"[13] Q: What is your policy on forgery?
A: We have a policy against a user of Dizum making posts in a way that
uses the email address of another user on Usenet or the Internet, in
an attempt to deceive readers of the true identity of the poster,
without that email address owner's permission. In addition, if you are
the victim or witness to a forgery, you may want to contact the
appropriate law enforcement agency so they may then contact us and
follow-up as they feel appropriate. If you feel that your email
address is being forged and you do not want to make use of the Dizum
mail2news gateway nor the Dizum remailer we can add that address to
the blockfile. This will disable any postings with that from line. "
Regards,
Tom.
Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> A: We have a policy <snip>
Could you make sense out of that? Seems to me they're saying "call the
cops, you big baby, and maybe we'll do something if the cops call us".
Dizum does not respond to reports of abuse.
djb
--
Formosa's Law: "The truly insane have enough on their plates without us adding
to it."
In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Initial point-of-contact is "[email protected]". This'll get an auto-response
> which contains a separate address to mail to, 'for real issues'.
I haven't seen even an auto-response from this address.
AFAICT dizum doesn't care one bit about what crap passes through their
servers.
--
Formosa's Law: "The truly insane have enough on their plates without us adding
to it."
??From: Bay Area Dave <[email protected]>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Subject: Re: dizum.com - policy on forgery
References: <[email protected]>
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 31
Message-ID:
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.246.78.202
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
X-Trace: newssvr25.news.prodigy.com 1082906486 ST000
4.246.78.202 (Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:21:26 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:21:26 EDT
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1:
Q[R_@SVETBUKRPLY\JMDM^P@VZ\LPCXLLBWLOOAFQATJUZ]CDVW[AKK[J\]^
HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS@@BP^]C@RHS_A
GDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^_CZFWPGHZIXW@C[AFKBBQS@E@DAZ
]VDFUNTQQ]FN
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 15:21:26 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.ash.giganews.com
rec.woodworking:1010989??
I went to dizum.com and couldn't find a way to contact them
about the forgeries. I read through the "abuse" section
several times. What did I miss? :)
dave
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I went to dizum.com and couldn't find a way to contact
them
> about the forgeries. I read through the "abuse" section
> several times. What did I miss? :)
>
> dave
>
> Tom Watson wrote:
>
> > "[13] Q: What is your policy on forgery?
> >
> > A: We have a policy against a user of Dizum making posts
in a way that
> > uses the email address of another user on Usenet or the
Internet, in
> > an attempt to deceive readers of the true identity of
the poster,
> > without that email address owner's permission. In
addition, if you are
> > the victim or witness to a forgery, you may want to
contact the
> > appropriate law enforcement agency so they may then
contact us and
> > follow-up as they feel appropriate. If you feel that
your email
> > address is being forged and you do not want to make use
of the Dizum
> > mail2news gateway nor the Dizum remailer we can add that
address to
> > the blockfile. This will disable any postings with that
from line. "
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tom.
> >
> > Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> > tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> > http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
>
Tom Watson <[email protected]> writes:
>without that email address owner's permission. In addition, if you are
>the victim or witness to a forgery, you may want to contact the
>appropriate law enforcement agency so they may then contact us and
>follow-up as they feel appropriate. If you feel that your email
Like any law enforcement agency is going to care about someone forging a
username on Usenet, unless they are using the forgery to commit a real
crime.
Brian Elfert
Brian Elfert responds:
>
>Like any law enforcement agency is going to care about someone forging a
>username on Usenet, unless they are using the forgery to commit a real
>crime.
>
Forgery and fraud. What would YOU define as a "real crime"?
Charlie Self
"Wars spring from unseen and generally insignificant causes, the first outbreak
being often but an explosion of anger." Thucydides
[email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>Brian Elfert responds:
>>
>>Like any law enforcement agency is going to care about someone forging a
>>username on Usenet, unless they are using the forgery to commit a real
>>crime.
>>
>Forgery and fraud. What would YOU define as a "real crime"?
'
Yes, they are crimes, but normally those crimes are used to gain items of
monetary value.
If a forger isn't really hurting someone other than smearing their name on
usenet and they aren't a public figure, the police probably wouldn't even
take a report.
Brian Elfert
Brian Elfert wrote:
> [email protected] (Charlie Self) writes:
>
>>Brian Elfert responds:
>
>>>
>>>Like any law enforcement agency is going to care about someone forging a
>>>username on Usenet, unless they are using the forgery to commit a real
>>>crime.
>>>
>
>>Forgery and fraud. What would YOU define as a "real crime"?
