From: fluffy@meow.org (Fluffy) Subject: "FAQ: Introduction to Net Abuse" - A Second Opinion Date: 1997/11/12 Message-ID: <64btfn$283@shell2.shore.net> Sender: fluffy@shore.net References: <64blgm$3du$1@usenet11.supernews.com> Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.misc Reply-To: rgfaq@meow.org X-Meow: Meow Organization: Meow Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.admin.misc,news.admin.net-abuse.usen et,alt.stop.spamming,news.admin.net-abuse.email URL: http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html Last-modified: Mon Jun 30 00:40:20 EDT 1997 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A Commentary on Ricardo Gonzales' Introduction to Net Abuse _____________________________________________________________________________ The text of Mister Gonzales' "FAQ" has not been altered in any way. Fluffy's comments are indented and prefaced with _Fluffy's Response:_. The original version is [1]here for your reference. _DISCLAIMER: These comments reflect Fluffy's opinions and those of no others. Comments and corrections are welcomed. Fluffy may be reached at _[2]flufster@world.std.com ______________________________________________________________________ ---FAQ BEGINS--- _Fluffy's Response: "FAQ" is shorthand for "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions." Notice that within this document, there are few, if any, frequently asked questions. Adding to the confusion, the answers do not truly address the questions. This commentary, and the document it examines, are really opinion pieces and not FAQ lists at all._ _Last updated:_ September 4, 1996 _Author:_ ricardo@paranoia.com (Ricardo H. Gonzales) _URL:_ [3]http://www.paranoia.com/~ricardo/faq.html _NOTICE:_ This text may not be reproduced in any form for profit without the permission of the author. It may be reproduced in any form provided that no money is being charged. * [4]What is the purpose of these newsgroups? * [5]Who may participate in discussion? * [6]What is the autocyberretromoderation bot? * [7]What is this talk about secret votes that happen on USENET? * [8]What is in store for the future of the net? * [9]What are proposals for dealing with massively crossposted articles and flames? * [10]Why do people oppose general censoring of posts? * [11]What do people propose doing with cancel messages? * [12]How should newgroup creation be handled? * [13]How can censorship be removed from moderated groups? _________________________________________________________________ 1. What is the purpose of these newsgroups? The news.admin.net-abuse newsgroups exist to document and discuss cases of possible network abuse. This included excessive posting, inappropriate cancellation of postings, mail bombing, denial of service attacks and other related behaviors. By bringing these issues out in the open to discuss their impact, we can best determine how to understand and handle these if they do indeed constitute net abuse. _Fluffy's Response: For a fuller and more accurate explanation of the purpose of the news.admin.net-abuse.* newsgroups, look [14]here._ 2. Who may participate in this discussion? Everyone is permitted to participate in this discussion, though it is suggested that people move away from making warrentless complaints and instead take action to fix problems. People very frequently whine about what's wrong with the net but rarely do anything positive to contribute to fixing it. Those who do try to fix problems usually only attack symptoms rather than the cause of the problems. As long as people give respect to net whiners like Chris Lewis, Tim Skirvin, Jan Isley, Peter duh Silva, and the rest of their kook associates, nothing will ever be solved. Pretending that these people can solve problems by whining and harassing system administrators and putting stock in their efforts is a long-term plan for failure. _Fluffy's Response: Until you have asked questions, you may not know if a complaint is warranted. Feel free to present your concerns. You may find that something is already being done about them, or learn what you can do to address the problems you see._ _It is unfair to characterize the individuals above as "whiners" or "kooks" {and that name is Peter da Silva, of course}. All the people above are doing something about network abuse. They are not simply discussing the problems, but developing methods to prevent them. Abuse can only truly be prevented at the originating network providers, so their administrators are exactly the people who must be, and are, addressed when instances of abuse are found. Outreach is not harassment._ 3. What is the autocyberretromoderation bot? The autocyberretromoderation bot is a mechanism to combat net abuse by people who forge posts as others or attempt to cancel posts that aren't their own. Most reasonable individuals don't take kindly to people who forge their identities to remove other people's posts, no matter how helpful the forge posters think their service is. _Fluffy's Response: No one but Mister Gonzales has heard of or seen this autocyberretromoderation bot. By most all accounts, it does not exist._ _There is a current practice of cancellation of news articles by third parties, in an effort to combat spam. Please see [15]Current Spam Thresholds and Guidelines and the [16]Cancel FAQ for the reasons they are used and the methods used to keep their usage public and free of abuses. Ask any of the Spam Cancellers if they would continue to cancel articles if something better was available. Every one would prefer not to cancel. It is, as they say, a necessary evil, given the limits built into today's news technology._ 4. What is this talk about secret votes that happen on USENET? Nearly all moderated groups have something to do with the USENET cabal. This organization is known for several cases of unethical conduct where their attempts to control USENET were uncovered by cabal watchdogs. Among the things they have been caught for is massive vote fixing