In article , Woodchuck Bill wrote:
(J T) wrote in news:19640-415F7C97-191@storefull-
3152.bay.webtv.net:

So what if it has a
charter? With no moderator, how's a charter supposed to keep out the
trolls, and all?

Actually, remember when we had the Dizum.com invasion? IIRC, you were a
victim of those attacks, JOAT. Dizum said that they were willing to block
any newsgroup with a ban on remailers in their charter, but since the wreck
has no charter, they wouldn't block us.

Was it ever established that the message making that claim actually came from
Dizum? Around the same time, there was at least one other similar post,
purporting to be from Dizum, which was demonstrated to be bogus. It's worth
noting that neither their published abuse policy
https://ssl.dizum.com/help/abuse.html nor their mail-to-news gateway page
https://ssl.dizum.com/help/mail2news.html makes any mention of this supposed
policy.

In any event, Dizum is only one of a host of anonymous remailers. If a troll
finds his access through Dizum to be shut down, so what? He'll just find
another group.

And Google might as well be an anonymous remailer. Anybody can open a hotmail
or yahoo account, use that ID to sign up with Google, and post any trash he
pleases. Google will respond, eventually, to complaints of abuse, but all they
do [in fact, all they *can* do] is shut off the Google Groups account
involved. They don't/won't/can't prevent the culprit from immediately opening
up another Google Groups account using a different email address from hotmail
or yahoo.

I noticed that the soft wreck has a
clear ban on remailer posts in the proposed charter, so Dizum would
probably block that group if it were to be created.

... If, in fact, that is actually Dizum's policy, a proposition that is not
supported by Dizum's published "standards", such as they are.

But as noted above, Dizum is only one way, of many, by which trolls gain
access to newsgroups. Even if Dizum shuts him/them off, that won't keep
him/it/them out.

Thus, this argument in favor of the proposed new group holds no water.

Charters also matter to
Ebay auctions too. Ebay does act on Usenet charter violations.

Yep, and IMO that alone is sufficient reason to vote NO. What's the problem
with occasional posts such as "FA: 3HP 10-inch blurfl" with a link to the
eBay auction page?

I agree that most ISPs will not act on charter violations, but there are a
few examples above of entities that will act, and who knows what the future
will bring.

Some will, I imagine. And the charter of the proposed new group would outlaw
*any* postings offering *anything* for sale or trade. That's a very, very bad
idea IMO.

For the record, I abstained on the soft wreck vote.

And for the record, I voted NO.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.