Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote in
news:87d5ymu8pk.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu:
>> The UDP would be aimed at the news server(s) at which the mailing list
>> is being improperly gated. It is their responsibility to reject
>> improper traffic. As these same servers would also likely carry the
>> group in question, I have serious doubts that they would remove them
>> without the threat of a UDP hanging over their head. Whether just the
>> group is blacklisted or the entire server would be the subject of
>> another thread entirely.
>
> If someone actually seriously tries to do this, I will personally offer
> that news server a feed to break the UDP.
If you're willing to do that, then you should just issue the control
messages for all 21 groups right now. Why would you want to block others
from trying to hold a net abuser accountable? For the UDP to be successful,
it would take more than two proponents. You would really override the
outcome?
[I'm really not trying to flame Marc by calling him a net abuser, but isn't
that the category he would fall under, in all seriousness? You are giving
him the chance to fix his past mistakes. He won't enter the news.groups
discussion, and he stated that he will not break up *any* of the rogue
groups if the CFV fails.]
> Now, please try to tone down the level of confrontation and act like
> adults, okay?
It was Marc who set the tone, by claiming that the rogue groups will
continue to operate as they currently do, regardless of the CFV outcome.
--
Bill
