If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have
finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on. All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were 1728 after that date. In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender. Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it if a long time has elapsed. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message. As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier postings. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have finally decided to kill-file him. Thank you. The more people that killfile trolls, the fewer quoted message from the trolls I have to see. Trolls should always be killfiled, not argued with. Arguing is what they want to happen. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. no it doesn't. it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged. In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were 1728 after that date. google groups search no longer works reliably. if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong about sensor dynamic range. In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender. Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it if a long time has elapsed. or a short time. see above. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message. only if usenet servers support cancel, which they do not. see above. As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier postings. as usual, you're wrong. i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could be, before google groups stopped working reliably). |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time now, quite possibly more than two decades. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
In article , Char Jackson
wrote: Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time now, quite possibly more than two decades. probably more than that. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:39:11 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. no it doesn't. it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged. But it does, dear nospam, it does. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...cancel-lock-01 "These headers are intended to be used as a simple method to verify that the author of an article which removes another one is either the poster, posting agent, moderator or injecting agent that processed the original article when it was in its proto-article form." A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been 'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do. In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were 1728 after that date. google groups search no longer works reliably. But I don't bother with Google News. See http://www.forteinc.com/apn/ Up to 5,947 text retention. And all your messages before 25 Dec 2018 are gone from the server. Nobody else seems to have missing messages. Only you. Your messages have been cancelled and only you have the power to do that. Why are you fudging around with your answers? if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong about sensor dynamic range. Oh I did find multiple messages from people telling me I was wrong when I suggested that Nikon might have been user a particular method which I have only just recently confirmed is the actual method used by Nikon and several other manufacturers. I've given you the hint: it is referred to in the DGN standard. In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender. Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it if a long time has elapsed. or a short time. see above. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message. only if usenet servers support cancel, which they do not. see above. If you truly believed that why would you insert a 'Cancel-Lock' in your headers and why would all your older messages have vanished in mass? As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier postings. as usual, you're wrong. i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could be, before google groups stopped working reliably). I invite people with the ability to do so to check their own servers. P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote: On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time now, quite possibly more than two decades. That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as it was intended to do. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...cancel-lock-01 -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. no it doesn't. it's impossible to reliably delete usenet posts because just about all usenet servers ignore cancel messages since they are trivially forged. But it does, dear nospam, it does. i thought you killfiled me See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...cancel-lock-01 "These headers are intended to be used as a simple method to verify that the author of an article which removes another one is either the poster, posting agent, moderator or injecting agent that processed the original article when it was in its proto-article form." A 'cancel' message with a 'Cancel-Lock' key reliably identifies the identity of the cancellor and that the cancel message has not been 'trivially forged'. Not many people know that, but you do. that only authenticates the request. it does *not* mean other servers will act upon it. cancel-lock is something eternal-september does, and until you noticed it, i had no idea it was even in there. since you can't support any of your claims, you have resorted to a massive attack, claiming i've done things that i have not. In digging through the on-line archive of nospam's postings in rec.photo.digital I found there were postings from him before 25 Dec 2018. Not one although (to the best of my recollection) there were 1728 after that date. google groups search no longer works reliably. But I don't bother with Google News. See http://www.forteinc.com/apn/ Up to 5,947 text retention. And all your messages before 25 Dec 2018 are gone from the server. Nobody else seems to have missing messages. Only you. Your messages have been cancelled and only you have the power to do that. Why are you fudging around with your answers? i'm not fudging anything, nor have i canceled anything *ever*. whatever you're supposedly seeing is entirely *your* newsserver and/or something *you* are doing, and blaming everyone other than yourself. if it did, i would have retrieved the numerous posts from the previous threads where multiple people (not just me) explained why you're wrong about sensor dynamic range. Oh I did find multiple messages from people telling me I was wrong that should be your first clue. at least you admit that many people told you were wrong. when I suggested that Nikon might have been user a particular method which I have only just recently confirmed is the actual method used by Nikon and several other manufacturers. I've given you the hint: it is referred to in the DGN standard. dng, and that isn't relevant to what's being discussed. In the ordinary course of events it is possible to post a message with the intention of deleting a previous message from the same sender. Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely follows the message being cancelled but virtually all will ignore it if a long time has elapsed. or a short time. see above. