Kill-filing nospam - addenda

Savageduck wrote:
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.

As the articles are crossposted (to alt.comp.os.windows-10,
rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
response in rec.photo.digital.

BTW, there shouldn't be a space between newsgroups in a 'Newsgroups:'
header:

Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10, rec.photo.digital

My newsreader barfs on it. Didn't bother to check if this is a SHOULD
(not) or MUST (not).

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 10:21:50 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote:

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.

Like Paul, I'm purposefully helpful all the time, and yet,
o Unlike Paul, I try to combat the bull**** that people like nospam spew

Why nospam does what he does, wasting everyone's time, is an enigma.
o He has so much to offer - and yet - he's purposefully unhelpful

Why?
o I don't know why.

He'll claim imaginary functionality for iOS
o That nobody on this planet, not even Apple, claims exist

Hence, nospam always fails the simplest test of bull****ters
o Name just one (fact).

Why does nospam bull**** at least 3/4 of the time?
o I suspect he has no formal education

A guy wrong so often wouldn't be able to get a higher degree
o Nor would a bull****ter like nospam last a month in the Silicon Valley

He'd be a good used car salesman perhaps
o Or a religious evangelist

I really don't know why nospam does what he does
o But the net effect is that a coin toss is as accurate as he

I used to say he'd be a good defense lawyer, perhaps
o But not a prosecutor - because the defense doesn't need proof

But he'd never make it through any formal education process
o With him being wrong literally about 3/4 of the time

This is a Windows/digital set of groups:
http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital
http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com

Where the record shows I have tried to counter nospam's incessantly childish
bull**** with adult facts, mostly on the mobile phone newsgroups
http://tinyurl.com/misc-phone-mobile-iphone
http://tinyurl.com/comp-mobile-android

To Incubus' point, about 1/4 of the time (roughly), nospam actually
knows what he's talking about; but about 1/2 the time he's simply dead
wrong, and the other 1/4 of the time (roughtly), he's just playing his
childish silly idiotic games.

In saying that, I note that he's actually DIFFERENT than most people
o Since about 1/4 of the time - he's actually correct in what he writes

Yet, he's wrong so often that he _must_ know he's wrong
o Because he's not as stupid as what he writes implies

So he's just sadistic.
o Or, maybe he just loves to play childish games.

I don't know why nospam does what he does
o But the net effect is that a coin toss is as accurate as he

His worst attribute is his sadistic streak sending innocent people
on wild goose chases - where it irks me to no end out purpoefully
unhelpful he is.

Bearining in mind I strive for 100% factual accuracy, it boggles
my mind that nospam cares not that his credibility is, essentially,
worthless.

I've tried to comprehend why people like nospam even exist on Usenet,
where he's one that I can't really figure out - as he seems to
have no useful intentions whatsoever.

If you need references, read further onward - but otherwise, ignore.
--
o Why do the Apple Apologists constantly send poor unsuspecting iOS users on wild goose chases?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ynh0PE9lK_I/QOiGP4_SFQAJ

o What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/veU8FwAjBQAJ

o Why do Apple Apologists constantly brazenly fabricate what turns out to be wholly imaginary Apple functionality?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/SZfblCIRc9s/BNYMDpdXEgAJ

o What is wrong with the Apple Apologists that they deny even what Apple admitted?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/fyL1cQUVCp0/iEHFdEXJAQAJ
etc.

o Why do apologists on this ng consistently hate facts about Apple products
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6OecwGrr4FM/pxffpfr3CQAJ

o The real question is Why do Apple Apologists _hate_ facts about Apple products?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/boEv7_ePPQ0/ck2VBgaaCgAJ

o Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4/3_TTHgRpBwAJ

o Dear badgolferman ... how does one deal with people that incredibly ignorant?
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/Tv8DDWzQRys/Pa1ciQaYAAAJ

On 08/10/2019 17:21, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
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.

As the articles are crossposted (to alt.comp.os.windows-10,
rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
response in rec.photo.digital.

He could set followups. Or is that considered bad netiquette these days?


