big brother is watching me

Apparently I'm not allowed to complain about demon being rubbish !

We have received reports of news articles being sent from a machine
running on or routing through:

80.176.75.189 [hammond.demon.co.uk]

that appear to violate the Demon News Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), to
which all users are required to adhere. A copy of this policy can be
found here:

http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/aup/news.shtml

In this case, the articles sent appear to violate the AUP because they
are binary articles in non-binary newsgroups. If we have been able to
identify any further specific information which we believe could assist
you in resolving this case it will be noted below. Please confirm that
you are aware of the requirements of the AUP and that any future mail
sent will be in compliance with it.

Articles posted to non-binary newsgroups (generally speaking, those
outside the alt.binaries.*, alt.sex.pictures and comp.binaries.*
hierarchies) should contain only simple text which is immediately
readable without special tools. The size of any encoded section is
irrelevant, the fact it is encoded is what makes it unacceptable. The
only exception allowed to this blanket ban is the use of cryptographic
authentication signatures such as PGP.


Additional Information
================================================== ======================
I have enlcosed the headers of the news article in question:

From: "¬Stephen Hammond" <(E-Mail Removed)>
Newsgroups: uk.telecom.broadband
Subject: Re: poor demon speed
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:17:36 -0000
Lines: 48

================================================== ======================

Regards,

--
Biku Roy
Network Abuse Team
Demon Internet <http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/aup/>

"¬Stephen Hammond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eoo18f$20a$1$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Apparently I'm not allowed to complain about demon being rubbish !

Are they rubbish ?
K

In message <eoo18f$20a$1$(E-Mail Removed)>, ¬Stephen Hammond
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>Apparently I'm not allowed to complain about demon being rubbish !
>
>We have received reports of news articles being sent from a machine
>running on or routing through:
>
> 80.176.75.189 [hammond.demon.co.uk]
>
>that appear to violate the Demon News Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), to
>which all users are required to adhere. A copy of this policy can be
>found here:
>
> http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/aup/news.shtml
>

No, Demon are telling you that you have posted a binary article to a
non-binary group:

>In this case, the articles sent appear to violate the AUP because they
>are binary articles in non-binary newsgroups.

FU to d.s
--
dave @ stejonda

"¬Stephen Hammond" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eoo18f$20a$1$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Apparently I'm not allowed to complain about demon being rubbish !
>
> We have received reports of news articles being sent from a machine
> running on or routing through:
>
> 80.176.75.189 [hammond.demon.co.uk]
>
> that appear to violate the Demon News Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), to
> which all users are required to adhere. A copy of this policy can be
> found here:

Did you post a binary to a non-binary group?
That seems more the issue they are referring to.

On 18 Jan 2007, "dave @ stejonda" wrote:

>In message <eoo18f$20a$1$(E-Mail Removed)>, ¬Stephen Hammond
><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>Apparently I'm not allowed to complain about demon being rubbish !
>>
>>We have received reports of news articles being sent from a machine
>>running on or routing through:
>>
>> 80.176.75.189 [hammond.demon.co.uk]

>No, Demon are telling you that you have posted a binary article to a
>non-binary group:

Agreed that's what they're telling him, but I assume someone has a knife
out for him, if they're reporting a one-off posting. If they cancelled
it, that could also do with investigating (I mean some individual, not
Demon Abuse, making the cancel - though it seems OTT, IMHO).

>>In this case, the articles sent appear to violate the AUP because they
>>are binary articles in non-binary newsgroups.
>
>FU to d.s

cross-posted back to u.t.b for others to check if they have any evidence
of a binary being posted there. I have just checked 4 news servers and
assume the post was cancelled. I do have a follow-up post (and must
say I remember reading it, and was puzzled not to see the post by
Stephen Hammond) but still have no clue whether it included any
binary. So the question is, what action does Demon take ?

(I'd have assumed that like most people, where to err is human, the mail
was a simple automatic 'reminder' but someone repeatedly getting
complaints would be told more formally not to continue)

Finally, of course, Stephen has the option to move as soon as any minimum
contract period has been met. I would hope an Abuse department would be
spending time on more important matters (spammers, child porn, etc) to
be honest, than what might have been a simple mistake because of some
dumb newsreader setting, if he used a client that happens to add a
small binary attachment.

--
www.netdimes.org - mapping the internet.
Join team UK-24x7 (position 175) Let's beat "United States" :->

TeraNews <http://tinyurl.com/3rjw4>

In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>, at
18:51:26 on Thu, 18 Jan 2007, NoNeedToKnow <(E-Mail Removed)>
wibbled
>On 18 Jan 2007, "dave @ stejonda" wrote:
>
>>In message <eoo18f$20a$1$(E-Mail Removed)>, ¬Stephen Hammond
>><(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>>Apparently I'm not allowed to complain about demon being rubbish !
>>>
>>>We have received reports of news articles being sent from a machine
>>>running on or routing through:
>>>
>>> 80.176.75.189 [hammond.demon.co.uk]
>
>>No, Demon are telling you that you have posted a binary article to a
>>non-binary group:
>
>Agreed that's what they're telling him,

Ditto.

>but I assume someone has a knife
>out for him, if they're reporting a one-off posting.

Absolute bollocks.


I got emailed by abuse@ a good few years ago now when I accidentally
sent out a FAQ I maintained as an attachment rather than plain text on
precisely one occasion.

I'd already cancelled the attachment version well before I got email
from abuse@ but it was clear that the initial report had come from an
automated system.

Demon abuse@ obviously took note that I'd already issued a cancel long
before they emailed and took no action but they were quire right to
raise it, even though the report had come from an automated system.


Automated systems don't care if it's a one-off accident or serial abuse.
They report regardless. ISP Abuse Dept notes report, checks there was a
binary posted and emails user. User makes own comments in reply. Sorted
one way or another.


Which would you rather have: abuse@ notes report, checks with customer,
either accepts accident or say 'you shouldn't do that and don't do it
again' or abuse@ doesn't say anything. I know which one I'd prefer.


Be careful for what you wish for (apologies to RC for nicking phrase but
it seems appropriate in the circs).


--
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 at 23:41:37 in demon.service Pedt wrote:
>Be careful for what you wish for (apologies to RC for nicking phrase
>but it seems appropriate in the circs).

RC seems to have stopped using it cos it's become a cliche. See the
thread "Good News Story", where he said:

"However, if it was me, I'd discuss some other topic PDQ

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/1138.html"

I can't see his new one catching on...

--
Nogood Boyo

"¬Stephen Hammond" wrote:

> In this case, the articles sent appear to violate the AUP because they
> are binary articles in non-binary newsgroups.

Do you understand what that means ?

It means you can't post attachments ( often jpegs or gifs for example but could
be anything like a pdf or a word document ) in groups that don't have *binary*
in their name.

Graham

In article <45af97f2$0$8738$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Beck <beck@none> wrote:

>Did you post a binary to a non-binary group?
>That seems more the issue they are referring to.

The article seems to have gone from Google (why?), but there's a
follow-up to it which shows no sign of the original being a binary.
Perhaps it had an attachment by mistake?

-- Richard

--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.