Likes: 0
"Mendel Mobach" <usenet@megabot.nl> schreef in bericht
news:slrnbm3m15.ul.usenet@dolens.mobach.nl...
>
> You call me moron, but you are just an anonymous croward. Just tell me
your name
> and stop bullshitting.
>
As a coward I am getting packetted at this moment, if I find out that you
are the orginator of them, we will use Sabri technics to deal with it.
Untill then, just be happy to talk with an anonymous coward.
begin of a quotation from the text written by:
Tufke <tufkar@wanadoo.nl>:
> Mendel Mobach skrev i meddelandet
> <slrnbm3m15.ul.usenet@dolens.mobach.nl> :
>
> > Ohw yeah, we've got some wannabee newsadmins likes guusie... who
> >runs a troll and rogue cancel server behind hccnet.
>
> This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Tiscali UDP.
> Fighting your personal war like this weakens your whole line of
> reasoning.
>
> Besides, why are you wasting so much time replying to this Eureka-guy
> anyway?
Maybe even the most stupid uninformed retarded moron has a right to be
called a stupid uninformed retarded moron as an act of mere courtesy
towards a realy stupid uninformed retarded moron, if not for the slimmer
of hope that even a stupid uninformed retarded moron might develop some
commonsense and shed his stupid uninformed retarded moronic behaviour
and wise up a little by means of an act of mersy in replying to the
stupid uninformed retarded moron in question ?
But I could be in error on the courtesy and mersy bit ofcourse...
cor
--
(setq reply-to (concatenate 'string "Cor Gest "" <cor"'(#\@)"clsnet.nl>"))
Do you want to secure your system? Click on OK to Secure Your system.
OK
Shutting down Windows
De wet op behoud van ellende noopte
Eureka <hack_nl@mail.mail.hotmail.com>
in nl.internet.misbruik tot het schrijven van:
>
> "Mendel Mobach" <usenet@megabot.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:slrnbm3m15.ul.usenet@dolens.mobach.nl...
>
>>
>> You call me moron, but you are just an anonymous croward. Just tell me
> your name
>> and stop bullshitting.
>>
>
> As a coward I am getting packetted at this moment,
That is stupid. Who wants to packet just a stupid coward.
> if I find out that you are the orginator of them,
I'm not.
> we will use Sabri technics to deal with it.
ip route null0 ?
> Untill then, just be happy to talk with an anonymous coward.
Yeah yeah yeah. Just talk some more stupid, just try to push
me and one day some of the readers here will disconnect you.
Than your IP is again in the disconnected list. Not so difficult.
--
If you see an attachment here please blacklist me
begin foutlook.exe - al 5 jaar.exe
CCC congress: 20C3 - 27 ~ 29 December 2003 - Berlin - Duitsland
ASSO-8756483212-USO.nl.star
Mendel Mobach skrev i meddelandet
<slrnbm3r3c.ul.usenet@dolens.mobach.nl> :
>>> Ohw yeah, we've got some wannabee newsadmins likes guusie... who
>>>runs a troll and rogue cancel server behind hccnet.
>>
>> This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the Tiscali UDP.
>> Fighting your personal war like this weakens your whole line of
>> reasoning.
>
>I was only giving an example of people who are against this UDP.
I'm not sure about guusie himself, but I think a substantial number of
his clients are actually in favour of the Tiscali UDP.
>I don't try to figth a personal war, I still accept messages from
>that server.
Then don't call it "a troll and rogue cancel server". That still is in
insult to a lot of his clients, including me. Is suggests that his
users are trolls and rogue cancellors, while they are not (ok, not all
of them).
>> Besides, why are you wasting so much time replying to this Eureka-guy
>> anyway?
>
>Why not? I just finished my work :-)
Hmmm... and tehre's really nothing more fun to do?
--
Tufke
"Eureka" <hack_nl@mail.mail.hotmail.com> realised it was Fri, 12 Sep
2003 01:03:19 GMT and decided it was time to write:
>Can their be an UDP for *megabot.nl, *mobach.nl and the name Mendel Mobach?
Sure there can. Call one out and see who follows you.
Mind if I don't wait for anything to happen?
--
Y.
Joost Witteveen <joostje@foko.komputilo.org> realised it was Fri, 12 Sep
2003 13:28:38 +0000 (UTC) and decided it was time to write:
>En wat vond Marcel Swinkels van Eureka, doen hij hem tegenkwam?
>
>62.194.81.111
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?thre...t.nl.linux.org
LOL! :-D
--
Y.
"Confirmed opt in is het beste sinds de uivinding van het wiel."
Thijs 'Theo Roll' Cobben in NIM
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:55:00 +0000, Eureka wrote:
> As a coward I am getting packetted at this moment, if I find out that you
> are the orginator of them, we will use Sabri technics to deal with it.
Call Chello NOC, they probably will be most happy to assist you. Nail the
bastard who does it.
I just hope for you that bastard is not using a Tiscali account, you can
trace it till there, but fat chance of making it stop. Any other ISP will
immediately disconnect.
HTH,
M4
Mendel Mobach <usenet@megabot.nl> wrote:
[deleted]
> Users don't matter. It's something between newsadmins. Are you a newsadmin?
> No? Than shut the f-word up and stay in your little computerworld.
[deleted]
But aren't you *cancelling* articles of Tiscali users? In your
basenote you say:
> Technical suggestions:
> - UDP cancels will have !udp-tiscali-nl! in their Path header
>
> - reports of these cancels will be (as usual) posted in
> nl.internet.misbruik.rapport
If I understand the terminology correctly (I used to run an in-company
News server) this is an active UDP. The cancels might/will be processed
by servers which don't filter on Path headers and might even cancel
articles on Tiscali's servers.