--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

Paul Carmichael wrote:
On 08/10/2019 17:21, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
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.

As the articles are crossposted (to alt.comp.os.windows-10,
rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
response in rec.photo.digital.

He could set followups. Or is that considered bad netiquette these days?

He could, but - at least IMO - that should be done at the start of the
thread, i.e. in the OP.

Doing it later is - IMO - bad netiquette, because the thread is on its
way, there is an audience and suddenly you ask part of the audience to
suscribe to a group they're not subscribed to (and probably not
interested in).

So for example if you directed Followup-To: rec.photo.digital, I would
ignore that followup.

But all of this is largely a matter of opinion and there really is -
at least IMO :-) - not a right or wrong way, just different ways.

On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 22:46:08 -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.

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.

Ooh! What a liar you are. Either that, or you have done something to
Eternal-September to make them single out your posts for deletion.

I have downloaded some 76,000 messages in this news group and I have
found an enormous number of messages posted from Eternal-September,
all with Cancel-Lock and none of them deleted. The furthest back I
have gone took me to Message-ID: which
you will see is from SC Tom about Windows update and dated 13/11/2014.

Interestingly enough there are thousands (?) of posts from nospam but
there is a gap between 16/08/2018 and 26/06/2019 during which nospam
appears to have written no posts.

I think the ball is back in your court nospam.

--- snip ---

--


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:

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.

Ooh! What a liar you are. Either that, or you have done something to
Eternal-September to make them single out your posts for deletion.

more accurately, you have *no* clue what you're doing and blaming
everyone other than yourself, which you've done numerous times in the
past.

nothing has been deleted. that's almost as ****ed up as claiming that a
digital camera doesn't do any sampling. not quite as ****ed up, but
close.

I have downloaded some 76,000 messages in this news group and I have
found an enormous number of messages posted from Eternal-September,
all with Cancel-Lock and none of them deleted. The furthest back I
have gone took me to Message-ID: which
you will see is from SC Tom about Windows update and dated 13/11/2014.

Interestingly enough there are thousands (?) of posts from nospam but
there is a gap between 16/08/2018 and 26/06/2019 during which nospam
appears to have written no posts.

that's something at your end, most likely pebkac.

I think the ball is back in your court nospam.

no. it never left your court. you've made numerous unsupportable
claims, so you resorted to attacks, and it's backfired big time.

On Oct 8, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

Snip


I think the ball is back in your court nospam.
--- snip ---

How are we to believe that you have kill-filed nospam if you continue invite
him to engage in your ongoing flame war with him in both a.c.o.w-10 &
r.p.d.?

An announcement that you have kill-filed him should mean something, it does
to me, or do you mean something totally different?

Make up your mind, you are either done with him in all NGs, as I am with
Arlen Holder, and ~BD~, or you just cannot resist the temptation to continue
poking that particular bear. Is there something in that NZ water?

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 8 Oct 2019 15:21:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
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.

As the articles are crossposted (to alt.comp.os.windows-10,
rec.photo.digital), Eric will still see nospam's articles in
alt.comp.os.windows-10, so if Eric responds, you will see Eric's
response in rec.photo.digital.

BTW, there shouldn't be a space between newsgroups in a 'Newsgroups:'
header:

Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10, rec.photo.digital

My newsreader barfs on it. Didn't bother to check if this is a SHOULD
(not) or MUST (not).

Agent has always accepted it (I think). I could be wrong.

--


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 19:46:39 +1300, 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.

Yep. I've confirmed that. All ES posts have that in their header.

Albasani also adds it. Check my headers.

The big news servers do not add it and do not honour it.

Well, somebody seems to be honouring 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.

Its accepted by some - or it was.

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.

--


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, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

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.

Not quite - at least not yet.

--


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 Wed, 09 Oct 2019 12:54:52 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 08:23:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:

Sadly, Eric Stevens was mistaken.

Not quite - at least not yet.

Haven't you been mistaken right from the start? In a prior post, I invited
you to try it for yourself. Submit a post, perhaps to a test group since
that's the purpose of such groups, then try to cancel it. What happens? Was
your cancel accepted and was it successful? What happens at other Usenet
servers? Did your cancel propagate? No?

