Onderwerp: Re: Super News - Blocking people based upon forgeries.

(akula) <akula@sharks.plc.ltd> wrote
news:3f20040409165033Z.51035147049@nntp3.sharks.pl c.ltd
> "Mike..." wrote:

>> Here is the forgery used to attempt to justify their
>> actions. [snip]

> You have posted your own URL enough times that any number
> of forgeries or replies is irrelevant. No news service is
> required to carry any message from anyone. They are under
> no obligation to carry yours.

Noone's ever seen Mike use words like f-ck:

> From: "Mike" <n@way.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.net-abuse.spam
> Subject: I will spam who the fuck I want!
> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:08:27 -0600
> Message-ID: <vvdc9k2jppik63@corp.supernews.com>
> Fuck all of you I will spam any new group or email I wish
> and there is nothing you can do about it.

Looks like Supernews makes errors from badly configured
filters or logs a lot. Result: falsely accused and banned
paying customers.

WJ
--
http://www.demon.nl/eng/support/newsgroups/index.html

On 2004-04-10, Willem <gaatjenietaan@notvalid> wrote:
>> You have posted your own URL enough times that any number
>> of forgeries or replies is irrelevant. No news service is
>> required to carry any message from anyone. They are under
>> no obligation to carry yours.
>
> Noone's ever seen Mike use words like f-ck:
>
>> From: "Mike" <n@way.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.net-abuse.spam
>> Subject: I will spam who the fuck I want!
>> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:08:27 -0600
>> Message-ID: <vvdc9k2jppik63@corp.supernews.com>
>> Fuck all of you I will spam any new group or email I wish
>> and there is nothing you can do about it.
>
> Looks like Supernews makes errors from badly configured
> filters or logs a lot. Result: falsely accused and banned
> paying customers.

I admit that, not being the abuse person here, I have no idea why the user
in question was blocked in the first place. But it wasn't anything to do
with the above post, which is dated some months after the original block.

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services

Andrew - Supernews wrote:
> On 2004-04-10, Willem <gaatjenietaan@notvalid> wrote:
>
>>>You have posted your own URL enough times that any number
>>>of forgeries or replies is irrelevant. No news service is
>>>required to carry any message from anyone. They are under
>>>no obligation to carry yours.
>>
>>Noone's ever seen Mike use words like f-ck:
>>
>>
>>>From: "Mike" <n@way.com>
>>>Newsgroups: alt.current-events.net-abuse.spam
>>>Subject: I will spam who the fuck I want!
>>>Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:08:27 -0600
>>>Message-ID: <vvdc9k2jppik63@corp.supernews.com>
>>>Fuck all of you I will spam any new group or email I wish
>>>and there is nothing you can do about it.
>>
>>Looks like Supernews makes errors from badly configured
>>filters or logs a lot. Result: falsely accused and banned
>>paying customers.
>
>
> I admit that, not being the abuse person here,

Subject: Flooding/Spamming
Andrew - Supernews wrote:
>
> dealt with.


:-)

Uni




I have no idea why the user
> in question was blocked in the first place. But it wasn't anything to do
> with the above post, which is dated some months after the original block.
>

in article slrnc7eft0.27sf.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.ne t, Andrew -
Supernews at andrew+nonews@supernews.com wrote on 04/09/2004 5:28 PM:

> On 2004-04-10, Willem <gaatjenietaan@notvalid> wrote:
>>> You have posted your own URL enough times that any number
>>> of forgeries or replies is irrelevant. No news service is
>>> required to carry any message from anyone. They are under
>>> no obligation to carry yours.
>>
>> Noone's ever seen Mike use words like f-ck:
>>
>>> From: "Mike" <n@way.com>
>>> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.net-abuse.spam
>>> Subject: I will spam who the fuck I want!
>>> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 06:08:27 -0600
>>> Message-ID: <vvdc9k2jppik63@corp.supernews.com>
>>> Fuck all of you I will spam any new group or email I wish
>>> and there is nothing you can do about it.
>>
>> Looks like Supernews makes errors from badly configured
>> filters or logs a lot. Result: falsely accused and banned
>> paying customers.
>
> I admit that, not being the abuse person here, I have no idea why the user
> in question was blocked in the first place. But it wasn't anything to do
> with the above post, which is dated some months after the original block.


Then it was silly to post the message as "evidence" of "spamming", now
wasn't it.

Aratzio <aratzlo@lalalala.com> wrote:

>> I admit that, not being the abuse person here, I have no idea why the user
>> in question was blocked in the first place. But it wasn't anything to do
>> with the above post, which is dated some months after the original block.
>
> Then it was silly to post the message as "evidence" of "spamming", now
> wasn't it.

