The "pgp trash troll delete" posts meet the requirements for
being cancelable EMP/spam. Feel free to cancel them at will.

Here is how to cancel the "pgp trash troll delete" posts:

First, put the following in the header of your post:

Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.slackware
Subject: cmsg cancel <MESSAGE_ID>
Message-ID: <cancel.MESSAGE_ID>
Control: cancel <MESSAGE_ID>
Supersedes: <MESSAGE_ID>
X-Canceled-By: YOUR_EMAIL_ADDRESS
Approved: YOUR_EMAIL_ADDRESS
Sender: SPAMMERS_EMAIL_ADDRESS
From: YOUR_EMAIL_ADDRESS
X-No-Archive: yes

(Replace MESSAGE_ID with the Message-ID of the spam, replace
SPAMMERS_EMAIL_ADDRESS with whatever the spammer used in the
From: in the EMP/spam, and replace YOUR_EMAIL_ADDRESS with an
email address that you read and respond to)

Now put this in the body of the post:

This is part of an ongoing spam run where the spammer quotes
an entire post, adding the phrase "pgp trash troll delete"
at the top. It passed BI20 long ago.


Repeat for each EMP/spam you see. This will cancel the EMP/spam.

Feel free to set up an automated cancel script but be VERY VERY
SURE that it only cancels the "pgp trash troll delete" posts.
If you have any doubt at all about this, cancel them manually.

DO NOT cancel anything else that you think is EMP/spam unless
you have a thorough understanding of the BI calculations used
to determine whether EMP/spam is cancelable.


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.

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:00:49 +0000,
*@*.* <*@*.*> wrote:
>
> Here is how to cancel the "pgp trash troll delete" posts:

My news server doesn't accept third-party cancels. Am I right in
thinking that these cancel messages won't affect my news server's spool
at all?


--
Mark Hill <usenet@mark.ukfsn.org> (Yahoo address not read)

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:00:49 +0000, *@*.* <*@*.*> wrote:
>
>
>
> The "pgp trash troll delete" posts meet the requirements for
> being cancelable EMP/spam. Feel free to cancel them at will.
>

Errr...Anyone can delete any posts they want, or accept any posts they
want.



> 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.
>
>
>

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.

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

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


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.

So they try cheap tricks like this.

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

--
Laird at Home.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2003-11-01, Mark Hill <mark_usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> My news server doesn't accept third-party cancels. Am I right in
> thinking that these cancel messages won't affect my news server's spool
> at all?

You're probably right, but your news server might pass on your cancels
so that sites which do honor them would be able to do so. I don't have
a good feel for how many sites still do honor third-party cancel posts,
though.

- --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)

iD8DBQE/o/RmhVcNCxZ5ID8RAnpkAKCY8RCgPcwkQNCkDg9sckcxeAJ04QCe PYIp
ydLBrMEmhfl5IAY9mdWDpJg=
=a92G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mark Hill <mark_usenet@yahoo.co.uk> says...
>
>On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:00:49 +0000,
>*@*.* <*@*.*> wrote:
>>
>> Here is how to cancel the "pgp trash troll delete" posts:
>
>My news server doesn't accept third-party cancels. Am I right in
>thinking that these cancel messages won't affect my news server's spool
>at all?

Partially. If it's already on your spool. it won't be cancelled.
If the cancel hits a server (that accepts cancels) between your
server and the source, that server will cancel it rather than
forwarding it to your server. This, of course, assumes that the
cancel came from someone else; if you cancelled it you must have
seen it. And, of course, your cancels would benefit others on
systems that accept cancels.

If you run your own server, you could even set it up to reject most
third-party cancels but accept cancels pgp signed by someone you trust.
What sweet irony that would be!

-----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-----

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.

>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.

"Laird Cameron" <lairdc@msn.com> wrote in message
news:GvSob.377$qh2.183@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:00:49 +0000, @ . < @ . > wrote:

I notice our troll has adopted a new identity ;P

-----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-----

"Laird Cameron" <lairdc@msn.com> wrote in message
news:GvSob.377$qh2.183@newsread4.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 17:00:49 +0000, @ . < @ . > wrote:

> 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.

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.