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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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.

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.