I have no involvement in this whatsoever, so I couldn't care less, but
I object to the implication that there is/can_not_be 'collateral (sp?)
damage' when there can be and probably is.
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:20:06 +0000, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> I have no involvement in this whatsoever, so I couldn't care less, but
> I object to the implication that there is/can_not_be 'collateral (sp?)
> damage' when there can be and probably is.
There is no implication that there would be no collateral dammage.
Everyone is aware of the collateral damage. In fact the collateral damage
is advantagous in this, Tiscalis users start to complain to Tiscali.
M4
"Fred Mobach" <fred@mobach.nl> schreef in bericht
news:3F61EBB9.3F26A98D@mobach.nl...
> It's not blackmail, it's about other newsadmins not wanting to receive
> and transport the abusive messages coming from Tiscali. Their servers,
Just for your information, your son admitted that he thinks that it is a
sort of blackmail.
And he thinks that it is the only thing he can do, and therefore allright.
I don't care less, but somethings said in this thread make somekind of
sence.
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:41:16 +0200, Mendel Mobach wrote:
>
> "Fred Mobach" <fred@mobach.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:3F61EBB9.3F26A98D@mobach.nl...
>
>> It's not blackmail, it's about other newsadmins not wanting to receive
>> and transport the abusive messages coming from Tiscali. Their servers,
>
> Just for your information, your son admitted that he thinks that it is a
> sort of blackmail.
> And he thinks that it is the only thing he can do, and therefore allright.
Would you care to back that up with a message ID?
M4
In article <3f63ab1c$0$58704$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
a forger purporting to be Mendel Mobach wrote:
> "Fred Mobach" <fred@mobach.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:3F61EBB9.3F26A98D@mobach.nl...
>> It's not blackmail, it's about other newsadmins not wanting to receive
>> and transport the abusive messages coming from Tiscali. Their servers,
> Just for your information, your son admitted that he thinks that it is a
> sort of blackmail.
> And he thinks that it is the only thing he can do, and therefore allright.
<offtopic>
Uhm, why don't you start recoding your lame crashing Java App before
spewing nonsence. (hint: people see through you rather easily)
</offtopic>
A UDP works on the same *principal* as blackmail:
-=> pressure
Tiscali has been neglecting it's duties towards Usenet, all other
means on pressuring them into action have failed. Hence with an
UDP the pressure isn't applied to them directly by the people who
are having to deal with the sh$t, but by the people they make money
off from. And that turns up the pressure notch quite a bit.
Blackmail is about receiving goods or payment from the pressured
party. An UDP is to encourage an ISP to Do The Right Thing (tm).
> I don't care less, but somethings said in this thread make somekind of
> sence.
You mean the reasoning by people like this:
*my* servers, *my* rules
Regards,
JP Velders
De wet op behoud van ellende noopte
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
in nl.internet.misbruik tot het schrijven van:
> Mendel Mobach <usenet@megabot.nl> wrote:
> [deleted]
>> Users don't matter. It's something between newsadmins. Are you a newsadmin?
>> No? Than shut the f-word up and stay in your little computerworld.
> [deleted]
>
> But aren't you *cancelling* articles of Tiscali users? In your
> basenote you say:
>
>> Technical suggestions:
>> - UDP cancels will have !udp-tiscali-nl! in their Path header
>>
>> - reports of these cancels will be (as usual) posted in
>> nl.internet.misbruik.rapport
Not at the moment. Also it's something users *can't* fix. The provider
has to fix it.
> If I understand the terminology correctly (I used to run an in-company
> News server) this is an active UDP.
You do.
> The cancels might/will be processed
> by servers which don't filter on Path headers and might even cancel
> articles on Tiscali's servers.
It's correct. In that way, users are 'involved' but it isn't something
I can't help. The newspeers of tiscali can do of course. If they de-peer
the articles won't be canceled.
> I have no involvement in this whatsoever, so I couldn't care less, but
> I object to the implication that there is/can_not_be 'collateral (sp?)
> damage' when there can be and probably is.
There is 'collateral damage' if you see every users as an appart usenet
intity. If you look to it from another view it is no 'collateral damage'
couse it's only 1 server. It really depends on the way
you look to it.
BTW: We never intent to harm tiscali users. I surely want to give
them access on my newsserver (with auth) if the UDP is going on.
IMHO innocent users (are they innocent?) can have some problems, but
we tried to do almost 'everything' else.
--
If you see an attachment here please blacklist me
begin foutlook.exe - al 5 jaar.exe
CCC congress: 20C3 - 27 ~ 29 December 2003 - Berlin - Duitsland
ASSO-8756483212-USO.nl.star
JP Velders <jpv@news.veldersjes.net> wrote:
[deleted]
> You mean the reasoning by people like this:
> *my* servers, *my* rules
Well, just realize that it is *not* *just* "my servers, my rules",
i.e. also other servers and users are affected in an *active* UDP like
this one. A *passive* UDP, i.e. agreed-upon de-peering is "my servers,
my rules", but an active one isn't.
Thanks for your response, Mendel.
BTW, why isn't this proposed UDP (also) being discussed in
news.admin.net-abuse.policy (I am reading this in .usenet)? While I
haven't followed .usenet much, I have seen many UDPs proposed/discussed
in .policy, and, AFAICT, (proposed) UDPs fit .policy's charter better
than .usenet's.
For reference, see Russ Allbery's "POINTER: ALL THESE NET-ABUSE
GROUPS! WHICH ONE SHOULD I USE?" FAQ. Latest one
<news:nana-groups-faq-1063177202$31936@windlord.stanford.edu> of
September 10, Expires: September 20, but archived in Google Groups.
Quote