Re: Multiple abuses from i2pn2.

On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 20:39:15 +0000, Jean-Paul wrote:

Thomas Alexandre <none@no.invalid> composa la prose suivante:
>

Le 14 Oct 2024 15:46:09 GMT, Frank Slootweg a écrit :
>

Thomas Alexandre <none@no.invalid> wrote:

>

Excessive Cross-Posting (ECP) is an abuse.

>
  FSVSVO "Excessive". For most servers, 3 newsgroups isn't anywhere
even close to excessive.
>
  What you're probably referring to cross-posting between some specific
groups which is 'not allowed' according to the group(s)' charter.

>
On the fr.* hierarchy, crossposting to 3 newsgroups (without a fu2) *is*
excessive and considered as a *network* abuse on all groups on fr.*

>
Yes. But all the messages Eric M. complains about include a
"followup-to".
So these messages are not  a network abuse on fr.*
>

I'm really sorry for sniping the remaining of your message but that's the
point everyone is missing in this unreal thread.

>
You don't read the example given by Eric M: all messages have a
followup-to.
>
And you omit the fact it's actually impossible on i2pn2 server to write
a
message on "fr" hierarchy to 3 newsgroups without a fu2.

This is correct. Followup-To is required for more than 2 groups in fr.*
I also see earlier in this thread, "he crossposted to 8 forums", which
can not be done on i2pn2 so it must have been a different server. i2pn2
limits posting to a max of 6 groups.
In addition to the above, i2pn2 limits number of posts per hour for all
users, and for my web interfaces that feed through i2pn2, the limit is
even more restricted.
These are all attempts to limit the amount of abuse that can happen on
my servers, and so far it seems to work well. As I find holes in the
filtering, I'll try to fix it. But I will not restrict ideas and
opinions. I have users that post things I strongly disagree with, but I
don't not prohibit them from expressing these views.
As far as "free speech", I gave up quite a while ago discussing this
with non-Americans, as it does not seem productive. Unless you're born
and educated where free speech means all speech, the understanding is
not as strong. The idea that some speech can be defined as NOT free
speech is incompatible with "free speech" from an American point of
view.
Defining things such as "hate speech" as not "free speech" is great and
all, until a political side you do not agree with comes into power, then
suddenly you may be restricted and things you don't like are spewed
without consequence.
I've had these discussions over and over. I have strong ties to
Australia, I have lived there, I'm married to an Australian and I have
children and grandchildren there. I no longer have these discussions
with my in-laws and other family from my wife's side. It goes nowhere,
and we have much better things to talk about.
--
Retro Guy