Afdrukvoorbeeld
Eureka wrote:
> "Mendel Mobach" <usenet@megabot.nl> schreef in bericht
> Finding 18.000 postings while searching on "mendel mobach" in nl.*
> tree
>
http://www.google.nl/groups?as_epq=m...=UTF-8&as_ugro
up=nl.*&lr=&hl=nl
Pff, I get more than 19.200. Mendel's just small fish.
Bm
Mendel Mobach wrote:
> [1]: again: Anonymous croward. (In dutch: "Anonieme laffaard").
Leuk dat je de spelfout ook meevertaalt!
Bm
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.
Sabri surely has a reputation!
Bm
Alain wrote:
> Eureka schreef:
>> Finding 18.000 postings while searching on "mendel
>> mobach" in nl.* tree
>>
> http://www.google.nl/groups?as_epq=m...bach&ie=UTF-8&
> oe=UTF-8&as_ugroup=nl.*&lr=&hl=nl
> Finding 133.000 postings while searching on "fuck" in nl.*
> tree
> http://www.google.nl/groups?hl=nl&lr...&oe=UTF-8&q=fu
> ck+group%3Anl.*
>
> Whats ur point?
Probably more people interested in fucking than people interested in Mendel
Mobach on usenet ;)
Bm
Badmuts <badmutzREMOVE@THISwanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:ACDN9106922F2@acadiane.org...
>> Finding 133.000 postings while searching on "fuck" in nl.*
>> tree
>> http://www.google.nl/groups?hl=nl&lr...&oe=UTF-8&q=fu
>> ck+group%3Anl.*
>>
>> Whats ur point?
>
> Probably more people interested in fucking than people interested in
Mendel
> Mobach on usenet ;)
Wrong. The count was for "fuck" in the *Dutch* hierarchie. In the Dutch
language, "fuck" usually does not refer to acts of sexual conduct. Thus, a
more likely interpretation of these figures is that more people are
interested in using rude language from an overseas culture than are
interested in Mendel Mobach on usenet.
Tufke
De wet op behoud van ellende noopte
Badmuts <badmutzREMOVE@THISwanadoo.nl>
in nl.internet.misbruik tot het schrijven van:
> 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.
>
> Sabri surely has a reputation!
Gerrie too.
--
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
nl.internet.misbruik,Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:55:00 GMT, "Eureka"
<hack_nl@mail.mail.hotmail.com> stated:
>
>, we
tinw
--
christinA
E dice
In article <KNc9b.304690$lA6.9120516@castor.casema.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> JP Velders <jpv@news.veldersjes.net> wrote:
> [deleted]
>> You mean the reasoning by people like this:
>> *my* servers, *my* rules
> Well, just realize that it is *not* *just* "my servers, my rules",
OK, let's add: "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
As you know, Erik Hensema, co-initiator is the other half of the
"nl-admin". From what I've understood several large .nl newssites
have asked repeatedly when Tiscali would be UDP'd, because they
were fed up with all the junk emerging from their newsserver.
> i.e. also other servers and users are affected in an *active* UDP like
> this one. A *passive* UDP, i.e. agreed-upon de-peering is "my servers,
> my rules", but an active one isn't.
An active goes a bit further, yes.
Though admins are free to disregard the cancels. And this goes
only for the nl.* hierarchy, which already has cancelbots running
to counteract all the junk emerging now.
Regards,
JP Velders
JP Velders <jpv@news.veldersjes.net> wrote:
> In article <KNc9b.304690$lA6.9120516@castor.casema.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> 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",
>
> OK, let's add: "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
Nobody owns Usenet, i.e. "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
is a meaningless phrase (in this context). About the "nl.* hierarchy"
part, see below.
> As you know, Erik Hensema, co-initiator is the other half of the
> "nl-admin". From what I've understood several large .nl newssites
> have asked repeatedly when Tiscali would be UDP'd, because they
> were fed up with all the junk emerging from their newsserver.
>
>> 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.
>
> An active goes a bit further, yes.
> Though admins are free to disregard the cancels. And this goes
> only for the nl.* hierarchy, which already has cancelbots running
> to counteract all the junk emerging now.
"admins are free to disregard the cancels" is a invalid statement. It
is like (but not as severe as) "Users are free to disregard my
virus/worm/<whatever>.". 1) Not all admins *can* disregard (these)
cancels (because not all News server software has that functionality. 2)
Not all admins will be notified about this UDP, so again they *can not*
disregards these cancels. 3) Not all 'admins' (know how to) 'properly'
manage their servers and they should not be forced to (i.e. Usenet is
not limited to just commercially/professionally-run servers).
