Results 1 to 15 of 16
- 04-07-2007, 04:37 PM #1AlanGuest
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.
› See More: A warning for these groups
- 04-07-2007, 05:53 PM #2Paul CumminsGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Alan) wrote:
> *From:* Alan <[email protected]>
> *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
- 04-08-2007, 12:17 AM #3MugwumpGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
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.
- 04-08-2007, 10:45 AM #4gmGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
"Mugwump" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <Message source deleted>
What was that?
- 04-08-2007, 11:46 AM #5BruceGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
gm wrote:
> "Mugwump" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> <Message source deleted>
>
> What was that?
It probably concerned rogue, third-party message cancellations...
--
Bruce Fletcher
Stronsay, Orkney
<www.stronsay.co.uk/claremont>
(Remove teeth to reply)
- 04-08-2007, 03:08 PM #6dave @ stejondaGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
In message <[email protected]>, Bruce
<[email protected]> writes
>gm wrote:
>> "Mugwump" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> <Message source deleted>
>> What was that?
>
>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
- 04-09-2007, 01:15 AM #7Guest
Re: A warning for these groups
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:08:47 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
<no$spam!delete&abuse%[email protected]> wrote:
>since he's a long-time member of that ng I'm inclined to
>believe him.
Since he's well known for what he posts here, I'm inclined NOT to
believe him.
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
- 04-09-2007, 04:47 AM #8Paul CumminsGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] () wrote:
>
> Since he's well known for what he posts here, I'm inclined NOT to
> believe him.
Thankfully your opinion is less well regarded than even {r}
--
Paul Cummins
*FREE* mobile phone - http://tinyurl.com/2yw23x
*0845, 0870, 070* - http://tinyurl.com/ywwdk6
*FREE* ADSL for life - http://tinyurl.com/22dlhh
*PDA/Palm Insurance* - http://tinyurl.com/3y9u2r
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
- 04-09-2007, 07:53 AM #9AlanGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 22:08:47 +0100, "dave @ stejonda"
<no$spam!delete&abuse%[email protected]> wrote:
>In message <[email protected]>, Bruce
><[email protected]> writes
>>gm wrote:
>>> "Mugwump" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> <Message source deleted>
>>> What was that?
>>
>>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.
Well, you'd be wrong to believe him.
Here's a message that Paul Cummins cancelled:
Control: cancel <[email protected]>
Does that look like spam? No! Paul cancelled that message to censor.
- 04-09-2007, 01:44 PM #10Andy ChampGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
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
- 04-10-2007, 12:15 PM #11Bill BorlandGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
In article <[email protected]>, Clive D. W. Feather
<[email protected]> 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
- 04-10-2007, 01:34 PM #12SpookytoothGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
"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.
- 04-10-2007, 01:46 PM #13Bob EagerGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:15:30 UTC, Bill Borland <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Clive D. W. Feather
> <[email protected]> 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?
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. ]
- 04-11-2007, 01:18 AM #14Roland PerryGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
In message <[email protected]>, at 19:15:30 on Tue, 10
Apr 2007, Bill Borland <[email protected]> remarked:
>>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?
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
- 04-11-2007, 03:56 AM #15Clive D. W. FeatherGuest
Re: A warning for these groups
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Borland
<[email protected]> 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?
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: <[email protected]>
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: <[email protected]>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <[email protected]>
Similar Threads
- Telus
- alt.cellular.cingular
- T-Mobile
- alt.cellular.verizon
Carros
in Chit Chat