In news:0-6dncRZ-YxgYD6iRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net,
@ . < @ . > rambled:

http://jni.sdf-eu.org/trolls.html

--
Billy

"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
I think so, Brain, but pants with horizontal stripes make me look
chubby.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 18:39:36 +0000, *@*.* <*@*.*> wrote:
>
>
>
> Laird Cameron <lairdc@msn.com> says...
>
>>Errr...Anyone can delete any posts they want, or accept any posts they
>>want.
>
> No. Most newsadmins will nuke your account if you cancel something
> that has a BI<20, and will not nuke your account if you cancel
> something that has a BI>20. And of course some servers don't accept
> cancels and some servers don't let you issue cancels.
>
>>There are more people on the Usenet that killfile people who use the
>>unnecessary in-your-face PGPsigs than use the sigs themselves.
>
> Evidence, please.

Open your eyes. Ask around.

>
>>But from what I have seen of the PGP club members, I don't think they would
>>be interested in fairness or democracy at all. They obviously think they
>>are above the rules that apply to everyone else.
>
> The rules apply to all. They are at http://home.att.net/~penn/spamcanc.htm
> and http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/spam.html
>
>>So they try cheap tricks like this.
>>
>>And when people criticize PGPsig/keys on the Usenet, they adopt false
>>identities and attack them.
>
> This isn't about criticizing PGPsig/keys. This is about criticizing
> PGPsig/keys again and again and again and again and again to the
> point where the criticism is cancelable spam. I would have posted
> the same instructions if a PGP proponent posted hundreds of identical
> posts defending PGP. This isn't about PGP. It's about spamming.
>
>

There's a lot of spam on the Usenet. The fact that you single out this
particular spammer makes your last statement an obvious lie.

And your careful, self-serving deletion of most of my points adds fuel
to that fire.

In-your-face PGP signatures are plainly a violation of the 4 line sig
limit.

So someone keeps calling you on your violations of netiquette and you
don't like it.

Nor do robbers like alarm systems. Big surprise there.

--
Laird at Home.

The time has come, the Walrus said, to talk of many things.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

Preface: I don't know if this is Alan or not, so may well be biting the
bait of a troll here. Oh well. I'm not sure it's an honest trolling or
not. :-)

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:59:02 GMT, Laird Cameron <lairdc@msn.com> wrote:
> Errr...Anyone can delete any posts they want, or accept any posts they
> want.

Yes, but the post you're responding to is *not* about deleting posts so
you do or do not see them. The post, if you take a few minutes to read
it, is about CANCELLING posts. If you cancel a post, not only do you
not get it, but it is actually removed from news servers who accept your
cancelpost. So many others do not see it, as well.

> It would be very interesting to take this issue to court: 99.999% of
> the people on the Internet aren't impressed enough with PGPsigs to
> even bother getting the software that will tell them whether an
> apparent PGPsig is real or not.

I think if you took the issue mentioned in the post above to court, PGP
wouldn't come up except as a cause for the dude going nuts.

The issue is about wether or not posting a few lines of repeated crap
over every post by certain authors (or meeting certain criteria, if you
like) is in violation of usenet standards and is worthy of being
automatically cancelled with cancel posts.

If I read your statistics above correctly, you're stating one out of
every 100,000 Internet users has PGP or GPG on their systems - no more
than that.

I'm going to, for the moment, throw out PGP itself and focus only on
GPG. Different surveys have shown at least one percent of the Internet
is using Linux of a *BSD. I think the actual number is up around 2-3%,
but let's just say 1% for now, to err on your side of things.

Would you argue with that, right there, or can we move on, accepting the
1% number?

Now, of those 1%, how many would you think installed GPG? I believe it
is installed on most Slackware installs. It is installed on most Gentoo
installs. I think it's even installed on most RedHat, Mandrake, and
Debian installs.

Let's just, for the sake of argument, say only 25% of the folks using
Linux out there have GPG on their systems. Is that a low enough number
for you to accept?

If 25% of 1% of the Internet has GPG on their systems, that makes 0.25%
of the Internet having GPG on their systems. I believe that number is
actually quite a bit higher, though, as I'm not including those Windows
users with GPG or PGP, nor am I including all the OS X users with GPG or
PGP. PGP itself sells enough copies of the software to keep itself
afloat, at least so far.

I understand most anonymous remailers also requires the use of PGP or
GPG encryption. I'll bet more than one in 100,000 Internet users have
used an anonymous remailer at one time or another.

