Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>28/02/2024 16:02, Retro Guy:

>>It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
>>the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
>><insert issue here>.

>It's difficult because your country is doing this :

><https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-united-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>

>So free speech for who ? :)

There is no question that certain Christians, in freely exercising their
own religion as a civil right, believe they have the right to impose
their religious viewpoint on other people and can tell other people what
they cannot read. Members of the public have gone after school
librarians and public librarians for choices made in selecting books for
the collection.

>I don't know where to redirect as I don't really know the Big8, feel free
>to go where it's proper.

On 28/02/24 19:14, Retro Guy wrote:
> Eric M wrote:
>> This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can
>> get people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.
>
> Words don't kill. If I told you to kill someone, somehow I think you
> wouldn't do it.

If your boss told you to turn this valve because the sewage tank needs
to be emptied and he ignores the fact that someone is trapped in the
drain, do you turn it, or do you protest and lose your job, then your
house, then your food supply?

On 28/02/24 00:06, Ricardo Hernandez wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2024, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> posted some
> news:urldpk.vd4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net:
>
>> FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter
>> Dizum.
>> As I said, 'problem' solved.
>
> That's the beauty of usenet. Everyone is free to set their own limits
> of enlightenment.

It's not beautiful, it's just the way it is. People are not even
informed that they are speaking into the void, or why.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:24:50 +0100, immibis wrote:

> On 28/02/24 16:02, Retro Guy wrote:
>> Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those in
>> power restrict speech.
>>
>> Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
>> currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn, and
>> suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.
>
> When evil people are in power, they're going to restrict speech just as
> well no matter whether you restricted them from speaking when they
> weren't in power or not.
>
>> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is often
>> the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of course for
>> <insert issue here>.
>
> Maybe your refusal to accept their opinion just indicates closedmindedness.

There is a difference between accepting their opinion and agreeing with
their opinion.

Everyone should have the right to express their opinion, but that doesn't
mean everyone else must agree with it.

Thus spake immibis <news@immibis.com>
>> And immibis is using E-S, too. Just saying ...
> Oh hey, Ray. Since this user believes (<url0v6$39kqa$1@dont-email.me>)
> it's fine for anyone to post cancels of any message for any reason,
> since he trusts servers to ignore them, will it bother you too much if
> I automatically post cancels to all of his messages?

You don't need my approval to do this.
Unless you intend to use E-S to post these cancel messages, that is.
In this case I would like to refer you to the E-S TOS.

> Does the E-S server propagate them even though it doesn't process them
> as cancels itself?

Yes, of course it does.

--
Пу́тін — хуйло́
https://www.eternal-september.org

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 27/02/24 17:59, Ray Banana wrote:
>>Thus spake "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>>Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>I don't see Dizum posts on my server, maybe you should change yours ?

>>>I'm a user on news.eternal-september.org. I would never ask Ray to
>>>refuse to accept posts originating at Dizum. Nor would Ray do so.

>>And immibis is using E-S, too. Just saying ...

>Oh hey, Ray. Since this user believes (<url0v6$39kqa$1@dont-email.me>)
>it's fine for anyone to post cancels of any message for any reason,
>since he trusts servers to ignore them, will it bother you too much if I
>automatically post cancels to all of his messages?

Sweety, Ray doesn't allow third-party cancels and most other control
messages to be posted through his server. He does allow first-party
cancels.

If you had technical skillz, you might set up your own News server. I'm
sure you could get several News servers to accept them. Just establish
your reputation as not a nutcase. Otherwise it's just those couple of
French News servers in question.

>Does the E-S server propagate them even though it doesn't process them
>as cancels itself?

A control message is an ordinary Usenet article. It just has a Control
header.

Good luck on your project.

On 28/02/24 18:50, Retro Guy wrote:
> It's sad to see people pushing for their own rights to be limited.

Do you think I should have any responsibilities at all? For example
should I have the responsibility to not punch you in the face? It's sad
to see that you want to limit your won face-punching rights!

In article <uro0gk$u3c$5@dont-email.me>, immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>
>Oh hey, Ray. Since this user believes (<url0v6$39kqa$1@dont-email.me>)
>it's fine for anyone to post cancels of any message for any reason,
>since he trusts servers to ignore them, will it bother you too much if I
>automatically post cancels to all of his messages?

Feel free to do so, because nobody accepts cancels. That horse left the
barn thirty years back and I wish you'd stop beating on it.