> '
> Yes, they are crimes, but normally those crimes are used to gain items of
> monetary value.
>
> If a forger isn't really hurting someone other than smearing their name on
> usenet and they aren't a public figure, the police probably wouldn't even
> take a report.
Unless of course the person whose name is being forged is a law enforcement
officer of some kind, or related to one. Pissing off strangers is not
generally a good idea.
> Brian Elfert
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
> Brian Elfert responds:
>
> >
> >Like any law enforcement agency is going to care about someone forging a
> >username on Usenet, unless they are using the forgery to commit a real
> >crime.
> >
>
> Forgery and fraud. What would YOU define as a "real crime"?
Fraud:
Deceitful conduct designed to manipulate another person to give
something of value by (1) lying, (2) by repeating something that is or
ought to have been known by the fraudulent party as false or suspect or
(3) by concealing a fact from the other party which may have saved that
party from being cheated. The existence of fraud will cause a court to
void a contract and can give rise to criminal liability.
http://www.lawinfo.com/lawdictionary/dict-f.htm
I do not see any fraud.
Considering there was no apparent intent to do anybody out of any money
or to do (or incite) physical damage to anyone, I seriously doubt there
could be criminal charges that would even remotely stick.
Libel perhaps, but that is not criminal (but can be very serious).
Paul, I gotta love a guy who uses "miscreant"!!
I miss Sledgehammer... <g>
dave
Paul Kierstead wrote:
> In article <250420041702545716%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
> Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A: We have a policy <snip>
>>
>>Could you make sense out of that? Seems to me they're saying "call the
>>cops, you big baby, and maybe we'll do something if the cops call us".
>>
>>Dizum does not respond to reports of abuse.
>
>
> You should note their slogan: "Dizum Internet Services: Your Internet
> Problem Provider"
>
> They explicitly say that they protect people from getting TOS
> (termination of service) from flame wars; translated, they allow (and
> partially exist to) people to be as rude as possible, quite possibly
> beyond the person's ISP TOS (terms of service). Their quite clearly
> stated position is that if you see something illegal going on then call
> the cops, not them.
>
> About the only thing that might get them to move on the issue is to find
> the wreck twit using dizum to spam (which they do not approve of).
>
> Other solutions are to complain to dizum's service provider (probably
> limited success). There are solutions in the grey zone; for example,
> enough people visit their web-site "regularly", then it might get a
> little irritating to them. Submitting a *lot* of abuse reports might get
> irritating. It also rides a fine legal edge. Anything beyond that is
> quite possibly illegal and almost certainly an abuse of *your* ISPs TOS.
>
> Basically, you have to live with it, for the most part. The miscreant is
> a pain in the butt, but the recent virulent anti-catholic postings were
> much more worrying to me, at least.
>
> The miscreant is simple someone who has a fairly severe mental illness
> and some obvious issues with aggression. I very much doubt he is
> entirely successful keeping them out of real life and has probably had
> run-ins with the law previously and will have further ones. Although he
> is aggravating and rude, you should feel bad for him; this is a mental
> illness, not just a jerk.
"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "[13] Q: What is your policy on forgery?
>
> A: We have a policy against a user of Dizum making posts in a way that
> uses the email address of another user on Usenet or the Internet, in
> an attempt to deceive readers of the true identity of the poster,
> without that email address owner's permission. In addition, if you are
> the victim or witness to a forgery, you may want to contact the
> appropriate law enforcement agency so they may then contact us and
> follow-up as they feel appropriate. If you feel that your email
> address is being forged and you do not want to make use of the Dizum
> mail2news gateway nor the Dizum remailer we can add that address to
> the blockfile. This will disable any postings with that from line. "
Interesting, but I don't think the same e-mail address is being used. Seems
only the user name is being used.
I think he was repeating what Tom said because That was apparently what you
missed.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> exuse me? I don't see an answer from you, amongst all the
> header/body info you included.
>
> dave
>
> Pop Rivet wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
perfect! Thanks, Robert.
dave
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I went to dizum.com and couldn't find a way to contact them
>>about the forgeries. I read through the "abuse" section
>>several times. What did I miss? :)
>>
>
>
> Initial point-of-contact is "[email protected]". This'll get an auto-response
> which contains a separate address to mail to, 'for real issues'.
>
>
>>dave
>
I went to dizum.com and couldn't find a way to contact them
about the forgeries. I read through the "abuse" section
several times. What did I miss? :)
dave
Tom Watson wrote:
> "[13] Q: What is your policy on forgery?
