Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong. -- Chris Torek


computers / news.admin.net-abuse.usenet / FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines

SubjectAuthor
* FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelinesTim Skirvin
`* FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelinesThe Doctor
 `- FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelinesDavid Ritz

1
FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines

<spam-faq.20230212000201$e956@news.killfile.org>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1527&group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet#1527

 copy link   Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet news.admin.net-abuse.misc news.answers
Followup: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!.POSTED.kodiak.killfile.org!not-for-mail
From: tskir...@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.answers
Subject: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines
Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 00:02:01 +0000
Organization: Killfiles, Unlimited
Approved: news-answers-request@MIT.EDU
Expires: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 00:02:01 GMT
Message-ID: <spam-faq.20230212000201$e956@news.killfile.org>
Reply-To: tskirvin@killfile.org
Injection-Info: flea.killfile.org; posting-host="kodiak.killfile.org:52.90.117.98";
logging-data="1821304"; mail-complaints-to="news@news.killfile.org"
Summary: This posting contains the current Spam definitions, thresholds,
and guidelines, as used by most major spam cancellers and news
administrators.
 by: Tim Skirvin - Sun, 12 Feb 2023 00:02 UTC

Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)

Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.

This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds
and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent.
It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and
definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms
inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an
informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive
correctness.

Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means,
essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."

"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is
sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
identical articles:
- byte-for-byte identical messages
- otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
each group it appears in.
- advertising the same service.
- articles that consist solely of the same signature
- articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
postings, but are otherwise identical.

Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group.
Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.

Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
than one group each have been made.

Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good
behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net.
Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting
how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond
the scope of this FAQ.

This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several
different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but
most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".

A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to
many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is
abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.

A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
to).

Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.

The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
one posting to 9, and one to 16 is

(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16

The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher
end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.

A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is

(sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10

Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to
determine whether a spam is cancellable.

The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the
following measures:

1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
several years ago. This author recommends one posting
cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
once every two weeks (a BI of 3).

A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to
limitations in Usenet software.

These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided
upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.

These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if
it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was
posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
and not _what_ was said.

Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site
"cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally
done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to
reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
if you need this patch.

Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:

The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
<URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>

"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>

"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>

"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>

"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes.
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>

"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al
<URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>

Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog"
(Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.

"Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin
<URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>

RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
<URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>

The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se,
mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw,
hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.

A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial
advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to
commerce@acpub.duke.edu.

Re: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines

<ts9dfe$2mle$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1528&group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet#1528

 copy link   Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!.POSTED.doctor.nl2k.ab.ca!not-for-mail
From: doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: Re: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 00:56:14 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: NetKnow News
Message-ID: <ts9dfe$2mle$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>
References: <spam-faq.20230212000201$e956@news.killfile.org>
Injection-Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2023 00:56:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: gallifrey.nk.ca; posting-host="doctor.nl2k.ab.ca:204.209.81.1";
logging-data="88750"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@gallifrey.nk.ca"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)
 by: The Doctor - Sun, 12 Feb 2023 00:56 UTC