>Does the E-S server propagate them even though it doesn't process them
>as cancels itself?

If it's properly configured, yes.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Retro Guy avait énoncé :
> Eric M wrote:
>
>> Le 28/02/2024 à 18:54, Retro Guy a écrit :
>
>>> The U.S. is by no means going the right direction, but fortunately it's
>>> more difficult
>>> to legislate against free speech than it is in many countries.
>
>> And you're about to reelect Trump, the world is looking at you.
>
> Let's hope so.
>
>>> I don't want people I agree with to be censored, and I don't want people I
>>> disagree
>>> with to be censored.
>
>> This is not what it's about, it's about banning hate speech that can get
>> people killed. But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.
>
> Words don't kill. If I told you to kill someone, somehow I think you
> wouldn't do it.

If it's "Martial", i'm not sure of his answer ;-)
(Sorry, private usenet-fr joke)

> Our brief discussion here is a great example of my statement that it is hard
> for an American to have a discussion about free speech with someone who is
> not American. We have a different view of whether the government should have
> the power to control speech.

But this is not the opinion of all French people.
The 1881 press law was very permissive.
Unfortunately, these freedoms are being restricted year by year with
new laws that solve nothing.
But we're out of the scope of this group.

>> But in the US everybody's in danger anyway.
>
> Really? I wasn't aware that I should feel unsafe, which I don't.

We're in far greater danger here :-(
A citizen does not have the right to defend himself.
The notion of self-defense is almost impossible to implement; you
almost have to wait until you're dead to have the right to shoot back.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:27:01 +0100, immibis wrote:

> On 28/02/24 18:50, Retro Guy wrote:
>> It's sad to see people pushing for their own rights to be limited.
>
> Do you think I should have any responsibilities at all? For example
> should I have the responsibility to not punch you in the face? It's sad
> to see that you want to limit your won face-punching rights!

By that logic, since murder is illegal in many places, it should also be
illegal to drink water.

Your words don't infringe on my rights, but punching me in the face does. I
don't have the right to not be offended.

Since you set Followup-To to alt.dev.null I'll assume you've made your
points and are done. As I stated earlier, it is a difficult subject to
discuss between Americans and non Americans. I'm glad you have the freedom
to express your views, and that I do also.

immibis a écrit :
> On 28/02/24 15:21, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:
>>
>>>>> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>>>> an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>>> on this kind of things.
>>
>>>> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>>> lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>>> have kept my family alive.
>>
>>> I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>>> Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>>> said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>>> country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>>> but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.
>>
>> Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
>> known whom he was.
>
> That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.

But censorship (and all that goes with it) kept Staline and Castro
in power.

--
Admin of news.usenet.ovh

On 28 Feb 2024, Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.org> posted some
news:9dfe9efe9614b7f4a7f346697b982c0e$1@www.novabbs.org:

> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 20:24:50 +0100, immibis wrote:
>
>> On 28/02/24 16:02, Retro Guy wrote:
>>> Your last sentence is very clear. This cause is used often by those
>>> in power restrict speech.
>>>
>>> Those who support restricting speech tend to be on the side of those
>>> currently in power, maybe not realizing that the tables can turn,
>>> and suddenly the side you oppose controls speech.
>>
>> When evil people are in power, they're going to restrict speech just
>> as well no matter whether you restricted them from speaking when they
>> weren't in power or not.
>>
>>> It's difficult to discuss free speech with non Americans. There is
>>> often the comment such as, "Yes, I support free speech. Except of
>>> course for <insert issue here>.
>>
>> Maybe your refusal to accept their opinion just indicates
>> closedmindedness.
>
> There is a difference between accepting their opinion and agreeing
> with their opinion.
>
> Everyone should have the right to express their opinion, but that
> doesn't mean everyone else must agree with it.

+1!

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 28/02/24 15:21, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:

>>>>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>>>>an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>>>public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>>>on this kind of things.
>>>>I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>>>lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>>>have kept my family alive.

>>>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>>>Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>>>said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>>>country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>>>but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.
>>Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
>>known whom he was.

>That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.

Hitler was literally arrested for attempting a coup. This didn't stop him.