No. I'd already said that I wasn't about to start posting anything
confidential to Usenet, and "confidential" includes stuff about customers.
Not even (not *especially*) to win a flamewar. So I pulled a couple of posts
that are freely available on Usenet that would illustrate the point.

When it became clear that "Artist Mike" was interested only in stirring up
trouble and getting attention, I stopped posting to the thread.

And that's that. I don't even handle abuse here; I don't know the specifics
of the case.

--
Jeremy | jnixon@supernews.com

Jeremy Nixon - Supernews wrote:
> Aratzio <aratzlo@lalalala.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>I admit that, not being the abuse person here, I have no idea why the user
>>>in question was blocked in the first place. But it wasn't anything to do
>>>with the above post, which is dated some months after the original block.
>>
>>Then it was silly to post the message as "evidence" of "spamming", now
>>wasn't it.
>
>
> No. I'd already said that I wasn't about to start posting anything
> confidential to Usenet, and "confidential" includes stuff about customers.
> Not even (not *especially*) to win a flamewar. So I pulled a couple of posts
> that are freely available on Usenet that would illustrate the point.
>
> When it became clear that "Artist Mike" was interested only in stirring up
> trouble and getting attention, I stopped posting to the thread.
>
> And that's that. I don't even handle abuse here;


Denial will never help the situation.

:-)

Uni

I don't know the specifics
> of the case.
>

in article 40776443.3b8.330@supernews.com, Jeremy Nixon - Supernews at
jnixon@supernews.com wrote on 04/09/2004 8:07 PM:

> Aratzio <aratzlo@lalalala.com> wrote:
>
>>> I admit that, not being the abuse person here, I have no idea why the user
>>> in question was blocked in the first place. But it wasn't anything to do
>>> with the above post, which is dated some months after the original block.
>>
>> Then it was silly to post the message as "evidence" of "spamming", now
>> wasn't it.
>
> No. I'd already said that I wasn't about to start posting anything
> confidential to Usenet, and "confidential" includes stuff about customers.


I know for a fact that "Mike" of "ArtistMike.com" sent you an email
informing you that you could post your evidence in the newsgroup. He sent
that email from his domain. It was a real email from "Mike" of
ArtistMike.com. You have yet to post your evidence in the newsgroup. You
have yet to send that evidence to "Mike" of ArtistMike.com.

You have yet to support your claim that "Mike" spammed at all.





> Not even (not *especially*) to win a flamewar. So I pulled a couple of posts
> that are freely available on Usenet that would illustrate the point.

The only point you illustrated was the fact that forgeries were done and you
attempted to use them as "evidence" of "spamming".





> When it became clear that "Artist Mike" was interested only in stirring up
> trouble and getting attention, I stopped posting to the thread.

Too bad that is all that is left to "ArtistMike" since you have no intention
of allowing him to post through your service. Even though he is still
paying for that service through his ISP.






>
> And that's that.

You don't get to decide, "that's that". You only get to decide how you will
respond to messages. And that is that.

":^) ®






> I don't even handle abuse here; I don't know the specifics
> of the case.

It's not your job. So keep your nose out of things that don't concern you.

Jeremy Nixon - Supernews <jnixon@supernews.com> wrote
> Aratzio wrote
>> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> wrote

>>> But it wasn't anything to do with the
>>> above post, which is dated some months after the
>>> original block.

>> Then it was silly to post the message as "evidence" of
>> "spamming", now wasn't it.

> So I pulled a couple of posts that are freely available
> on Usenet that would illustrate the point.

What point did you illustrate?

Is Supernews yes or no saying they have it on record these
spam f-ck posts are from Mike? Was it yes or no presenting
them as justification for their block?

WJ
--
http://www.demon.nl/eng/support/newsgroups/index.html

In article <BC9CC1E2.F26D7%combaticus@combiworld.com>,
Combaticus <combaticus@combiworld.com> wrote:

> It's not your job. So keep your nose out of things that don't concern you.

Hahah this is a public newsgroup. Get a grip.

Combaticus <combaticus@combiworld.com> wrote:

> I know for a fact that "Mike" of "ArtistMike.com" sent you an email
> informing you that you could post your evidence in the newsgroup. He sent
> that email from his domain. It was a real email from "Mike" of
> ArtistMike.com. You have yet to post your evidence in the newsgroup. You
> have yet to send that evidence to "Mike" of ArtistMike.com.

Yes, I still would not have posted anything, but I might have emailed it to
you as a reply so that you could post it. But, by then, you demonstrated
beyond any doubt that it was worthless to bother continuing any sort of
discussion with you; you even stated in no uncertain terms that you were
just trolling and that we were all just here "for your amusement".