In article <spam-faq.20230212000201$e956@news.killfile.org>,
Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@killfile.org> wrote:
>Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
>Posting-Frequency: weekly
>Last-modified: 1998/11/10
>URL: http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/spam/
>Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
>Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)
>
> Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.
>
>This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds
>and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent.
>It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and
>definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms
>inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an
>informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive
>correctness.
>
>Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
>usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means,
>essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
>article."
>
>"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is
>sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is
>included in the determination. These are examples of substantively
>identical articles:
>
> - byte-for-byte identical messages
> - otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
> each group it appears in.
> - advertising the same service.
> - articles that consist solely of the same signature
> - articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
> postings, but are otherwise identical.
>
>Cross-posting means that a single message appears in more than one group.
>Most newsreaders allow you to specify more than one group in a posting.
>
>Excessive Crossposting (ECP) refers to where a "lot" of postings to more
>than one group each have been made.
>
>Some people think cross-posting is "bad". In and of itself, it's good
>behaviour - it allows you to reach more groups with less impact on the net.
>Especially if you set the Followup-to: header to one group. It is "bad"
>when it's done to attack newsgroups or provoke flamewars (like cross-posting
>how to cook a cat between alt.tasteless and rec.pet.cats), but this is beyond
>the scope of this FAQ.
>
>This author considers the term "spam" to mean excessive postings of
>EMP and/or ECP variety. That is, "spam", is a generic term for several
>different things. The term was originally supposed to mean EMPs only, but
>most people use "spam" to mean "any excessive posting".
>
>A spam, EMP, or ECP therefore refers to a posting that has been posted to
>many places. There is a consensus that there is a point at which it is
>abuse, and is subject to advisory cancellation.
>
>A formula has been invented by Seth Breidbart which attempts to
>quantify the degree of "badness" of a spam (whether EMP or ECP) as a
>single number. The Breidbart Index (BI) is defined as the sum of the
>square roots of n (n is the number of newsgroups each copy was posted
>to).
>
>Example: If two copies of a posting are made, one to 9 groups, and one
>to 16, the BI index is sqrt(9)+sqrt(16) = 3+4 = 7.
>
>The BI2 (Breidbart Index, version 2) is an experimental metric, which
>may eventually replace the BI. It is calculated by computing the sum
>of the square roots of n, plus the sum of n, and dividing by two. Eg:
>one posting to 9, and one to 16 is
>
> (sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 16) / 2
> ( 3 + 4 + 9 + 16 ) / 2 = 32 / 2 = 16
>
>The BI2 is more "aggressive" than the BI, intended to cut off the "higher
>end". BI allows about 125 newsgroups maximum. BI2 allows a maximum of 35.
>
>A slightly less aggressive index is the SBI (Skirvin-Breidbart Index); it
>is calculated much the same as the BI2, but sums the number of groups in
>the Followup-to: header (if available), rather than the newsgroups. Eg:
>one posting to 9 groups, and one to 16 with followups set to 4 is
>
> (sqrt(9) + sqrt(16) + 9 + 4) / 2
> ( 3 + 4 + 9 + 4 ) / 2 = 20 / 2 = 10
>
>Except in nl.*, where the SBI is followed, the BI2 and SBI are not used to
>determine whether a spam is cancellable.
>
>The thresholds for spam cancels are based _only_ on one or more of the
>following measures:
>
> 1) The BI is 20 or greater over a 45 day period.
> 2) is a continuation of a previous EMP/ECP, within a 45 day
> sliding window. That is: if the articles posted within the
> past 45 days exceeds a BI threshold of 20, it gets removed,
> unless the originator has made a clear and obvious effort to
> cease spamming (which includes an undertaking to do so
> posted in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet). This includes "make
> money fast" schemes which passed the EMP/ECP thresholds
> several years ago. This author recommends one posting
> cross-posted to no more than 10 groups, no more often than
> once every two weeks (a BI of 3).
>
>A single posting cannot be cancellable - to reach a BI of 20, it would
>have to be cross-posted to 400 groups. This isn't possible due to
>limitations in Usenet software.
>
>These thresholds nominally apply to all hierarchies - not just the Big-8
>and alt.*. Many hierarchies have more restrictive rules, which are decided
>upon and enforced by their users and administrators; they may also opt out
>of the cancellations, at the discretion of the same users and admins.
>
>These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
>message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if
>it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was
>posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
>not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
>and not _what_ was said.
>
>Administrators wishing to ignore spam cancels can "alias out" the site
>"cyberspam", and the cancels will not affect your system. This is normally
>done at your feed site, but patches are available for INN to allow you to
>reject spam cancels on your own system. Ask in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
>if you need this patch.
>
>Further literature on posting etiquette and related information:
>
>The newsgroup news.announce.newusers
><URL:news:news.announce.newusers>
>
>"What is Usenet", by Salzenberg, Spafford and Moraes
><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part1>
>
>"What is Usenet? A second opinion.", by Vielmetti
><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/what-is/part2>
>
>"FAQ: Advertising on Usenet: How To Do It, How Not To Do It", by Furr
><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/advertising/how-to/part1>
>
>"A Primer on How to Work With the Usenet Community", by Von Rospach, et al
><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1>
>
>"Rules for posting to Usenet", by Horton, Spafford & Moraes.
><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1>
>
>"Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions on Netiquette", by Templeton et al
><URL:ftp://ftp.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/emily-postnews/part1>
>
>Numerous books and publications on Usenet, such as O'Reilly's "Stopping
>Spam" (Schwartz and Garfinkel), the "Whole Internet Guide and Catalog"
>(Krol), "Usenet Handbook" (Harrison), etc.
>
>"Cancel Messages: Frequently Asked Questions", by Skirvin
><URL:http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/cancel/>
>
>RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines
><URL:http://rfc.net/rfc1855.html>
>
>The above FAQs are also mirrored at various sites, including as ftp.sunet.se,
>mirror.aol.com, ftp.uu.net, ftp.uni-paderborn.de, nctuccca.edu.tw,
>hwarang.postech.ac.kr, ftp.hk.super.net etc.
>
>A mailing list has been set up to assist those wishing to post commercial
>advertisements on Usenet in a responsible fashion. Email your questions to
>commerce@acpub.duke.edu.