If you factor in th more tech savvy a user is, the most likely they are
to have dabbled with cryptographic software... and the more likely they
are to be posting on usenet... the figure is skewed away from yours even
further.

> And 99.99% of the people on the Usenet follow the spirit of the 4-line
> sig below the "-- -" rule.

You obviously haven't looked around much on Usenet, and your wording is
a bit odd. Those who cryptographically sign their usenet posts *do*
follow the *spirit* of the 4-line rule. Human-readable text is limited
to four lines more commonly in signed posts than unsigned posts. Now,
go look at another newsgroup... something non-technical. Count the
number of posters who use the '-- ' sig delimiter in the first place.
Now count the number of posters who have only four lines of text below
that delimiter. I'll bet you find your 99.99% figure is far off the
target. I would imagine you find closer to 75% of Usenet posters follow
the four-line rule.

> There are more people on the Usenet that killfile people who use the
> unnecessary in-your-face PGPsigs than use the sigs themselves.

I would be inerested to hear evidence backing that one up. So far, in
my reading of usenet, I've found far more individuals posting
cryptographically signed articles than individuals claiming to have
killfiled said posters. I'm not the most prolific usenet reader on the
face of the earth, but I definitely read a fair amount, I think.

I have heard of one person killfiling posters who use GPG to sign heir
posts. I personally know several others who do sign their posts, myself
included. If we exclude alt.os.linux.slackware, as it definitely has a
higher per-capita signing rate than most any other group out there, that
figure changes drastically - I know of *nobody* killfiling posts using
GPG, but several posters who do post with signed posts.

> But from what I have seen of the PGP club members, I don't think they would
> be interested in fairness or democracy at all. They obviously think they
> are above the rules that apply to everyone else.

See - you could have been any random poster up to this point, but I
think you've shown you're most likely Alan with this paragraph.

I'm curious, though, what fairness or democracy have to do with post
signing. Post signing adds about six lines of text to a post verifying
it came from the owner of the private key used to sign it. The only
usenet 'rule' this potentially violates is the four-line sig rule, which
really isn't a full out rule when you're dealing with PGP sigs. It
definitely doesn't compare to the 'no spamming' rules out there.

Usenet is not, by nature, fair. It is not democratic, either.
Democracy is a form of government, wheras there really is no governing
body of Usenet. If there is, I don't think it is run by a voting system
where everybody gets an equal vote in every decision made. I don't know
how you could consider usenet to be a fair thing, except in that
everybody can post to it? But then, how does signing posts make it less
fair?

> So they try cheap tricks like this.

The trick is but to cancel repeated posts filling up the group with
repeated garbage (no new content in them *at all*). The poster making
these 'pgp trash troll delete' posts is making it difficult for
newcomers to the group to be able to effectively use it, which I don't
think anybody believes is a good thing.

> And when people criticize PGPsig/keys on the Usenet, they adopt false
> identities and attack them.

Can you point out any cases where somebody criticizing cryptographic
signatures has been attacked by individuals adopting false identities?

I certainly haven't seen that here, nor have I heard of it happening
outside of the newsgroup. The only attacking I saw, aside from the
posts by 'Alan Connor' and 'RM' were from individuals who felt no need
to adopt any different an identity than that which they'd been using in
this newsgroup for quite a long time.

Sorry for the length of this post, I really didn't mean to make it quite
so long. :-\

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/pBG9hm6KEoOOAe0RAh1SAKDI1qXbsncBpegMg3u3ov3pAvpW8w CcCTZr
Z5uq+t8b6Qqxx9lzlvi05X0=
=Cgqb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:04:09 -0800, AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote:
> Can you point out any cases where somebody criticizing cryptographic
> signatures has been attacked by individuals adopting false identities?
>
> I certainly haven't seen that here, nor have I heard of it happening
> outside of the newsgroup.

'Alan' has made this claim over in comp.os.linux.misc where the
regulars have beat down his anti-PGP rantings with authority. He
brought some lurkers out of the woodwork (much like he did here) and
therefore concluded that the same people were creating false
identities to bash him. Hilarious!

They have had much more patience with him there than over here, I
think. The positive effect has been that more people have heard the
benefits of PGP signing. I suppose Alan's idle rantings have had some
good effect, but not the one he intended. [Unless Alan Connor is
actually a clever ruse used by Faux to get more people interested in
PGP. Come to think of it, have you ever seen the two of them in the
same room?]

