I stopped this flood as soon as I became aware of it.
Chris Caputo
President, Altopia Corporation
>unfortunately, mi5 has now switched over to altopia, and they aren't
>known to stop this sort of thing
>-we can try to report him, but their tos/aup gives extremely wide
>latitude as to 'acceptable' posting behavior.
>https://www.altopia.com/detailedterms.html
>"Altopia has no obligation to monitor or remove information on the
>System and Customer acknowledges that postings and communications by
>other users are not reviewed, monitored, screened, approved or endorsed
>by Altopia."
>"#
>Content. Customer shall not use the System to post or transmit any
>illegal material, including without limitation any transmissions that
>would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or
>otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law or
>regulation, including without limitation United States export control
>laws and regulations."
>one can try under:
>"Q: What is your policy on cross-posting?
>A: Cross-posting ability is not to be used by customers for the purpose
>of "cascading". We may disable the cross-posting ability of a customer
>if we believe they are violating this policy."
>but -imo- the volume of mi5 posts does not rise to the level that
>[below] can be used:
>"Q: What is your policy on message floods?
>A: If a message flood is resulting in a denial of service, we will stop
>it. If a user on Altopia is causing it, we may disable their posting
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>inconvenienced by numerous off-topic or inappropriate postings does not
>constitute a flood or denial of service."
>you could try under this clause:
>"Q: What is your policy on non-advertising excessive multi-postings
>(EMP)?
>A: We consider excessive multi-postings to be a flood and we react to it
>as described above."
>long shot for this part:
>"Q: What is your policy on off-topic postings?
>A: We do not have a policy against off-topic postings and we rely on
>users to operate in a way that they feel is appropriate for Usenet
>and/or the groups they are participating in."
>likewise, this would be a long shot:
>"Q: What is your policy on a user posting with a bogus return address?
>A: We feel users have a right to decide whether to be anonymous or not
>and so we do not have a problem with a user posting with a bogus return
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>For example, bar@foo.com is actually a valid email address, because
>foo.com is a registered domain."
>all in all, things will now be a bit more diff. for those who
>don't/can't filter the poor soul