So I didn't even bother pursuing the matter. I don't know the specifics
of the case, and at this point, I don't care.

> Too bad that is all that is left to "ArtistMike" since you have no intention
> of allowing him to post through your service.

I have no intention of bothering to try to help you, that's for sure. If you
want someone to whine to, ask your ISP to contact our abuse department on
your behalf. Our abuse manager doesn't read this group much, so he might be
more inclined to listen, having not seen this thread. I'll not be talking
to him on your behalf -- something that often helps, since I tend to be quite
a bit more lenient on many abuse issues than he is.

>> I don't even handle abuse here; I don't know the specifics of the case.
>
> It's not your job. So keep your nose out of things that don't concern you.

Well, okay, then. That's pretty much what I'd decided to do.

--
Jeremy | jnixon@supernews.com

in article 4078526f.10ee.205@supernews.com, Jeremy Nixon - Supernews at
jnixon@supernews.com wrote on 04/10/2004 1:09 PM:

> Combaticus <combaticus@combiworld.com> wrote:
>
>> I know for a fact that "Mike" of "ArtistMike.com" sent you an email
>> informing you that you could post your evidence in the newsgroup. He sent
>> that email from his domain. It was a real email from "Mike" of
>> ArtistMike.com. You have yet to post your evidence in the newsgroup. You
>> have yet to send that evidence to "Mike" of ArtistMike.com.
>
> Yes, I still would not have posted anything, but I might have emailed it to
> you as a reply so that you could post it.

Blah Blah Blah



> But, by then, you demonstrated
> beyond any doubt that it was worthless to bother continuing any sort of
> discussion with you; you even stated in no uncertain terms that you were
> just trolling and that we were all just here "for your amusement".

What I choose to do for my amusement is not up to YOU now. You blocked
"ArtistMike" on the basis of FAKED messages. You screwed up. Now you are
too pig headed to admit it ... so you reap the rewards of your
pigheadedness.

You (SUPERNEWS) blocked a paying customer based upon FAKED MESSAGES.

Now run along and keep your nose out of things that don't concern you.






> So I didn't even bother pursuing the matter. I don't know the specifics
> of the case, and at this point, I don't care.

I don't care either. Run along little boy.





>
>> Too bad that is all that is left to "ArtistMike" since you have no intention
>> of allowing him to post through your service.
>
> I have no intention of bothering to try to help you, that's for sure.

That was your attitude way back when. You are just now seeing the results
of your attitude coming back at you.

Hope you enjoy it. Supernews did not take the time to check and see who was
really posting those messages. You took the easy way out and blocked a
paying customer based upon fake messages.

You screwed up, and now you want "ArtistMIke" to kiss your ass to get back
on your service. Tough shit.







> If you
> want someone to whine to, ask your ISP to contact our abuse department on
> your behalf.

That was already done and they were told that YOU did not block the posting
ability of "ArtistMike".

You attempted to pass the buck and now you are getting a free bucks worth of
crap. Hope Supernews enjoys these messages being archived FOREVER.









> Our abuse manager doesn't read this group much, so he might be
> more inclined to listen, having not seen this thread.

I don't give a crap.





> I'll not be talking
> to him on your behalf -- something that often helps, since I tend to be quite
> a bit more lenient on many abuse issues than he is.

Blah Blah Blah




>
>>> I don't even handle abuse here; I don't know the specifics of the case.
>>
>> It's not your job. So keep your nose out of things that don't concern you.
>
> Well, okay, then. That's pretty much what I'd decided to do.


Blah Blah Blah

in article 4078526f.10ee.205@supernews.com, Jeremy Nixon - Supernews at
jnixon@supernews.com wrote on 04/10/2004 1:09 PM:

> you even stated in no uncertain terms that you were
> just trolling and that we were all just here "for your amusement".


That seems to bother you. Too bad.

I post as I see fit, and you can go to Hell.

