From: karl@MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) Subject: Re: Joseph Dunphy 's attack on soc.culture.israel Date: 28 Dec 1995 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: <4buhgb$bdf@Venus.mcs.com> references: <4b9ont$aem@jik.datasrv.co.il> <4bpj7p$rli@panix3.panix.com> <4bpqm r$kd5@Venus.mcs.com> <4bq8ik$l6i@panix3.panix.com> organization: MCSNet Ops, Chicago, IL newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc In article <4bq8ik$l6i@panix3.panix.com>, Seth Breidbart wrote: >In article <4bpqmr$kd5@Venus.mcs.com>, Karl Denninger wrote: >> >>To examine logs one must have something to match against. >> >>Saying "I got 2 MB of email from xxxx" is insufficient. > >Why? I'd think that a competent administrator could easily determine >the truth of that statement. Really? Why should I sift through 420MB X 5 of logs (yes, that's one day's worth) to look for something when the person complaining won't provide a key to look up the index from? I believe requiring the unadultered, and unaltered headers is very reasonable. We're NOT a small site, and have multiple mail handlers. The headers allow us to substantiate that in fact the transmission took place (or was forged) as well as telling us WHICH log to look at. >In other words, people have to fill out _your_ forms for anything to >happen. Every reasonable provider (e.g. AOL, Prodigy, Microsoft >Network -- how does it feel to be lower than they?) just requires >sufficient information. (A simple email to any of them, "It appears >that your user is posting a spam with this subject: ..." will >cause investigation and, if warranted, action.) Forms? No. We ask for the specifications and charges on first contact. This gets you a speedier resolution, and lets us get to the heart of the matter, make a determination, and take action more quickly. That's in the best interests of people who REALLY have something concrete to report, and prevents wild goose chases. >Other providers merely ignore threats, and act based on the facts made >available to them. Rule #1 of dealing with people: Don't threaten them unless (1) you mean it, and (2) you don't CARE if they help you. >It's rational for me to report net abuse in simple understandable >terms. It is not rational for me to look up your requirements for the >hoops I must run through in order to do so. It's much more rational >for me to request that mcs.com be aliased out of Usenet. Hoops? Again, since when is it a "hoop" to require verifyable headers on messages you ALLEGE came from our customers? >> We take TOS issues very seriously and can and do >>suspend or revoke accounts for violations. > >Good. Unfortunately, you don't seem to check to determine whether >violations have occurred when they are alleged, however. We sure do. If enough information is provided to make that a reasonable task. >"back-spammed" (his term); you took no action when I reported that. Can you prove that we took no action? Or are you ASSuming? >I _very recently_ sent you email that one of your users is posting to >a newsgroup exhorting people to violate its faq. He has done so >within the last week, I believe. If I send you a copy of one of those >posts, will you investigate and act? (I don't expect you to act on my >word alone, of course; for one thing, only your logs can determine if >the post is a forgery.) Did you send me a COMPLETE copy of the post, including the headers? If not, why not? That is a REASONABLE procedure that ISPs have asked for since I've been on the net. >Calling for you to be aliased out isn't illegal, therefore a threat to >do so isn't extortion. Aliasing you out isn't illegal either, >fortunately. Threatening to do harm unless someone takes a specific action (which they are under no compulsion legally to take) is in fact extortion. >However, I think you've misinterpreted the crime of extortion, so your >statement isn't true. Crime? Who said "crime"? >>Nope. Just add you to the "complaints are invalid when from you" list. > >So much for your dedication to facts. > >Seth Truth requires that you actually be interested in the facts. Kamens and Skivin are not here, and IMHO historically never have been.