Any way to make this into a NNTP SW module?
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
One way works, and the others do not; who would choose destruction? -unknown Beware https://mindspring.com

Re: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines

<4or78686-p5os-o773-7r5o-8nr8sn745286@zvaqfcevat.pbz>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=1529&group=news.admin.net-abuse.usenet#1529

 copy link   Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!lilly.ping.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: dri...@mindspring.com (David Ritz)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
Subject: Re: FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2023 13:16:19 -0600
Organization: SpamBusters!
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <4or78686-p5os-o773-7r5o-8nr8sn745286@zvaqfcevat.pbz>
References: <spam-faq.20230212000201$e956@news.killfile.org> <ts9dfe$2mle$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: individual.net EIT4+t7qdwcgre36iGnK0w943B6HWN2NFkeJMnRGM357rbUpdH
X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hd0b6XxEY1AAfmq9gzp1/WBfSLU=
In-Reply-To: <ts9dfe$2mle$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>
OpenPGP: id=9CD055375C05466038D2194852BC29991A12DEEB
X-Comment-1: Spam is bad. <http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/WhatIsSpam.html>
X-Comment-2: LART a spammer for Dobbs.
X-Comment-3: Invalid assumptions tend to produce invalid conclusions.
X-Comment-4: This message is intended to be read with a monospaced font.
X-Meow: yes
 by: David Ritz - Mon, 13 Feb 2023 19:16 UTC

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday, 12 February 2023 00:56 -0000,
in article <ts9dfe$2mle$5@gallifrey.nk.ca>,
<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167631501300>
Dave "The Doctor" Yadallee <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

> In article <spam-faq.20230212000201$e956@news.killfile.org>,
> Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@killfile.org> wrote:

> > Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.

> >This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam
> >thresholds and ensure that the definitions of these terms are
> >available and consistent. It is believed that most, if not all,
> >spam cancellers use these terms and definitions in their work;
> >however, many other people use the terms inappropriately, which
> >leads to confusion in discussions. This is an informal FAQ aimed
> >at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive correctness.

> >Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term
> >"spam" usually carries, but it is more accurate and
> >self-explanatory. EMP means, essentially, "too many separate
> >copies of a substantively identical article."

> >"Substantively identical" means that the material in each article
> >is sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The
> >signature is included in the determination. These are examples of
> >substantively identical articles:

> > - byte-for-byte identical messages
> > - otherwise identical postings minimally customized for
> > each group it appears in.
> > - advertising the same service.
> > - articles that consist solely of the same signature
> > - articles which consist of inclusions of other user's
> > postings, but are otherwise identical.

[...]

> >These cancels have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the
> >message. It doesn't matter if it's an advertisement, it doesn't matter if
> >it's abusive, it doesn't matter whether it's on-topic in the groups it was
> >posted in, it doesn't matter whether the posting is for a "good cause" or
> >not - spam is cancelled regardless, based on _how many times_ it was said
> >and not _what_ was said.

[...]

> Any way to make this into a NNTP SW module?

Your question appears to be misplaced, Dave. Wouldn't it be more
appropriately directed to news.software.nntp? You appear to be
familiar with the group and its purpose, as you post there with some
frequency.

Still, I am unsure why or how one might write a software module with
respect to a periodically posted FAQ. What am I missing? What are
you trying to accomplish? My clairvoyance quotient hovers near zero

Meanwhile, thank you for acknowledging you have seen "Current Spam
thresholds and guidelines," also known as the Spam FAQ, Dave.
Unfortunately, your question suggests you are attempting to divert
discussion, rather than addressing your own propensity to spam the
living daylights out of the network you claim you want to protect from
spam. I cannot see any reason to believe you have actually read this
FAQ, let alone comprehended it.

As you are apparently unwilling to respond to email, regarding this
matter, news.admin.net-abuse.usenet may, at least, be the single most
correct and appropriate Usenet newsgroup in which to carry one such a
discussion.

I counted eighty four (84) copies of one substantively identical
article you posted, to rec.arts.drwho, in the first twelve hours of 17
February 2023, UTC. When added to the over 1100 copies you posted in
January, of this year, your Breidbart index is likely approaching, if
not exceeding 1600 over the past forty five (45) days. This is and
continues to be spam. As such, it is a network abuse issue
pertaining to Usenet.

Please stop spamming, Dave.

Dave, you are offended when one refers to you by one of the nicknames
you're picked up over the years, as addressing you as something less
than a adult. The last time I publicly requested you cease your
spamming activity, it was met with the following response:

<news:tnirb7$k9h$20@gallifrey.nk.ca>
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167631360700
<quote>
Davis Ritz is a pedophile. Only pedphiles calls adults binky!
</quote>

If it is your desire to be taken seriously, I would like to suggest
you begin behaving as someone more mature, than a petulant five year
old.

P.S. Please stop playing netKKKop. Repeatedly reposting spam, with
identical boiler plate added, is still spam. I find it highly
offensive that n.a.n-a.usenet is among your dumping grounds. Kindly
knock it off.

- --
David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com>
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
-- Walt Kelly (1913-1973), in the voice of Pogo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EARECAB0WIQSc0FU3XAVGYDjSGUhSvCmZGhLe6wUCY+qMgwAKCRBSvCmZGhLe
6xGhAKDPJ3L2Mu/5nTlxeHMeaIjosgzpJwCfUFZMqg8dsdSUnBkRB8g9+w+ko7M=
=6NhL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor