|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cell Phones in Great Britain > April 2007 > A warning for these groups
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
A warning for these groups
|
|
|
| A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
because he wishes to censor.
He may be doing the same in these groups too.
So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
| |
| Bruce 2007-04-07, 10:33 pm |
| Alan wrote:
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
Which direction might that be?
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)
| |
| Mugwump 2007-04-08, 4:33 am |
| In article < 9t6g139aqoanjp7p1ere
s128r1mgre5qte@4ax.com>, me2@privacy.net
says...
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
>
> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing them
> because he wishes to censor.
>
> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
>
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these groups, I
> suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
>
>
>
Very few news providers, if any, honour cancels these days mainly to
prevent this sort of abuse.
| |
| Pongo Potts 2007-04-08, 4:33 am |
|
"Bruce" < ricardiandentures@bt
internet.com> wrote in message
news:n8udnV_geqIqvoX
bnZ2dnUVZ8svinZ2d@bt
.com...
> Alan wrote:
>
> Which direction might that be?
> --
> Bruce Fletcher
> Stronsay, Orkney
> <www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
> (Remove teeth to reply)
south for you.................
| |
| Bob Eager 2007-04-08, 4:33 am |
| On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 23:08:54 UTC, Bruce
< ricardiandentures@bt
internet.com> wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
> Which direction might that be?
Probably south, in your case!
--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]
| |
|
| "Mugwump" <mugwump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 20829924c5d5e4309896
a1@news.easynews.com...
> <Message source deleted>
What was that?
| |
|
| gm wrote:
> "Mugwump" <mugwump@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG. 20829924c5d5e4309896
a1@news.easynews.com...
>
> What was that?
It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)
| |
| dave @ stejonda 2007-04-08, 10:33 pm |
| In message <Aqmdne3- 7agatITbnZ2dnUVZ8tzi
nZ2d@bt.com>, Bruce
< ricardiandentures@bt
internet.com> writes
>gm wrote:
>
>It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
Paul has posted elsewhere that the articles he's been cancelling have
been Spam - since he's a long-time member of that ng I'm inclined to
believe him.
[x-posting removed]
--
dave @ stejonda
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2007-04-09, 4:33 am |
| On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:08:47 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
<no$spam!delete&abuse%dave@stejonda.freeuk.com> wrote:
>since he's a long-time member of that ng I'm inclined to
>believe him.
Since he's well known for what he posts here, I'm inclined NOT to
believe him.
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
| |
|
| On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:08:47 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
<no$spam!delete&abuse%dave@stejonda.freeuk.com> wrote:
>In message <Aqmdne3- 7agatITbnZ2dnUVZ8tzi
nZ2d@bt.com>, Bruce
>< ricardiandentures@bt
internet.com> writes
>
>Paul has posted elsewhere that the articles he's been cancelling have
>been Spam - since he's a long-time member of that ng I'm inclined to
>believe him.
Well, you'd be wrong to believe him.
Here's a message that Paul Cummins cancelled:
Control: cancel < vbdf13pi1ipbg5etimmq
3l7jklo0balq65@4ax.com>
Does that look like spam? No! Paul cancelled that message to censor.
| |
| Andy Champ 2007-04-09, 3:33 pm |
| Alan wrote:
> A person who posts to these groups, is currently
> issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in the
> uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
>
Alan,
this may be genuine but I regard with great suspicion *any* message
x-posted to this many groups.
Andy
| |
|
|
| Paul Cummins 2007-04-09, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 9t6g139aqoanjp7p1ere
s128r1mgre5qte@4ax.com>,
me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:
> *From:* Alan <me2@privacy.net>
> *Date:* Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:37:54 +0100
>
> A person who posts to these groups, namely Paul Cummins, is
> currently issuing rogue, third-party message cancellations over in
> the uk.radio.amateur newsgroup.
False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being
cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day
rolling period.
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2
> Mr Cummins isn't issuing these cancels against spam, he's issuing
> them because he wishes to censor.
False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used
used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly
cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.
> He may be doing the same in these groups too.
False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.
> So, if any of you notice your messages disappearing in these
> groups, I suggest you look in the direction of Mr Paul Cummins.
Says an alt.net user...!
--
Paul Cummins
*FREE* mobile phone - http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070* - http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life - http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* - http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 00:53 +0100 (BST), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:
>In article < 9t6g139aqoanjp7p1ere
s128r1mgre5qte@4ax.com>,
>me2@privacy.net (Alan) wrote:
>
>
>False. Spam from a single user was disrupting the group and was being
>cancelled. The BI of the spam postings had reached 41 over a 45 day
>rolling period.
