know what to look for
but most Usenet readers wouldn't. There's nothing to kill file.
No, I've never agreed with Marco Moock, but I don't agree with you that
it's entirely hands off and that News administrators don't need to take
active measures to prevent large categories of abuse.
