From: Ralph Babel (rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de)
Date: Sat Oct 13 2001 - 14:07:59 CDT
Brad Templeton wrote:
> Unless remote sites somehow have decided to remember that
> all articles from rbabel@babylon.pfm-mainz.de MUST be
> signed, and reject any that are not signed by you,
> forgeries are possible.
Unless remote sites somehow have decided to
honor your cancels, you're out of luck, too.
> The only way to actually stop forgeries is to have a
> set of newsgroups which accept _only_ signed articles.
It's not "newsgroups" that accept articles. It's individual
servers run by admins. Want to bind every single one with a
contract? Good luck.
> So you want to be able to cancel that post in your name
> that says "all hail bin laden" that's getting you the
> death threats.
I understand that. It doesn't work, though.
> A site can be clearly defined as a number of things,
> including postings where the from/reply-to is in
> a domain belonging to the site,
_News_ articles are none of a _mail_ provider's business.
> or postings that came through an injector of a site,
Fine, so now answer the part about parallel injection.
> The ISP wants to cancel the user's account
Contract issue.
> but also ideally get rid of the
> postings to stop the complaints.
Again, "cancel" doesn't imply that.
>>> If somebody forges a spam attack appearing to come
>>> from my site, I should be able to cancel it.
>>
>> If the so-called "spam attack" doesn't carry a valid
>> signature, everyone can recognize that it didn't
>> come from "your site". Not a cancel issue.
>
> That's not how it works today nor is likely to work.
The same could be said about _your_ system.