> And this goes
> only for the nl.* hierarchy, which already has cancelbots running
> to counteract all the junk emerging now.
Are you sure "this only goes for", i.e. this UDP only affects, the
nl.* hierarchy? That is not at all clear from the base article.
In article <pWg9b.305819$lA6.9148303@castor.casema.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> OK, let's add: "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
> Nobody owns Usenet, i.e. "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
> is a meaningless phrase (in this context). About the "nl.* hierarchy"
> part, see below.
Nobody owns it, but people do make sure it doesn't turn into a
wasteland. Like volunteers for the neighbourhood playground.
If certain kids make a mess, they can and should be denied access,
and their parents should be informed of their misconduct.
> [ ... ]
> "admins are free to disregard the cancels" is a invalid statement.
Why?
Are they obliged to accept and process cancels ? No.
Admins control what their server accepts and what it refuses.
And some do want to have everything done. Some don't, so they
configure their server(s) that way.
> It is like (but not as severe as) "Users are
> free to disregard my virus/worm/<whatever>.".
You lost me there.
> 1) Not all admins *can* disregard (these) cancels (because
> not all News server software has that functionality).
Then that's a limitation they willfully chose, or (were forced
to) accept(ed) upon implementation. I buy my toaster with a timer,
so I don't burn my toast. But I could also buy one where I'd have
to turn the slices by hand. I know my toast can burn, I know there
are different "implementations" of the toaster concept. I chose
to prevent the smoke alarm from deafening me.
> 2) Not all admins will be notified about this UDP, so
> again they *can not* disregards these cancels.
Running a server entails keaping abreast with information that
might have an impact on that server. If one choses not to read
up certain established usenet groups, then there is no basis to
become picky about what informations flows through a server.
> 3) Not all 'admins' (know how to) 'properly' manage their
> servers and they should not be forced to (i.e. Usenet is
> not limited to just commercially/professionally-run servers).
Then why be a part of usenet at all !?
Ignorance is *not* an excuse.
> [ ... ]
> Are you sure "this only goes for", i.e. this UDP only affects, the
> nl.* hierarchy? That is not at all clear from the base article.
Then let's ask the initiators.
I wouldn't mind having it go for the entire usenet hierarchy.
95% of the abuse has been directed to nl.*. But what prohibits
the purpetraitors to shift to another hierarchy ? If you're drivers
license is revoked it's revoked completely, not just for .nl.
Regards,
JP Velders
JP Velders <jpv@news.veldersjes.net> wrote:
> In article <pWg9b.305819$lA6.9148303@castor.casema.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> OK, let's add: "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
>
>> Nobody owns Usenet, i.e. "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
>> is a meaningless phrase (in this context). About the "nl.* hierarchy"
>> part, see below.
>
> Nobody owns it, but people do make sure it doesn't turn into a
> wasteland. Like volunteers for the neighbourhood playground.
> If certain kids make a mess, they can and should be denied access,
> and their parents should be informed of their misconduct.
Yes, but only *those* kids and only *their* parents. More below.
>> [ ... ]
>> "admins are free to disregard the cancels" is a invalid statement.
>
> Why?
> Are they obliged to accept and process cancels ? No.
> Admins control what their server accepts and what it refuses.
> And some do want to have everything done. Some don't, so they
> configure their server(s) that way.
See my 1), 2) and 3), repeated below.
>> It is like (but not as severe as) "Users are
>> free to disregard my virus/worm/<whatever>.".
>
> You lost me there.
A cancel is intended to remove something from *someone else*'s server.
I.e. it is a deliberate action to (try to) remove something which really
does not belong to you (assuming third-party cancels like these ones). A
virus/worm/<whatever> does/might/do the same. Hence the analogy.
>> 1) Not all admins *can* disregard (these) cancels (because
>> not all News server software has that functionality).
>
> Then that's a limitation they willfully chose, or (were forced
> to) accept(ed) upon implementation.
Not neccessarily. For example, less than five years ago (and maybe
even less), INN did not offer this functionality.
> I buy my toaster with a timer,
> so I don't burn my toast. But I could also buy one where I'd have
> to turn the slices by hand. I know my toast can burn, I know there
> are different "implementations" of the toaster concept. I chose
> to prevent the smoke alarm from deafening me.
We are not talking about the choices you have or/and you make. We are
talking about the things which you (can not) force on others.
>> 2) Not all admins will be notified about this UDP, so
>> again they *can not* disregards these cancels.
>
> Running a server entails keaping abreast with information that
> might have an impact on that server. If one choses not to read
> up certain established usenet groups, then there is no basis to
> become picky about what informations flows through a server.
Again: Your *opinion*. Not something which you have the right to force
on others.
>> 3) Not all 'admins' (know how to) 'properly' manage their
>> servers and they should not be forced to (i.e. Usenet is
>> not limited to just commercially/professionally-run servers).
>
> Then why be a part of usenet at all !?
Why not? You yourself said "*my* servers, *my* rules", but now you are
trying to force your rules onto others. You can't have your cake and eat
it too.
> Ignorance is *not* an excuse.
If it isn't an excuse, then it goes both ways, i.e. also you can not
claim ignorance on what cancels (might/can) do.
>> [ ... ]
>> Are you sure "this only goes for", i.e. this UDP only affects, the
>> nl.* hierarchy? That is not at all clear from the base article.
>
> Then let's ask the initiators.
> I wouldn't mind having it go for the entire usenet hierarchy.
> 95% of the abuse has been directed to nl.*. But what prohibits
> the purpetraitors to shift to another hierarchy ? If you're drivers
> license is revoked it's revoked completely, not just for .nl.
Yes, but you are not just revoking the drivers licenses of the
purpetraitors, but also of innocent bystanders. *That* is what I am
referring to all this time.
The whole point is that with an active UDP you tread on very dangerous
ground, often trampling the very principles you are claiming/intending
to protect.
In nl.internet.misbruik Badmuts <badmutzREMOVE@thiswanadoo.nl> wrote:
> Eureka wrote:
>> "Mendel Mobach" <usenet@megabot.nl> schreef in bericht
>> Finding 18.000 postings while searching on "mendel mobach" in nl.*
>> tree
>>
> http://www.google.nl/groups?as_epq=m...=UTF-8&as_ugro
> up=nl.*&lr=&hl=nl
> Pff, I get more than 19.200. Mendel's just small fish.
Maar jij eist ook meteen de eer op voor zekere hoofddeksels
Ralf van de Ven wrote at ma, 15 sep 2003 14:26:35 GMT in
nl.internet.misbruik:
>> Pff, I get more than 19.200. Mendel's just small fish.
> Maar jij eist ook meteen de eer op voor zekere hoofddeksels
<sily mode>
Dat is nog niets die Mobach weet je al hoeveel postings
er van van meneer of mevrouw "sex"? Een zoekje levert
al gauw 32,500,000 hits op. Als je het mij vraagt doet
meneer of mevrouw sex de hele dag niets anders dan
berichtjes usenet op sturen, laat staan dat ze tijd
hebben voor .......... :-)
</sily mode>
J.M. Althoff,
--
begin paranoia.exe
Spam zat? Vecht terug tegen de commerciële
uitbuiting van uw e-mail box door spammers!
Kijk op http://www.bromberg.demon.nl
Badmuts wrote:
> Eureka wrote:
>
>>"Mendel Mobach" <usenet@megabot.nl> schreef in bericht
>>Finding 18.000 postings while searching on "mendel mobach" in nl.*
>>tree
>>
>
> http://www.google.nl/groups?as_epq=m...=UTF-8&as_ugro
> up=nl.*&lr=&hl=nl
>
> Pff, I get more than 19.200. Mendel's just small fish.
<http://www.google.nl/groups?hl=nl&lr...2+group%3Anl.*>
He he he: 23,900
--
Kind regards, feel free to mail: mail(at)johnbokma.com (or reply)
virtual home: http://johnbokma.com/ ICQ: 218175426
John web site hints: http://johnbokma.com/websitedesign/
De wet op behoud van ellende noopte
Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
in nl.internet.misbruik tot het schrijven van:
> JP Velders <jpv@news.veldersjes.net> wrote:
>> In article <pWg9b.305819$lA6.9148303@castor.casema.net>, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> OK, let's add: "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
>>
>>> Nobody owns Usenet, i.e. "the responsability for the nl.* hierarchy"
>>> is a meaningless phrase (in this context). About the "nl.* hierarchy"
>>> part, see below.
>>
>> Nobody owns it, but people do make sure it doesn't turn into a
>> wasteland. Like volunteers for the neighbourhood playground.
>> If certain kids make a mess, they can and should be denied access,
>> and their parents should be informed of their misconduct.
>
> Yes, but only *those* kids and only *their* parents. More below.
Only tiscali and their users.
--
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