>http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#3.2
False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
identical and were not commercial 'spam'.
>
>False. Spam was being cancelled in the group, unfortunately this used
>used the same posting address and 2 of his posts were mistakenly
>cancelled today - for which an apology was made several hours ago.
You've issued an apology how many days after issuing your rogue
cancels? Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.
>
>False. Notice the lack of evidence of his allegations.
I haven't alleged that you *have* issued rogue cancellations in these
groups! Just that with your recent history of censorship, people
should be aware you have a tendency too...
>
>Says an alt.net user...!
Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
like you.
| |
| Clive D. W. Feather 2007-04-10, 4:33 am |
| In article < eell13hdm44c3lkkr1eu
loinmdaebpaou3@4ax.com>, Alan
<me2@privacy.net> writes
>
>False. The users messages you cancelled were similar, but not
>identical and were not commercial 'spam'.
The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
messages to be identical but, rather, "substantively identical".
Messages that are "similar, but not identical" could easily fit within
this definition.
The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
messages to be commercial.
As a datum point, 41 non-identical non-commercial messages could provide
sufficient grounds for Demon to take action against a customer.
>Plus you fail to report that YOU use the same email address
>on uk.radio.amateur as the alleged spammer and myself yet NONE of your
>posts were "mistakenly cancelled". How strange.
A number of Usenet regulars will be surprised by this, but only because
it's Paul that is doing the cancels. Any competent person would not find
it difficult to distinguish between the two sources.
>Yes, there's NO censorship on alt.net - even from little dictators
>like you.
Unfortunately, there seems to be little conformance to Usenet standards
either.
Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water
boiling container.
As someone wrote on another group being pestered with this picoclimatic
system, aerial teddies are so last year.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | A Permanent Member of, but
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | not writing on behalf of
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | the UK Usenet Committee
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <clive@davros.org>
| |
| Bill Borland 2007-04-10, 3:33 pm |
| In article < lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@rom
ana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
<clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>The generally accepted definition of spam does *not* require the
>messages to be commercial.
>
Doesn't it? I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
--
Bill Borland
| |
| Spookytooth 2007-04-10, 3:33 pm |
| "Indeed, to see a complain about netiquette coming from alt.net smacks of
the food cooking utensil making chromatic allegations about the water
boiling container"
Oh dear God! It's "humour" like this that confirms in people's minds the
notion that computer users are dull, nerdy and out of touch with the real
world.
| |
| Bob Eager 2007-04-10, 3:33 pm |
| On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:15:30 UTC, Bill Borland <bill@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article < lsPjWon+wyGGFw0k@rom
ana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather
> <clive@on-the-train.demon.co.uk> writes
> Doesn't it? I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
> commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
UCE is usually spam, but might not be. Try this:
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html
--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]
| |
| Roland Perry 2007-04-11, 4:33 am |
| In message < $WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3e
fs.fsnet.co.uk>, at 19:15:30 on Tue, 10
Apr 2007, Bill Borland <bill@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk> remarked:
>Doesn't it? I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
There are many different definitions, for different purposes. For
clarity one should think about UBM: Unsolicited Bulk Messaging (The
messages have to be both unsolicited and in bulk).
Some lawmakers actually *allow* business to business spam (which I would
say was commercial), while prohibiting business to individual spam (but
you can only prosecute people you can identify and arrest, which
probably accounts for less than 1% of email spam in circulation).
Because some of the early examples of Spam were marketers selling
products, that label has stuck in many people's minds; but it's pretty
meaningless today.
--
Roland Perry
| |
| Clive D. W. Feather 2007-04-11, 7:33 am |
| In article < $WKLbDACR9GGFwkh@g3e
fs.fsnet.co.uk>, Bill Borland
<bill@g3efs.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Doesn't it? I have always understood the meaning to be "unsolicited
>commercial e-mail" - is that definition out of date?
While commercial was always the biggest issue with spam, from the
earliest days there was spam of other kinds, such as religious,
political, or urban-legend-spreading. One used to see the terms "UCE"
and "UBE" in an attempt to distinguish "commercial" and "bulk", but it's
all spam.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home: <clive@davros.org>
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <clive@demon.net>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <clive@davros.org>
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2007-04-30, 12:33 pm |
| On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:47 +0100 (BST), agree2pay4uce@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:
>Thankfully your opinion is less well regarded than even {r}
By you, yes. By people who are not liars and cheats, perhaps not.
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
|
|
|
|
|