PING: Jim Logajan

[Skywise]

Jim, I saw your post over in supernews.support about not seeing
posts from superfeed. Point blank, Supernews actively blocks all
messages from newsfeeds and it's affiliates, which includes
superfeed. Also, they will not answer your question.

Do a search in supernews.support and supernews.general for my
posts. You'll see I've gone 'round and 'round on this issue.
You'll find the reaction from non-supernews employees in those
groups is quite hostile on the subject, and supernews is totally
quiet.

Oh, and there was some brief discussion about it in this group
as well.

I hope you aren't paying for their (lack of) service.

Apologies to the group for the OT.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jim Logajan]

Skywise > wrote:
> Jim, I saw your post over in supernews.support about not seeing
> posts from superfeed. Point blank, Supernews actively blocks all
> messages from newsfeeds and it's affiliates, which includes
> superfeed. Also, they will not answer your question.
>
> Do a search in supernews.support and supernews.general for my
> posts. You'll see I've gone 'round and 'round on this issue.
> You'll find the reaction from non-supernews employees in those
> groups is quite hostile on the subject, and supernews is totally
> quiet.

Yes, I remember your posts on the subject. You were treated rather roughly
and unfairly, IMHO.

> Oh, and there was some brief discussion about it in this group
> as well.

Yup - and I said I would contact them directly myself at the time - but
other things came up and I never got around to it. :-(

> I hope you aren't paying for their (lack of) service.

Actually I do pay directly for their service. I help co-moderate several
moderated newsgroups and needed a provider I could complain to without
running into the problems you clearly ran into.

I'll just have to send the question directly to them via their support e-
mail since they haven't posted any reply yet.

[Skywise]

Jim Logajan > wrote in news:Xns97BFAE380137JamesLLugojcom@
216.168.3.30:

<Snipola>
> I'll just have to send the question directly to them via their support e-
> mail since they haven't posted any reply yet.

I'd be most interested knowing their reply if you get one. I
never did. I get Supersucks through my ISP for 'free' so I
had them ask. They did get a reply, but it was basically
just blowing them off.

Again, apologies to the rest of the group. It just happens that
of all the groups I read, R.A.P. is the most seriously affected
by this problem by far.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jim Logajan]

Skywise > wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote in
> news:Xns97BFAE380137JamesLLugojcom@ 216.168.3.30:
>
> <Snipola>
>> I'll just have to send the question directly to them via their
>> support e- mail since they haven't posted any reply yet.
>
> I'd be most interested knowing their reply if you get one. I
> never did.

Well, so far I haven't seen a response to my post or my e-mail to them.

> I get Supersucks through my ISP for 'free' so I
> had them ask. They did get a reply, but it was basically
> just blowing them off.

I suppose I could point out that if they are filtering posts, they are
probably violating their own contract, which in clause 7 states "You
understand that we are providing you with unfiltered access to Usenet.":
http://www.supernews.com/terms_indi.html

> Again, apologies to the rest of the group. It just happens that
> of all the groups I read, R.A.P. is the most seriously affected
> by this problem by far.
>
> Brian

[Skywise]

Jim Logajan > wrote in news:Xns97C0B8367747CJamesLLugojcom@
216.168.3.30:

<Snipola>
> I suppose I could point out that if they are filtering posts, they are
> probably violating their own contract, which in clause 7 states "You
> understand that we are providing you with unfiltered access to Usenet.":
> http://www.supernews.com/terms_indi.html

Oh really?!?!? They do in fact filter messages and have admitted
to doing so in their support groups. For example, they have had
a filter on all GoogleNews posts that are crossposted to more
than three groups. "Andrew" in the support newsgroup explained
it all to me when I had complained about not seeing google
messages. They also filter for spam and other abuses of usenet
based on complaints they receive. That is most definately not
"unfiltered access".

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> Skywise > wrote:
>
>> Oh really?!?!? They do in fact filter messages and have admitted
>> to doing so in their support groups. For example, they have had
>> a filter on all GoogleNews posts that are crossposted to more
>> than three groups. "Andrew" in the support newsgroup explained
>> it all to me when I had complained about not seeing google
>> messages. They also filter for spam and other abuses of usenet
>> based on complaints they receive. That is most definately not
>> "unfiltered access".
>
>
> IMHO, this is more a good practise to use cleanfeed etc. (spam
> prevention) filtred access is more a "we filter all postings from
> @foo.bar"

The problem with Supersucks is not spam. The problem is they
are blocking legit postings from upstanding users simply because
they are using a particular news provider, and refusing to explain
their actions, much less even acknowledge that they do so.

