Re: Rogue cancel from miakibot

Ray Banana avait soumis l'idée :
> Thus spake llpminibot <[email protected]>
>  
> Hi,
>
> I'm not trying to decide who is right and who is wrong and who started
> all this mess (I've given up on that more than 10 years ago as it's
> hopeless and a waste of time).
>
> However, I would like to point out a few aspects for the consideration
> of those involved in this religious war:
>
> There are only two types of legitimate cancel messages:
>
> 1. Cancels by original authors
> 2. Cancels by the administrator of the server where the article was
>    submitted.
>
> Additionally, some people or institutions run cancel bots for specific
> purposes. These cancel messages have to be signed by a registered key
> and server admins who wish to honor these cancel messages need to import
> the keys into their keyrings in order to verify the authenticity of the
> cancel messages. 
>
> *None of the above applies to the miakibots*.
>
> As a consequence of rogue cancels floods, the vast majority of Usenet servers
> nowadays simply ignore cancel messages or have implemented 
> cancel-lock/cancel-key checking in order to determine the legitimacy of 
> cancel messages.
>
> This leaves miakibot in the role of a masturbating chimp, pursuing his
> own frivolous pleasure.
>
> A final remark on NoCEMs:
>
> These were never meant to be applied to servers, they were supposed to
> be used by end users as suggestions to ignore certain articles.
> This idea failed due to the lack of NoCEM support in news clients.
>
> Apart from that, the same requirements (registered bots, signed messages)
> that apply to spam cancel bots are also valid for NoCEM issuers.
>
> Conclusion: Whatever the reasons for the miakibot activities may be,
> they are using the wrong tools.

I agree with you.

Unfortunately I see that the abusive cancellations of miakibot have
resumed on "Aioe" server :-(