To all,
Below is an email response I just received from Dizum after writing to them
yesterday. If you want to contact a human and not just get an automated
response, use the following [email protected] address. Using [email protected]
gets the automated message that eventually tells you how to contact a human.
It obviously works and it was a timely response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Hi Bob,
We can not block the individual as we do not know who he/she is.
If the participants on the rec.woodworking agree to not allow
anonymous postings (or postings via mail2news gateway) and you
implement that in a 'newsgroup charter', I will block
rec.woodworking so no message can be posted via dizum.
(Check http://www.uvv.org/ on how to make an official vote)
In our FAQ we state that forging someone's email address is
not allowed and we can block forged email addresses so that
cannot happen again.
Please also read:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/jargon/K/kill-file.html
If you use windows you might consider using:
http://www.netaxs.com/home/v/nfilter/, if you filter on
path=sewer-output you will not see any messages from
dizum again.
Cheers,
Dizum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
If any of you are now receiving spam or other junk email from Dizum, read
their procedures on how you can have your email address (or domain) blocked
at Dizum. Simple procedure of sending them a properly formatted email.
For those using nfilter, you may want to use the filter above.
I haven't read the material about voting and charters yet but if anyone is
familiar with what/how we change the charter and do this, he will block the
newsgroup. (If the other post about blocking it for 90 days was real, I
would have thought that would have been mentioned). At any rate, it appears
we now have a permanent method that can be applied to not allow anonymous
postings.
What say ya'll ?
Bob S.
Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 2:51pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Bob) says:
To all,<snip>
If I don't show up for the vote, you are hereby authorized to vote
for me - as long as it's voting to block rec.woodworking from receiving
post from 'em.
JOAT
If you think dogs can't count, try putting three dog biscuits in your
pocket and then giving Fido only two of them.
- Phil Pastoret
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:51:10 GMT, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>What say ya'll ?
Personally, I like the State's Atty route.
The troll can always find another anonymizer.
Barry
In article <[email protected]>, Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:
> What say ya'll ?
Aye.
--
Formosa's Law: "The truly insane have enough on their plates without us adding
to it."
Bob wrote:
To all,
>If the participants on the rec.woodworking agree to not allow
>anonymous postings (or postings via mail2news gateway) and you
>implement that in a 'newsgroup charter', I will block
>rec.woodworking so no message can be posted via dizum.
>(Check http://www.uvv.org/ on how to make an official vote)
---
>I haven't read the material about voting and charters yet but if anyone is
>familiar with what/how we change the charter and do this, he will block the
>newsgroup. (If the other post about blocking it for 90 days was real, I
>would have thought that would have been mentioned). At any rate, it appears
>we now have a permanent method that can be applied to not allow anonymous
>postings.
>What say ya'll ?
I think that other than the loss of anonymity, it's worth doing.
The degree of loss will have to be decided by each of us. Some
post with addys in plain view, others with them spelled out,
others with obviously false addys. The question is, "What degree
is allowable?" I would think that having a human determinable
addy included in a sig line would be sufficient to fulfill the
requirement for non-anonymity and still foil the spambots. If so,
count me in.
Dave in Fairfax
--
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
Gotcha covered but ya might wanna reconsider. I was planning on having a
beer blast at your place so we could all pee on the fence after the voting
and work on curing this damn arthritis.........;-)
Bob S.
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 2:51pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Bob) says:
> To all,<snip>
>
> If I don't show up for the vote, you are hereby authorized to vote
> for me - as long as it's voting to block rec.woodworking from receiving
> post from 'em.
>
> JOAT
> If you think dogs can't count, try putting three dog biscuits in your
> pocket and then giving Fido only two of them.
> - Phil Pastoret
>
Wed, Apr 28, 2004, 11:50pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Bob) says:
Gotcha covered but ya might wanna reconsider. I was planning on having a
beer blast at your place so we could all pee on the fence after the
voting and work on curing this damn arthritis.........;-)
Where do you get "we" from?
I'll spring for beer, for anyone that will pee on the fence.
JOAT
If you think dogs can't count, try putting three dog biscuits in your
pocket and then giving Fido only two of them.
- Phil Pastoret
In article <[email protected]>,
B a r r y <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:51:10 GMT, "Bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >What say ya'll ?
>
can't hurt.
Below is the email just received a moment ago from Dizum answering the
question about the post that was supposedly made by Dizum.
Executive Summary - Fake.
Bob S.
.....................email from Dizum........................
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:44:11AM -0400, Bob Sosenko wrote:
> Thank you for your response and I will read the material you referenced.
>
> One quick question. There was a post made to rec.woodworking that was
> supposedly from Dizum, that stated "Due to numerous complaints that you
were
> blocking rec.woodworking for 90 days...."
>
> Can you confirm that the post was legitimate (and we have 90 days to get
our
> charter changed) or was it a bogus post?
Nope, we do not post on usenet. So the posting is a fake.
As for the 90 days that is also bogus, the block will start if a
majority votes in favor be it in 2004, 2005 or ..
Cheers,
Dizum