Godwin

On 28 Feb 2024, Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> posted some
news:C54mcUr51BiciUK7VHz2sHR97I8@jntp:

> Le 28/02/2024 à 18:30, llp a écrit :
>
>> But you also have this kind of person in the USA, don't you?
>> I think of the "woke" or the cancel culture followers.
>
> Republicans are BURNING books :
>
><https://observer.com/2022/02/book-banning-is-increasing-across-the-unit
>ed-states-a-book-burning-in-tennessee/>

I don't see anything wrong with disposal of trash that attempts to warp
the minds of innocent children into things they cannot be. You can't
change how you were born, no matter how much surgical butchery occurs.

Attempting to force something like that on children is simply wrong. Let
kids be kids. Nut job social agendas do not belong in schools.

On 28 Feb 2024, immibis <news@immibis.com> posted some
news:uro16r$u3c$6@dont-email.me:

> On 28/02/24 01:05, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Frank Slootweg:
>>
>>>>> This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved
>>>>> differently than Big8 usenet.
>>
>>>> It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
>>>> usenet" have to do with anything?
>>
>>> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We
>>> have an european point of view, here you cannot say something
>>> antisemitic in public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we
>>> are more vigilant on this kind of things.
>>
>> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good
>> speech, lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship
>> wouldn't have kept my family alive.
>
> Counterspeech hasn't prevented America from inching ever closer
> towards committing some atrocity of comparable magnitude, either.

Murdering hundreds of thousands of natives and stealing their country
wasn't an atrocity? Then the "conquering" descendents surrender the
country to a bunch of third world invaders without firing a shot like
the French?

What kind of insane behavior is that?

Starting a "civil war" because Eastern bankers wanted their cut of the
slave trade revenue, using the pretense of "freeing slaves" wasn't an
atrocity? Then allowing the 13% descendents of the "freed slaves" to
totally destroy the foundation of business to buyer protocols by
robbery which goes unpunished?

Those kinds of atrocities?

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:00:18 -0000 (UTC), def <def@nospam.com> wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2024, immibis <news@immibis.com> posted some
>news:uro16r$u3c$6@dont-email.me:
>> On 28/02/24 01:05, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Frank Slootweg:
>>>
>>>>>> This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved
>>>>>> differently than Big8 usenet.
>>>
>>>>> It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
>>>>> usenet" have to do with anything?
>>>
>>>> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We
>>>> have an european point of view, here you cannot say something
>>>> antisemitic in public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we
>>>> are more vigilant on this kind of things.
>>>
>>> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good
>>> speech, lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship
>>> wouldn't have kept my family alive.
>>
>> Counterspeech hasn't prevented America from inching ever closer
>> towards committing some atrocity of comparable magnitude, either.
>
>Murdering hundreds of thousands of natives and stealing their country
>wasn't an atrocity? Then the "conquering" descendents surrender the
>country to a bunch of third world invaders without firing a shot like
>the French?
>What kind of insane behavior is that?
>Starting a "civil war" because Eastern bankers wanted their cut of the
>slave trade revenue, using the pretense of "freeing slaves" wasn't an
>atrocity? Then allowing the 13% descendents of the "freed slaves" to
>totally destroy the foundation of business to buyer protocols by
>robbery which goes unpunished?
>Those kinds of atrocities?

it's the good guys vs. the other good guys . . . that way, the good guys always win?
it does seem like this newsgroup is becoming more religious and political these days
and that's all fine and good; troll farms only switched servers since google croaked
using the same old sock puppets and psyops obfuscation tactics ... business as usual

On 28 Feb 2024, "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> posted some
news:uro9tt$3jnb$1@dont-email.me:

> immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>>On 28/02/24 15:21, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:
>
>>>>>>You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We
>>>>>>have an european point of view, here you cannot say something
>>>>>>antisemitic in public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe
>>>>>>we are more vigilant on this kind of things.
>
>>>>>I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good
>>>>>speech, lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech.
>>>>>Censorship wouldn't have kept my family alive.
>
>>>>I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge
>>>>Analytica or Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way.
>>>>Maybe if Hitler had said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in
>>>>concentrations camps and my country will be in ruins in 12 years"
>>>>people wouldn't have vote for him, but he said everything would be
>>>>fine, and people believed him.
>
>>>Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
>>>known whom he was.
>
>>That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.
>
> Hitler was literally arrested for attempting a coup. This didn't stop
> him.

Why was Hitler wrong for rekindling the spirit of nationalism in a
country whose traditions and customs were being abused and disregarded
by uninvited disrepectful immigrants? Churchill did the same thing for
Britain.