on group creations, several times rejecting the creation of groups they disliked and discarding votes to force negative outcomes. They are also involved with the moderation of several important USENET policy groups, which allows them to determine what sort of ideas can be expressed or not expressed. If an idea is proposed for expression that would cause them to lose some control or is something they don't agree with, there's little chance that it will gain their approval and be posted. _Fluffy's Response: Cabal? There are people who work to keep the networks running, and they are often jokingly called the Cabal. These people have no special authority or powers. They do have the respect that comes with a reputation earned for doing Useful Things, but that is the extent of any power they possess. Anyone who is willing to learn about the details of the networks' workings, and has the time and ability to assist, is free to participate in this effort and be accused of belonging to the Cabal. {Incidentally, there was a real Cabal years ago. See the [17]Great Renaming FAQ for details.}_ _Are there secret votes? No. There is a [18]voting process that is used to determine what Usenet newsgroups will be created, but these votes are public and open. There are no secret ballots._ _Are there moderated newsgroups? Yes. Can newsgroup moderators suppress articles with which they disagree? Yes, the potential for abuse exists. Any moderator doing so will not be a moderator for long. Report suspected abuses, and they will be discussed in public. Unfit moderators {those who ignore their groups' charters} are rare, but can be removed if necessary. The moderation issue is not as big a problem as it seems on the surface. There are far more unmoderated newsgroups where you may express your views freely, even if you disagree with a particular group's moderator._ 5. What is in store for the future of the net? The greatest threat that exists to the net today is the control freaks who want to limit postings that they do not agree with or find "proper" for groups they think they control. Groups are made up of interested people. They are not static entities based around one person's personal ideology (except for the possibility of certain alt.fan groups founded for the discussion of extremely dull personalities). There is no way for one person to determine what others reading the group may want to see. What one person interprets as a "flame" may be what another finds to be a learning experience that provides an alternative perspective shedding light on a viewpoint they haven't considered previously. _Fluffy's Response: The greatest threat that exists to the networks today is the rampant abuse by commercial advertisers. See [19]Fight Spam on the Internet! for an excellent review of the problem and its solutions._ _Everyone who can help in this effort needs to learn how, and to join in. There are volunteers who dedicate a great deal of time and effort to this cause, but you too can participate. There is no one in charge of the Internet, so it is up the those using the networks to keep them useful._ 6. What are proposals for dealing with massively crossposted articles and flames? There are two obvious ways to handle this. The first is to use a killfile. The second is to use an intelligent newsreader that can filter articles based on the header, so that the user can set what number of crossposted groups is excessive, thus skipping an article that exceeds this threshold. NoCeM on the client side might work if the cabal divorced themselves from running the system, but when run on the spool it multiplies their potential for net abuse. _Fluffy's Response: NoCeM and kill filters are excellent tools for dealing with most trolls. It should be noted that net.abuse fightersdo not attempt to suppress these crossposted flame trolls. They concentrate mostly on spam, though sometimes the trolls become spam. The [20]alt.syntax.tactical FAQ offers advice on spotting and avoiding this type of network abuse._ 7. Why do people oppose general censoring of posts? Because it is impossible to determine what information, even in a blatant spam, is useless to all people. 99.9% of posts on USENET are worthless to some people, but that doesn't mean that they should cancel them and deprive others of the right to read them. Using a filtering service that is nondestructive to the USENET feed is the only method that is endorsed. _Fluffy's Response: It is true that an occasional spam will contain valuable or useful information. If so, why is it cancelled?_ _First, we cannot be making distinctions between "good spam" and "bad spam." To decide what to cancel based on what the articles contain, rather than how many times they are posted, would be the suppression of ideas -- or censorship of the very worst kind. _ _Second, we cannot leave spam untouched. The cost of providing news would increase dramatically, or news would become useless for normal discourse. This is a consequence of the fact that disk space on news servers is not infinite, and more junk leads to non-junk that disappears from servers more rapidly. Cancels are an imperfect way to handle the problem, but they are the only method available today. Life is cruel like that._ 8. What do people propose doing with cancel messages? All Internet service providers should configure their news software to ignore cancel messages and to not propagate that group so that damage is minimized from the rogue sites that still honor cancel messages. The cancel system has been so thoroughly abused that it has lost all credibility. The addition of NoCeM on spool will make the forged cancelling and censorship problems even worse unfortunately, though NoCeM on the client side is relatively safe if not run by the cabal and their cronies. _Fluffy's Response: Yes, ignoring cancel messages is always an option. If you administer a news server, why not try it? As long as you have adequate disk storage and your clients do not