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message. only if usenet servers support cancel, which they do not. see above. If you truly believed that why would you insert a 'Cancel-Lock' in your headers and why would all your older messages have vanished in mass? i'm not inserting anything, and they didn't vanish. it's something at your end. stop blaming others for your own ineptness and lack of understanding. As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier postings. as usual, you're wrong. i have never deleted a single usenet post, ever, nor is that even possible since as i said, just about all usenet servers ignore cancel messages, including google groups, where they can be found (or could be, before google groups stopped working reliably). I invite people with the ability to do so to check their own servers. P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly. you did so only because you can't support any of your claims and don't like it when you were called on it. are you still under the delusional belief that digital cameras do not do any sampling?? that not only indicates a major disconnect in understanding how digital cameras work, but it's just flat out ****ed up. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time now, quite possibly more than two decades. That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as it was intended to do. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...cancel-lock-01 actually, it doesn't change anything. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:11:32 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:48:54 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. Most Usenet servers haven't honored cancel messages for a very long time now, quite possibly more than two decades. That's true for ordinary cancel message, but 'Cancel-Lock' with it's reliable identity identifier seems to change the situation, exactly as it was intended to do. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie...cancel-lock-01 OK, believe what you will. Go ahead and try it for yourself. If you try enough Usenet servers, you might just find one that will honor a cancel message *for that server*. Rest assured, even if you find a small out of the way Usenet server that's misconfigured to the point where cancels are accidentally honored, that kind of thing won't propagate to the rest of Usenet. If you're basing your theory of missing messages solely on what GG shows you, I think you have your answer. But please, don't let me sway you. Get on with the task at hand. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On Oct 7, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ): Snip I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d. Snip P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly. Strange? I am responding from r.p.d. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
"Savageduck" wrote
| I thought you pulled the trigger on nospam, yet here you are chatting away | with him in both a.c.os.w-10 & r.p.d. | | P.S. As you may by now have gathered I have only kill filed nospam in | rec.photo.digital. Don't worry, I will shortly kill-file him globaly. | | Strange? I am responding from r.p.d. | Sometimes it best to cure an addiction a little bit at a time. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. Which is added by ES, his news server. Albasani also adds it. Check my headers. The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. It might enable the ES admin to delete it off the few servers which do care about cancel locks. The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. The message will not be deleted off the big news servers. Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely follows the message being cancelled Not so. A cancel barely half a minute later is not accepted by most news servers. What you write has not been true for close to 2 decades. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message. The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. They will just ignore the cancel. As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier postings. Again, it is the ES server which adds the cancel lock. It might allow the ES Admin remove a spam flood posted through ES which managed to get through his filters. However it would only be removed from ES and the few other news servers which do care about cancel locks. After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on. Those who kill-file to avoid getting into arguments will frequently see the kill-filed person's text quoted in other replies. Those who cannot ignore the poster without a kill-file will still post their own counter-arguments as a reply to the reply. A kill-file is never a cyber-substitute for self control. -- Kind regards Ralph |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On 08/10/2019 07:46, Ralph Fox wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:06:16 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote: All of nospam's Usenet postings include a line headed "Cancel-Lock:" followed by a hashed code. Which is added by ES, his news server. Albasani also adds it. Check my headers. The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it. This enables him to reliably delete the article at a later date. It might enable the ES admin to delete it off the few servers which do care about cancel locks. The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. The message will not be deleted off the big news servers. Most usenet servers will accept a 'cancel' message if it closely follows the message being cancelled Not so. A cancel barely half a minute later is not accepted by most news servers. What you write has not been true for close to 2 decades. However the use of 'Cancel-Lock' followed by a hashed code enables the sender to reliably establish their identity at a much later date and hence cancel the message. The big news servers do not care about cancel locks. They will just ignore the cancel. As far as I can tell nospam prepares all his postings for later bulk deletion. Why he should do that I do not know but a heads-up to anyone who thinks they may ever have a need to recover one of his earlier postings. Again, it is the ES server which adds the cancel lock. It might allow the ES Admin remove a spam flood posted through ES which managed to get through his filters. However it would only be removed from ES and the few other news servers which do care about cancel locks. After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on. Those who kill-file to avoid getting into arguments will frequently see the kill-filed person's text quoted in other replies. Those who cannot ignore the poster without a kill-file will still post their own counter-arguments as a reply to the reply. A kill-file is never a cyber-substitute for self control. Many thanks for your words of wisdom, Ralph! :-) Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Kill-filing nospam - addenda
On 2019-10-07, Eric Stevens wrote:
After a year of increasingly bizarre arguments with nospam I have finally decided to kill-file him. However, there is one thing that I discovered in the course of the argument that is worth passing on. This just comes across as a parting shot. I don't know why you think it would interest anyone. I did filter him temporarily because I found him abrasive but he also has valuable insight if you can put your bruised ego to one side. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|