Germans are nice people, I grew up with German and Polish people.

--
Knock before you enter, ask before you take.

On 28/02/24 22:51, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>> On 28/02/24 15:21, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:05:17:
>>>>
>>>>>> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
>>>>>> an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
>>>>>> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
>>>>>> on this kind of things.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am an American and a Jew. Bad speech may be countered by good speech,
>>>>> lies by truth, dangerous speech by counterspeech. Censorship wouldn't
>>>>> have kept my family alive.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that works, look what happened with Cambridge Analytica or
>>>> Twitter, the lies always win if you do it this way. Maybe if Hitler had
>>>> said "I'm going to kill 6 millions people in concentrations camps and my
>>>> country will be in ruins in 12 years" people wouldn't have vote for him,
>>>> but he said everything would be fine, and people believed him.
>>>
>>> Uh, his book was published long before he was first elected. It was
>>> known whom he was.
>>
>> That's exactly Eric's point. Counterspeech didn't stop Hitler.
>
> Hitler was literally arrested for attempting a coup. This didn't stop him.

Also true. If they'd kept him locked up until he died, it would have.

>
> Godwin

Hitler was introduced into the topic several replies ago. Are you okay?
And fix the way your client handles blank lines in quoted text.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:42:20 dans
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
>
> > Get real! Dizum generates nowhere even remotely close to the Google
> > spam of the previous few months.
>
> There was a discussion not long to determine where the spammers
> will go after Google, Dizum seems to be an alternative.

I don't think so, but no-one knows for sure, so we'll see.

Anyway, if the spam starts again, the admins can take similar action
as they did for the Google Groups spam.

And once again, stuff you don't like isn't spam, it's just stuff you
don't like.

> > Anyway, it's up to Ray to decide if he carries Dizum posts or not.
> > It's not upto you, Adam, me or anyone else.
>
> Well can I still say what I want, or do you want to censor me ? :)

Yes, you can say what you want and i can say what I want if I don't
agree with it (all within limits).

> > Likewise, it's upto the admin of your server (Yamo?) to not carry
> > Dizum posts, *if* that's what he's doing.
>
> Yes, and I'm happy with that. On the fr.* hierarchy the Dizum posts
> were cancelled for years but the bot that did it stopped working
> unfortunately.

Like for the other cancels, canceling stuff you don't like isn't the
right way, but 'we' have been there umpteen times, so there's not need
for yet another round.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Frank Slootweg a écrit le Tue, 27 Feb 2024 19:41:31 dans
> news.admin.net-abuse.usenet :
>
> >> This is a question of civilization, French usenet evolved differently
> >> than Big8 usenet.
>
> > It has nothing to do with "civilization". And what does "French
> > usenet" have to do with anything?
>
> You have an american point of view, with the first amendement. We have
> an european point of view, here you cannot say something antisemitic in
> public, we had a sort of war a while ago so maybe we are more vigilant
> on this kind of things.

I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands, so I don't "have an american
point of view".

As to your example, you apparently have a misunderstanding about the
(correct) American meaning of "freedom of speech", because your example
has nothing to do with that. However, since many (most?) Americans also
do not know the correct meaning of "freedom of speech" (in an American
legal context), your misunderstanding is understandable.

> > FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter Dizum.
> > As I said, 'problem' solved.
>
> But people answer to people using Dizum, so your filter is useless.

You can filter responses to posts from Dizum, but the question is if
that is desirable in all cases. When someone responds to unwanted
material, that does not automatically mean that that response is also
unwanted.

> > But each admin is free to (not) carry whatever does (not) please hir
> > and likewise, each user is free to filter whatever does not please hir.
>
> Yes, of course, according to the laws of his country.
>
> > Bottom line: Again you're basically advocating to censor stuff you
> > don't like. It's not going to work.
>
> It's not what I don't like, it's a server that has a long history of
> abuse (exactly like Google, but you did not cry to censorship when
> people cleaned the Google shit), do they still have "sewer output" in
> their path ?

I don't see 'spam' (mostly - but not neccessarily- commercial content,
posted in bulk quantities) from Dizum.

As to "the Google shit": Canceling 'spam' isn't abuse, because it's
defined action *against* abuse. So there was no reason whatsoever to
"cry to censorship". So please don't let your misunderstanding
misrepresent my position.