On 2019-10-08 10:28 p.m., Arlen _G_ Holder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 16:35:31 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

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. 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.

I have to withdraw what I said above and apologise about nospam's
posts being cancelled.

I've spent lots of time and have downloaded literally hundreds of
thousands of articles and have come to the conclusion that that
something squiffy is going on beytween my news reader (Agent) and
Agent Usenet Service.

The large block of nospam's messages are still missing from my
computer. My previous attemts down load some of the from the
'References' chain in the header was greeted with a response which
implied that they were not on the server. Since then I have run repair
on the database and 'voila' a whole lot of new messages appeared. In
the casae of alt.comp.os.windows-10 over 72,000 messages appeared.
About 2,700 appeared in rec.photo.digital. Nevertheless in the latter
group there still were no messages before 5 Jan 2019.

I then went back to threads in that empty time period and opened the
headers from articles which carried nospam's message IDs in the chain
of References. The messages then appeared. I don't understand what is
going on: Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.

In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
messages and I apologise.



[When I first started with Agent, Agent.ini used to be a standalone
one and a half pages. Now its about 30 pages, about a third are full
of code and with fish hooks into the registry. I'm damned if I'm going
to bother trying to unravel that lot].

--


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.

Eric Stevens wrote:
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. 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.

I have to withdraw what I said above and apologise about nospam's
posts being cancelled.

I've spent lots of time and have downloaded literally hundreds of
thousands of articles and have come to the conclusion that that
something squiffy is going on beytween my news reader (Agent) and
Agent Usenet Service.

The large block of nospam's messages are still missing from my
computer. My previous attemts down load some of the from the
'References' chain in the header was greeted with a response which
implied that they were not on the server. Since then I have run repair
on the database and 'voila' a whole lot of new messages appeared. In
the casae of alt.comp.os.windows-10 over 72,000 messages appeared.
About 2,700 appeared in rec.photo.digital. Nevertheless in the latter
group there still were no messages before 5 Jan 2019.

I then went back to threads in that empty time period and opened the
headers from articles which carried nospam's message IDs in the chain
of References. The messages then appeared. I don't understand what is
going on: Agent used to be rock solid and reliable.

In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
messages and I apologise.



[When I first started with Agent, Agent.ini used to be a standalone
one and a half pages. Now its about 30 pages, about a third are full
of code and with fish hooks into the registry. I'm damned if I'm going
to bother trying to unravel that lot].


News servers have a limited time horizon.

This is indicated by a "high water mark" and "low water mark"
when a group is queried by a client program. If you connect to
port 119, use Wireshark and capture packets, there's actually
an English text message type for this, with four numbers
in the response field.

The administrator on the server, sets a retention policy. In
high volume groups, retention can be as short as 3 days. That
means for such a server, on the third day, the body of the
message is no longer available. This reduces the disk storage
necessary for the group.

On commercial servers, you can easily get ten year retention.

I haven't tried a lot of news clients, but at least one
of them, the "headers" shown in the tool, are more
extensive than the time horizon of the server. I
can have headers with "Subject" "Date" "Username" from
2007, yet when I try to fetch them, the server reports
they're not present. The header information is still
valuable, as if you take the MID from the header
and feed it into Howard, you can find the message content.
Apparently Howard taps into some news server with decent
retention.

You have to put the angle brackets around your MID
value, to find a message here.

http://al.howardknight.net/

At one time, Google Groups would provide a "profile"
for a user. Using nospams details, you could get a listing
of how many posts per month the user made. This feature
was removed from the server, years ago. As well as anything
remotely resembling a decent search. The last time
I checked groups.google.com, at least I wasn't
getting the message that the search engine was
out of commission. But it's far from useful in
its current state. That's why we have to use
Howard, for anything of this nature. Google has
gone for a ****.

Paul

On 09/10/2019 09:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
In any case, as I said above, I was wrong to accuse nospam of deleting
messages and I apologise.

Respect, Eric! :-D

--
David B.
Devon