complain, go for it._ _NoCeMs do not contribute to forgery. In fact, they use PGP to prevent forgery from occurring. Because NoCeM messages contain a verifiable method of determining who issued them, you are free to select or ignore the NoCeMs you trust. A good news administrator will inform her customers of whose NoCeMs are being honored, if NoCeM-on-spool is in use at all. If you disagree with your administrator's choices, find a provider who does not honor these NoCeMs or ask your current provider to reconsider._ 9. How should newgroup creation be handled? Dr. John Grubor, one of the original forces behind the creation of the net has proposed an excellent system that will solve the problems of corruption and inadequacy in the current newgroup creation system. His proposal has basically three steps and cuts through the complicated and unnecessary delays that currently require up to a year to get a particular newsgroup approved. The first step is to determine a name that fits properly in the namespace. Once that is done, a call for votes is announced and users have to request ballots that are numerically code in such a way that no user can easily submit multiple ballots and fraudulently vote multiple times. Then if the proposed group receives over 100 YES votes, it is created, no matter the number of people who vote NO. By ignoring NO votes, it is possible to have newsgroups created for the discussion of minority cultures and other unpopular topics that have enemies desiring censorship. _Fluffy's Response: John Martin Grubor, a disbarred attorney and convicted felon, has had little if anything to do with the Internet's or Usenet's inception and growth. His aim is clearly to destroy Usenet. See the [21]Grubor FAQ for more information on this... interesting individual. While you are at it, the [22]Steve "Speed Bump" Boursy FAQ is an excellent complement. _ _Fluffy agrees that some kind of added verification would be quite useful for the newsgroup voting process, if only to reduce the number of disputes. The voting system as it exists today does generally work well, so a complete overhaul is probably not necessary._ Because the net is anti-censorship and pro-expression, any group that has sufficient public interest should be created, without regard for how many people would like that topic of discussion to be censored. _Fluffy's Response: This ability exists today. Read the [23]alt.config newsgroup for a while to see this open newsgroup creation process in action. Those Big 8 Newsgroups exist for those who prefer the structure. They are not the only game in town._ We thank Dr. Grubor for his extremely helpful contribution to the advancements of free speech. New newsgroup creations that function according to Dr. Grubor's system are being implemented now. _Fluffy's Response: Actually, they aren't, but Grubor sure does talk a good game._ 10. How can censorship be removed from moderated groups? One possible system is to make a parallel group for moderated groups that can propagate all posts not approved by the moderator. For example, a group named alt.foobar.moderated would also have a group such as alt.foobar.rejected, alt.foobar.moderated.rejected, or alt.foobar.moderated.unapproved. Either of the first two names would require the moderator to post a message there if he rejected the submission to his group. The third name scheme could be used if it was determined that the propagation of submissions should be in the hands of the users and the user should cross-post to the unapproved group. This system is being discussed as a way to stop moderators from censoring opinions that they disagree with and differs significantly from simply forcing the user to post to a public group because it can be easily used to show the biases of the moderator. _Fluffy's Response: This would place moderators in the rather difficult position of being forced to post spam to the networks. The current system, where you post to an unmoderated newsgroup if you dislike moderation, prevents this dilemma._ ---END OF FAQ--- _______________________________________________________________________________ Meow. [24]*-[25][IMAGE] References 1. http://www.paranoia.com/~ricardo/faq.html 2. mailto:flufster@world.std.com 3. http://www.paranoia.com/~ricardo/faq.html 4. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#1 5. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#2 6. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#3 7. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#4 8. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#5 9. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#6 10. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#7 11. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#8 12. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#9 13. http://world.std.com/~flufster/faqs/rgfaq.html#10 14. http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/home/nana/ 15. http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/home/spam.html 16. http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/home/cancel.html 17. http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/~frossie/mirror/gr.html 18. http://www.uvv.org/ 19. http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ 20. http://ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html 21. http://kendaco.telebyte.com/dharland/Grubor.FAQ.html 22. http://genesis.tiac.net/~sbfaq/boursy.html 23. news:alt.config 24. http://world.std.com/~flufster/ 25. http://world.std.com/~flufster/fluffy.jpg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Public Key http://world.std.com/~flufster/pgp-pubkey.asc iQCVAwUBM7dI6sbziQAzdTzZAQGQPAP/cQL5ffSPk23HRUHfEa6gsAtHn9GLknfT T4mLgnfiEnbnsJsIK1z6m398JU+zS/QKwnQOdSfxY53arHv467a1CN44+gq84B6d 2LExMGgU9ccFCGbNMODAy8gW/DGMPtgcipdFKUdmZj153imnszAZuFi6RCt6+lY2 u5bweaS6cuQ= =Y/Mz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Usenet is a frozen cat running over a steamroller in the rain." -James "Kibo" Parry