And yes, Dizum still has "sewer" (not "sewer output") in their path.

immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
> On 28/02/24 00:06, Ricardo Hernandez wrote:
> > On 27 Feb 2024, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> posted some
> > news:urldpk.vd4.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net:
> >
> >> FYI, I don't like most (all?) Dizum posts/posters, so I filter
> >> Dizum.
> >> As I said, 'problem' solved.
> >
> > That's the beauty of usenet. Everyone is free to set their own limits
> > of enlightenment.
>
> It's not beautiful, it's just the way it is. People are not even
> informed that they are speaking into the void, or why.

FWIW, I consider public plonking both inappropriate and childish.

As to "or why": If I end an exchange, i.e. there was an exchange, I
will normally say so and why. If I killfile a poster, because for
whatever reason I don't want to see hir postings, I will *not* say so.

Le 29/02/2024 à 14:12, Frank Slootweg a écrit :

> Anyway, if the spam starts again, the admins can take similar action
> as they did for the Google Groups spam.

I'm sure they will, but what about free speech for spammers ? :)
> And once again, stuff you don't like isn't spam, it's just stuff you
> don't like.

I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text message.
I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is pedophile with his
physical address (this is only an example that I saw years ago, from
Dizum).

> Yes, you can say what you want and i can say what I want if I don't
> agree with it (all within limits).

That's great, I have nothing against this.
> Like for the other cancels, canceling stuff you don't like isn't the
> right way, but 'we' have been there umpteen times, so there's not need
> for yet another round.

There has been repeted abuse from Dizum, maybe they manage this better
than before (they didn't do it at all so it can only get better).

Le 29/02/2024 à 14:34, Frank Slootweg a écrit :

> I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands, so I don't "have an american
> point of view".

You can have an American point of view everywhere in the world :)
> As to your example, you apparently have a misunderstanding about the
> (correct) American meaning of "freedom of speech", because your example
> has nothing to do with that. However, since many (most?) Americans also
> do not know the correct meaning of "freedom of speech" (in an American
> legal context), your misunderstanding is understandable.

Explain to me (maybe in a better group).
>> But people answer to people using Dizum, so your filter is useless.
> You can filter responses to posts from Dizum, but the question is if
> that is desirable in all cases. When someone responds to unwanted
> material, that does not automatically mean that that response is also
> unwanted.

So I will see only a small part of what is written in the group and that's
not better.
> I don't see 'spam' (mostly - but not neccessarily- commercial content,
> posted in bulk quantities) from Dizum.

No, for the moment it's only for insults with multiple identities,
moderatly great.
> As to "the Google shit": Canceling 'spam' isn't abuse, because it's
> defined action *against* abuse. So there was no reason whatsoever to
> "cry to censorship". So please don't let your misunderstanding
> misrepresent my position.

Sometimes the limit is thin, in fr.* we had a guy who posted his
"mathematical discoveries" with Google, ten or twenty times a day, it
meant nothing and made the group unreadable, so we had to cancel him. Now
we don't have to do it anymore.

> And yes, Dizum still has "sewer" (not "sewer output") in their path.

That's great.

Eric M <conanospamic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 29/02/2024 à 14:12, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>
> > Anyway, if the spam starts again, the admins can take similar action
> > as they did for the Google Groups spam.
>
> I'm sure they will, but what about free speech for spammers ? :)
>
> > And once again, stuff you don't like isn't spam, it's just stuff you
> > don't like.
>
> I totally agree with that, but there can be real abuse in a text message.
> I don't mean just insults, I mean saying someone is pedophile with his
> physical address (this is only an example that I saw years ago, from
> Dizum).

That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying* to
cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't going
to make it go away.

> > Yes, you can say what you want and i can say what I want if I don't
> > agree with it (all within limits).
>
> That's great, I have nothing against this.
>
> > Like for the other cancels, canceling stuff you don't like isn't the
> > right way, but 'we' have been there umpteen times, so there's not need
> > for yet another round.
>
> There has been repeted abuse from Dizum, maybe they manage this better
> than before (they didn't do it at all so it can only get better).

See above.

Am 29.02.2024 schrieb Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>:

> That would be a case for law inforcement. Canceling (read: *trying*
> to cancel) - or filtering it at the server level - this stuff isn't
> going to make it go away.

Making it harder to inject that is indeed a way to have less of that.
Since aioe is down and mixmin doesn't allow unauthenticated posting,
such stuff in de.* decreased significantly.