":^) ®

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:44:31 -0700, Combaticus
<combaticus@combiworld.com> got double secret probation because:

>in article 4078526f.10ee.205@supernews.com, Jeremy Nixon - Supernews at
>jnixon@supernews.com wrote on 04/10/2004 1:09 PM:
>
>> Combaticus <combaticus@combiworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I know for a fact that "Mike" of "ArtistMike.com" sent you an email
>>> informing you that you could post your evidence in the newsgroup. He sent
>>> that email from his domain. It was a real email from "Mike" of
>>> ArtistMike.com. You have yet to post your evidence in the newsgroup. You
>>> have yet to send that evidence to "Mike" of ArtistMike.com.
>>
>> Yes, I still would not have posted anything, but I might have emailed it to
>> you as a reply so that you could post it.
>
>Blah Blah Blah
>

Wow so insightful and intelligent. Is that how you treat your
customers at www.artistmike.com
>
>
>> But, by then, you demonstrated
>> beyond any doubt that it was worthless to bother continuing any sort of
>> discussion with you; you even stated in no uncertain terms that you were
>> just trolling and that we were all just here "for your amusement".
>
>What I choose to do for my amusement is not up to YOU now. You blocked
>"ArtistMike" on the basis of FAKED messages. You screwed up. Now you are
>too pig headed to admit it ... so you reap the rewards of your
>pigheadedness.
>
>You (SUPERNEWS) blocked a paying customer based upon FAKED MESSAGES.

No, they block you because they can.

>
>Now run along and keep your nose out of things that don't concern you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> So I didn't even bother pursuing the matter. I don't know the specifics
>> of the case, and at this point, I don't care.
>
>I don't care either. Run along little boy.
>
>
And yet again you respond about how you do not care by responding.
Seems, well stupid.

>
>
>
>>
>>> Too bad that is all that is left to "ArtistMike" since you have no intention
>>> of allowing him to post through your service.
>>
>> I have no intention of bothering to try to help you, that's for sure.
>
>That was your attitude way back when. You are just now seeing the results
>of your attitude coming back at you.
>
>Hope you enjoy it. Supernews did not take the time to check and see who was
>really posting those messages. You took the easy way out and blocked a
>paying customer based upon fake messages.
>
>You screwed up, and now you want "ArtistMIke" to kiss your ass to get back
>on your service. Tough shit.
>
Trust me nobody wants that ugly puss anywhere near their ass.

>> If you
>> want someone to whine to, ask your ISP to contact our abuse department on
>> your behalf.
>
>That was already done and they were told that YOU did not block the posting
>ability of "ArtistMike".
>
>You attempted to pass the buck and now you are getting a free bucks worth of
>crap. Hope Supernews enjoys these messages being archived FOREVER.


Hope ArtistMike of www.artistmike.com enjoys having all these whiney
screeds posted to google for all time
>
>
>
>> Our abuse manager doesn't read this group much, so he might be
>> more inclined to listen, having not seen this thread.
>
>I don't give a crap.
>
Again with the response to something you do not care about
>
>
>
>
>> I'll not be talking
>> to him on your behalf -- something that often helps, since I tend to be quite
>> a bit more lenient on many abuse issues than he is.
>
>Blah Blah Blah

More insight into the intyernal workings of ArtistMike's mind.

>>
>>>> I don't even handle abuse here; I don't know the specifics of the case.
>>>
>>> It's not your job. So keep your nose out of things that don't concern you.
>>
>> Well, okay, then. That's pretty much what I'd decided to do.
>
>
>Blah Blah Blah
>
Boring now. Thanks.
>
>


--

Beer soup! A few brain cells registered their doubt,
but the rest of them grabbed them by the collar and
said hoarsely, people cooked chicken in wine, didn't they?

Terry Pratchett - The Last Continent

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:47:50 -0700, Combaticus
<combaticus@combiworld.com> got double secret probation because:

>in article 4078526f.10ee.205@supernews.com, Jeremy Nixon - Supernews at
>jnixon@supernews.com wrote on 04/10/2004 1:09 PM:
>
>> you even stated in no uncertain terms that you were
>> just trolling and that we were all just here "for your amusement".
>
>
>That seems to bother you. Too bad.
>
>I post as I see fit, and you can go to Hell.
>
>":^) ®
>

Mikey peeved at Jeremy. Por Bracito.

So Mike why all the sockpuppets? Do not want the fact that you are
ArtistMike of www.artistmike.com getting into the google archives? Do
not want potential logo customers to know you are a whiner? Where is
the spam sig that got you bounced from Supernews? Why not post all
this screed as Mike@artistmike.com instead of hiding behind
sockpuppets?

So I shall post as I see fit, please stick around, this can be fun.


--

Beer soup! A few brain cells registered their doubt,
but the rest of them grabbed them by the collar and
said hoarsely, people cooked chicken in wine, didn't they?

Terry Pratchett - The Last Continent

in article 2hng70l9cu4ep2fa8laa9ejt8kmagg32ab@4ax.com, Aratzio at
aratzio@lalalala.com wrote on 04/10/2004 1:56 PM:


>> Blah Blah Blah
>>
>
> Wow so insightful and intelligent. Is that how you treat your
> customers...

Your fired as my customer. Now go piss off.

":^) ®