|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 132 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 50 of 132:
| 
Nov 7 03:13 UTC 2003 |
I never heard of eithere of these ISPs.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 51 of 132:
|
Nov 7 03:21 UTC 2003 |
I have a lot of folks from Canada using them on one email list I manage.
|
willcome
|
|
response 52 of 132:
|
Nov 7 12:25 UTC 2003 |
mynxcat: he banned both. But now they're unbanned. Of course, the staff
won't bother to explain any of its actions and you have to rely on me, but
oh well.
|
naftee
|
|
response 53 of 132:
|
Nov 7 16:27 UTC 2003 |
I wouldn't rely on you for anything
|
willcome
|
|
response 54 of 132:
|
Nov 7 19:27 UTC 2003 |
Now they're both banned again. I think you guys should know you're
losing millions of potential users to get rid of one who you're not
really getting rid of.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 55 of 132:
|
Nov 7 23:56 UTC 2003 |
Only one person (or is it really two? I don't know) has logged in from that
ISP. And not all of the ISP is blocked.
|
willcome
|
|
response 56 of 132:
|
Nov 8 03:02 UTC 2003 |
Which ISP? There've been TWO which've been fully blocked. I don't
know why staff won't explain its actions.
|
scott
|
|
response 57 of 132:
|
Nov 8 04:20 UTC 2003 |
Staff *has* explained its actions. You've yet to explain *yours*, however.
|
willcome
|
|
response 58 of 132:
|
Nov 8 08:25 UTC 2003 |
How can you justify punishing all the glorious people of Canada,
because one of their rank was accused of doing something which isn't
against your rules?
|
remmers
|
|
response 59 of 132:
|
Nov 8 15:01 UTC 2003 |
Seriously, it would be nice to see a concise explanation of what was
done -- or a pointer to such, if it's posted elsewhere, so that I don't
have to go hunting for it.
|
cross
|
|
response 60 of 132:
|
Nov 8 19:36 UTC 2003 |
A subset of the IP ranges polytarp logs in from were blocked via TCP
wrappers and in the SSHD configuration. That's basically it. It's
certainly not all the people of Canada.
|
willcome
|
|
response 61 of 132:
|
Nov 9 03:15 UTC 2003 |
Why do you continue to block them, when it remains fairly obvious I
can connect to Grex anyway?
|
naftee
|
|
response 62 of 132:
|
Nov 9 05:16 UTC 2003 |
Blocking IPs of frequent users like polytarp is silly and fruitless.
|
cross
|
|
response 63 of 132:
|
Nov 9 06:02 UTC 2003 |
Perhaps. But so is unlocking accounts of adolescents such as yourself.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 64 of 132:
|
Nov 9 09:18 UTC 2003 |
hehehe... "all the glorious people of Canada"
Go Canuckleheads!
(I can poke fun all I want; I have an aunt who was originally from
Edmonton-- the Canadian flag was usually displayed somewhere in their
home, at least for a while. Big McKenzie Brothers and Oilers fan.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 65 of 132:
|
Nov 9 16:59 UTC 2003 |
I think that #61 contains a reasonable question, regardless of what
one may think of the person asking it.
|
mary
|
|
response 66 of 132:
|
Nov 9 17:14 UTC 2003 |
I'm afraid the answer might be, "because I can".
I hope we're learning here.
|
willcome
|
|
response 67 of 132:
|
Nov 9 17:42 UTC 2003 |
cross: one of the conditions of unlocking naftee's account was that he
would not criticise you in the future?
|
cross
|
|
response 68 of 132:
|
Nov 10 00:16 UTC 2003 |
A vandal abuses the system. We try to lock him out. It doesn't work. Now
we're not supposed to try to lock them out anymore?
Regarding #66; What are we supposed to be learning? That blocking vandals
is pointless, therefore don't try?
I'm confused here. Don't people realize that willcome abused the system,
in a manner that we usually lock accounts and block people from accessing
grex for? Do we make an exception in his case, because he posts to the
BBS?
Regarding #67; Tell me where I said that. All I said was that unlocking
your account was a waste of my time. I suppose Mary can do it next time.
|
naftee
|
|
response 69 of 132:
|
Nov 10 01:23 UTC 2003 |
re 68 You unlocked the willcome account, after someone using it vandalised
the system?
|
willcome
|
|
response 70 of 132:
|
Nov 10 01:46 UTC 2003 |
Re. 68: You can't not lock me out anymore, because you haven't locked
me out at all. And my use isn't limited to just the BBS.
Yes. If something's demonstratably pointless, there's no reason to
keep trying, especially if in doing so you hurt others who're innocent
entirely.
Surely, the minor DoS not performed by willcome (but by dah) was less
harmful than your blanket ban of Canada.
Oh? So, it IS a personal issue for you.
(correlating paragraphs).
|
glenda
|
|
response 71 of 132:
|
Nov 10 03:17 UTC 2003 |
I am sorry to inform you that blocking a subnet or three on an ISP is in
no way a blanket ban of Canada. I am quite sure that Canada has more than
one ISP, and that most of the ISP's have more than one or two subnets.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 72 of 132:
|
Nov 10 03:31 UTC 2003 |
Goodness gracious, this item does goes on and on and round and round.
|
cross
|
|
response 73 of 132:
|
Nov 10 04:48 UTC 2003 |
Regarding #69; For the record, I never locked willcome.
Regarding #70; Okay. I've unblocked all the Canadian ISP's I blocked.
Someone else can clean up these problems on grex; I've got other things
to do.
|
other
|
|
response 74 of 132:
|
Nov 10 04:54 UTC 2003 |
Welcome to Grex Staff, Dan. ;)
|