Now, it's one thing for an NSP to not have a peering relationship
with another NSP, but due to the very nature of the system, the
messages will get propogated anyway.

However, Supersucks is actively blocking ALL messages that originate
from certain NSP's regardless of content and routing. This is a
de facto UDP (usenet death penalty), even if it's not an official
one.

As I understand it, UDP's are agreed to by consensus among several
NSP's and reasons are given and discussed. As near as I can tell,
Supersucks is attempting a unilateral UDP all by themselves for
reasons unknown - at least as far as I've been able to find. If
anyone knows different, I'm all ears.

Also, it's one thing to attempt to filter out the obvious spam
and other nasties on usent, but these messages that are being
blocked do not fall under this category.

For all I know, the owner of Supersucks and Newsfeeds were dating
and Newsfeeds dumped Supersucks and now Supersucks is acting like
a ****y little teenybopper in retaliation. I don't know. They refuse
to discuss anything related to this issue while they have gladly
discussed other issues and filtering policies.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:02:07 -0000, Skywise wrote:


>> IMHO, this is more a good practise to use cleanfeed etc. (spam
>> prevention) filtred access is more a "we filter all postings from
>> @foo.bar"
>
>The problem with Supersucks is not spam. The problem is they
>are blocking legit postings from upstanding users simply because
>they are using a particular news provider, and refusing to explain
>their actions, much less even acknowledge that they do so.

I know. I just wanted to clear the point cleanfeed vs. filter

>Now, it's one thing for an NSP to not have a peering relationship
>with another NSP, but due to the very nature of the system, the
>messages will get propogated anyway.

I know. I run my own newsserver.

>However, Supersucks is actively blocking ALL messages that originate
>from certain NSP's regardless of content and routing. This is a
>de facto UDP (usenet death penalty), even if it's not an official
>one.

I tend to agree with you (the tending is solely due to the wording UDP).

>As I understand it, UDP's are agreed to by consensus among several
>NSP's and reasons are given and discussed. As near as I can tell,
>Supersucks is attempting a unilateral UDP all by themselves for
>reasons unknown - at least as far as I've been able to find. If
>anyone knows different, I'm all ears.

ACK

>Also, it's one thing to attempt to filter out the obvious spam
>and other nasties on usent, but these messages that are being
>blocked do not fall under this category.

agreed.

>For all I know, the owner of Supersucks and Newsfeeds were dating
>and Newsfeeds dumped Supersucks and now Supersucks is acting like
>a ****y little teenybopper in retaliation. I don't know. They refuse
>to discuss anything related to this issue while they have gladly
>discussed other issues and filtering policies.

so let economics make the decision. Bad service ... less customers, less
money. Problem is (IIRC): most customers don't see the problem.

>Brian


if there is a need for text only access to newsgroups I might help you
there. We have more than 30 newspeerings up and running, but we currently
have only rec.aviation.* and az.* as one of the english speaking groups,
well - + novell.* *g*. [1] Let me hear if you are interested in (free)
access and what groups you might need (NO binaries!) and I will see if I
can work something out for the folks of rec.aviation.* (as a complimentary
service, of course!)

#m

[1] read more here: <http://service.hotze.com/usenet/peering.htm>
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

[Skywise]

Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 13 May 2006 00:02:07 -0000, Skywise wrote:
<Snipola>
>>For all I know, the owner of Supersucks and Newsfeeds were dating
>>and Newsfeeds dumped Supersucks and now Supersucks is acting like
>>a ****y little teenybopper in retaliation. I don't know. They refuse
>>to discuss anything related to this issue while they have gladly
>>discussed other issues and filtering policies.
>
> so let economics make the decision. Bad service ... less customers, less
> money. Problem is (IIRC): most customers don't see the problem.

Well, then I guess I need to start spamming all the newsgroups
to let the Supersucks customers know they are getting shafted?
Hmmm...If I crosspost to 9 groups at a time....

:)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?