Bryan

--
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish.
Teach a man to fish, and you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
- Proprietary Software 101
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/pCGfZHkU/XQom+8RAq4TAJ95Fh20mCUG+DggUAwdHW41rusYvQCgs17m
wWqbpkAEap2NfVnhrCJ2xO8=
=ldR3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 18:59:39 +0000 (UTC), Neo <neo@nospam.come-to-chat.com> wrote:
> How does that affect the law even in the slightest? The law is consigned of
> peculiar and specific laws - nothing whatsoever related to the populus
> opinion (if indeed that even were the populus opinion) - and is interpreted
> in a singularly legal (and thus by its very nature non-lay) manner. To allow
> popular opinion to dictate statutory intepretation would lead to mass (and
> need I say gross) uncertainty, and it is for that reason that the law is
> intepreted purely on what is written in the statute and that alone. If you
> lived in a non-positivistic legal system, for instance in asia or africa,
> you might be able to argue that in a pluralistic socio-legal normative
> ordering, non legal opinions are part of the law, not however in 99% of
> western legal systems.

If that were entirely the case, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have had
to make nearly the rules they've made in the last 150 years.

The law is still just written words, and is quite open to interpritation
(that's what Judges do, right?) - and those interpreting the law *do*
impose their own meanings and values upon those interpretations.

It is, unfortunately, not really possible, due to the nature of
language, to define a law that means exactly the same thing to every
person who reads it... not even to every lawyer that reads it. You
cannot determine the meaning of a law purely on what is written in the
statute and that alone because *people* have to do that work, and
*people* will insert their own biases wherever possible, if they mean to
or not.

I don't think the cancelposts really mean anything in regards to the
law, but don't think your post was entirely accurate, either.

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/pCKnhm6KEoOOAe0RAixDAJ9gejq5i55MVxWkPgTPJbtPPHJlKQ CgraCO
XvqyI6M01no5EzosSTj90/E=
=ek9j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

pgp trash troll delete

The unwarranted use of pgp puts this posting in violation of usenet's
standard .sig length of 4 lines. We ask the poster to refrain from
polluting the ng with anymore pgp trash.

Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote in message news:<hqu0ob.cnk.ln@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2003-11-01, Laird Cameron <lairdc@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Hi ''Alan''! It's so good to know you've mastered trolling enough to
> morph to avoid killfiles.
>
> > And 99.99% of the people on the Usenet follow the spirit of the 4-line
> > sig below the "-- -" rule.
>
> Isn't it "-- "? (Or "- -- "?) If you're going to be a fucktard, at
> least do it well, huh? Sheesh--ever since AOL, the fucktard standards
> have gone way down. Used to be you had to have at least some l33t
> ski11z to figure out how to troll usenet, but now even MSN users can do
> it.
>
> And just what does "spirit of the 4-line sig" mean, anyway? It must be
> like the 65mph speed limit in California. "Honest, Officer, I had no
> idea my sig was 20 lines! I swear I thought it was only 7." If my sig
> weaves, do I have to take a breathalyzer test? If I do it too often, do
> I have to go to usenet school, where a bunch of clowns teach me how to
> clean blood off my display with a multicolored wig?
>
> > And when people criticize PGPsig/keys on the Usenet, they adopt false
> > identities and attack them.
>
> ''the Usenet''? Is that like the 'hood? "Yo, gimme all your bandwidth,
> mutha, or I'll spew your !*@$! group off!"
>
> Thank you very much. I'll be here all the week.
>
> - --keith
>
> - --
> kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
> (try just my userid to email me)
> AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD4DBQE/o/6OhVcNCxZ5ID8RAmgcAJiggJEmqN7yJsAfahVsWJ+uYfIvAJ41 xEfO
> +xfZR76C8Xw9V9eh8MZb2Q==
> =i2hV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

pgp trash troll delete

The unwarranted use of pgp puts this posting in violation of usenet's
standard .sig length of 4 lines. We ask the poster to refrain from
polluting the ng with anymore pgp trash.

Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote in message news:<hqu0ob.cnk.ln@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2003-11-01, Laird Cameron <lairdc@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Hi ''Alan''! It's so good to know you've mastered trolling enough to
> morph to avoid killfiles.
>
> > And 99.99% of the people on the Usenet follow the spirit of the 4-line
> > sig below the "-- -" rule.
>
> Isn't it "-- "? (Or "- -- "?) If you're going to be a fucktard, at
> least do it well, huh? Sheesh--ever since AOL, the fucktard standards
> have gone way down. Used to be you had to have at least some l33t
> ski11z to figure out how to troll usenet, but now even MSN users can do
> it.
>
> And just what does "spirit of the 4-line sig" mean, anyway? It must be
> like the 65mph speed limit in California. "Honest, Officer, I had no
> idea my sig was 20 lines! I swear I thought it was only 7." If my sig
> weaves, do I have to take a breathalyzer test? If I do it too often, do
> I have to go to usenet school, where a bunch of clowns teach me how to
> clean blood off my display with a multicolored wig?
>
> > And when people criticize PGPsig/keys on the Usenet, they adopt false
> > identities and attack them.
>
> ''the Usenet''? Is that like the 'hood? "Yo, gimme all your bandwidth,
> mutha, or I'll spew your !*@$! group off!"
>
> Thank you very much. I'll be here all the week.
>
> - --keith
>
> - --
> kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
> (try just my userid to email me)
> AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD4DBQE/o/6OhVcNCxZ5ID8RAmgcAJiggJEmqN7yJsAfahVsWJ+uYfIvAJ41 xEfO
> +xfZR76C8Xw9V9eh8MZb2Q==
> =i2hV
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

pgp trash troll delete

The unwarranted use of pgp puts this posting in violation of usenet's
standard .sig length of 4 lines. We ask the poster to refrain from
polluting the ng with anymore pgp trash.

AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote in message news:<6lt0ob.iih.ln@dsl-gervais-88.web-ster.com>...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message
>
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:00:49 +0000, *@*.* <*@*.*> wrote:
> > OTHER THINGS YOU CAN DO:
> >
> > Email a complaint (with sample of the EMP/spam with full headers)
> > to abuse@google.com
> >
> > Post a report (with sample of the EMP/spam with full headers) in
> > news.admin.net-abuse.reports.
> >
> > Go to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet and report that there is a
> > spammer harassing alt.os.linux.slackware.
>
> Please don't forget about just ignoring the bastard - filtering him and
> killfiling him. :-)
>
> I've seen two of his posts since he's been hitting the group again.
>
> --
> Rob | If not safe,
> Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
> athlonrob at axpr dot net |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/o/nmhm6KEoOOAe0RAs5EAKCvEtsphh7O5WUMGzNheIK/w415qgCg5woT
> KCjaXfCVpLiycmJAjQV7tR0=
> =G6/y
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 19:29:04 GMT, Laird Cameron <lairdc@msn.com> wrote:
> There's a lot of spam on the Usenet. The fact that you single out this
> particular spammer makes your last statement an obvious lie.

There are a lot of abuses of the four-line sig rule out there. Your
making this all about PGP helps to discredit your arguments and make you
out to be a hypocritical liar.

> And your careful, self-serving deletion of most of my points adds fuel
> to that fire.

I didn't delete them. You didn't respond to my post.

> In-your-face PGP signatures are plainly a violation of the 4 line sig
> limit.

So what?

You're wasting a lot of bandwidth arguing about them.

You have no issues with RM's bandwidth-wasting in re-posting the entire
post, in a new post, with no new content at the top? If that isn't
in-your-face, I don't know what is.

> So someone keeps calling you on your violations of netiquette and you
> don't like it.
>
> Nor do robbers like alarm systems. Big surprise there.

Which is a larger violation of netiquette?

1) Cryptographically signing posts so as to verify the identity of the
individual writing the post, adding about six lines to the post, four of
which fall after the sig delimiter.

2) Re-posting every single cryptographically signed post in a newsgroup
with a few lines of repeated content at the top of it.

Some people get so stuck on trying to battle a group of individuals
*they* think feel superior to the battling group they lose all semblence
of common sense or reasoning.

You are a sad, sad man.

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/pDUChm6KEoOOAe0RAlhqAKCbB1eldnd1/9fSd/g7uvgvPZwQ4wCg9LMU
P09bPELTr9qwslsRwxLYY9A=
=bH1T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 13:16:21 -0800, AthlonRob <junkmail@axpr.net> wrote:
> If that were entirely the case, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have had
> to make nearly the rules they've made in the last 150 years.

That's supposed to be rul*ings* ... not rul*es* ...

*Sigh*

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/pDVmhm6KEoOOAe0RAmRTAKC2OqwblJQZ7loig5VL8ohVnPlzJw CcCeHh
XOCYlA8Gb3k66FJX2o93Z+0=
=kzYp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----