Likes: 
De ene Supernews klant heeft gespamd in naam van een andere
Supernews klant. De klant tot wie de naam echt behoort wordt
geblockt, hij heeft alleen nog leesbevoegdheid. Email mag
niet helpen, enige tijd later ontstaat een heen-en-weer
spelletje tussen een aantal Supernews medewerkers en de
gedupeerde in de nieuwsgroep
alt.binaries.news-server-comparison.
Als gedupeerde kun je met geen mogelijkheid bewijzen dat
fake spams niet van jou zijn, want Supernews houdt
waardeloze logs bij dus ze kunnen het zelf niet eens zien.
De Supernews medewerker Jeremy Nixon voert een aantal
postjes aan als "bewijs", maar dan ontkent Supernews
medewerker Andrew weer dat die postjes iets met de block te
maken hebben. Jeremy wil vervolgens niet toegeven dat hij de
boel misleidt door die dingen te plaatsen. Hij maakt gewoon
een klant van ze zwart.
Niet fijn als je provider zijn nieuws aan Supernews
uitbesteedt en je wordt geblockt omdat iemand met jouw
gegevens post. Je blijft wel mooi hetzelfde bedrag per maand
aan je provider betalen.
Andrew - Supernews <andrew+nonews@supernews.com> wrote
news:slrnc7eft0.27sf.andrew+nonews@trinity.superne ws.net
> On 2004-04-10, Willem <gaatjenietaan@notvalid> wrote:
>> 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.
How can you say that when Jeremy says it does:
////////////////////////////////////////////////
in article 40687b14.825.3a0@supernews.com,
Jeremy Nixon - Supernews at jnixon@supernews.com
wrote on 03/29/2004 11:44 AM:
These were posted via our servers, and I've verified
that they were not forgeries. I'll not comment on them,
I think they speak for themselves.
> 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.
> Mike
> * Logo Design *
> Put some fun in your next logo!
> Site at: http://www dot artistmike dot com
> mike @ artistmike dot com
> From: "Mike" <n@way.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.stop.spamming
> Subject: Re: Spambutcher
> Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 05:39:55 -0600
> Message-ID: <vvfv031j8oevf9@corp.supernews.com>
> Yes I can use this newsgroups as a write-only medium.
> Fuck off mud puppy.
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Jeremy from Supernews says he has VERIFIED these posts are
not forged and that they speak for themselves. So he means
Supernews has proof they were posted by Mike. He means they
are related to the reason for blocking. But you from
Supernews say something different. What is going on at
Supernews Abuse, Andrew??
Jeremy Nixon - Supernews <jnixon@supernews.com> wrote
> Willem <gaatjenietaan@notvalid@ac> wrote:
>> He means they are related to the reason for blocking.
> I mean no such thing, nor did I ever say any such thing.
> Those posts merely illustrate the point.
Which point? Please answer, I want to know why you posted
these examples and added that they aren't forged and speak
for themselves. If they are not related to the block, what
DO they prove as you say? Why did you bring them up in this
discussion?
WJ
--
http://www.demon.nl/eng/support/newsgroups/index.html
Quote
v8i70t8fnc28kit22cf47eku128j1fr3f@4ax.com