>
> A: We have a policy against a user of Dizum making posts in a way that
> uses the email address of another user on Usenet or the Internet, in
> an attempt to deceive readers of the true identity of the poster,
> without that email address owner's permission. In addition, if you are
> the victim or witness to a forgery, you may want to contact the
> appropriate law enforcement agency so they may then contact us and
> follow-up as they feel appropriate. If you feel that your email
> address is being forged and you do not want to make use of the Dizum
> mail2news gateway nor the Dizum remailer we can add that address to
> the blockfile. This will disable any postings with that from line. "
>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Tom.
>
> Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
In article <[email protected]>,
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>I went to dizum.com and couldn't find a way to contact them
>about the forgeries. I read through the "abuse" section
>several times. What did I miss? :)
>
Initial point-of-contact is "[email protected]". This'll get an auto-response
which contains a separate address to mail to, 'for real issues'.
>dave
>
>Tom Watson wrote:
>
>> "[13] Q: What is your policy on forgery?
>>
>> A: We have a policy against a user of Dizum making posts in a way that
>> uses the email address of another user on Usenet or the Internet, in
>> an attempt to deceive readers of the true identity of the poster,
>> without that email address owner's permission. In addition, if you are
>> the victim or witness to a forgery, you may want to contact the
>> appropriate law enforcement agency so they may then contact us and
>> follow-up as they feel appropriate. If you feel that your email
>> address is being forged and you do not want to make use of the Dizum
>> mail2news gateway nor the Dizum remailer we can add that address to
>> the blockfile. This will disable any postings with that from line. "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tom.
>>
>> Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
>> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
>> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
>
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 11:57:35 -0400, "Pop Rivet" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Too bad this is a text-only group or you could click these
>links: but you can get the same (or updated) info yourself
>at google.
>
--snip--
Looks like the denizens of dizum are a plague on more than just the wreck. I'm told, and have no desire to argue either way, that
anonymous remailers serve (or can serve) a valid purpose. But I'm sure that support for pointless harassment is not that purpose and
that they would police their users. And before I get flamed for advocating a restriction on first amendment rights, note that a
strict reading of the Constitution, as amended, only prevents the US Congress from making laws abridging free speech. That is far
from being a blanket endorsement of free speech.
I assume the trolls are still at it. I notice that there are significantly more headers available than Agent downloads when I get
new headers from the Wreck. I assume the difference are those that are filtered out by NetProxy, nee nFilter.
Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA
"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:250420041702545716%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > A: We have a policy <snip>
>
> Could you make sense out of that? Seems to me they're saying "call the
> cops, you big baby, and maybe we'll do something if the cops call us".
>
> Dizum does not respond to reports of abuse.
Dizum is probably run by the terrorists.
In article <250420041702545716%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Tom Watson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > A: We have a policy <snip>
>
> Could you make sense out of that? Seems to me they're saying "call the
> cops, you big baby, and maybe we'll do something if the cops call us".
>
> Dizum does not respond to reports of abuse.
You should note their slogan: "Dizum Internet Services: Your Internet
Problem Provider"
They explicitly say that they protect people from getting TOS
(termination of service) from flame wars; translated, they allow (and
partially exist to) people to be as rude as possible, quite possibly
beyond the person's ISP TOS (terms of service). Their quite clearly
stated position is that if you see something illegal going on then call
the cops, not them.
About the only thing that might get them to move on the issue is to find
the wreck twit using dizum to spam (which they do not approve of).
Other solutions are to complain to dizum's service provider (probably
limited success). There are solutions in the grey zone; for example,
enough people visit their web-site "regularly", then it might get a
little irritating to them. Submitting a *lot* of abuse reports might get
irritating. It also rides a fine legal edge. Anything beyond that is
quite possibly illegal and almost certainly an abuse of *your* ISPs TOS.
Basically, you have to live with it, for the most part. The miscreant is
a pain in the butt, but the recent virulent anti-catholic postings were
much more worrying to me, at least.
The miscreant is simple someone who has a fairly severe mental illness
and some obvious issues with aggression. I very much doubt he is
entirely successful keeping them out of real life and has probably had
run-ins with the law previously and will have further ones. Although he
is aggravating and rude, you should feel bad for him; this is a mental
illness, not just a jerk.
Apologies to Dave; got distracted.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think he was repeating what Tom said because That was
apparently what you
> missed.
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > exuse me? I don't see an answer from you, amongst all
the
> > header/body info you included.
> >
> > dave
> >
> > Pop Rivet wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> >
>
>