You see folks every news header is like an E-Mail header.

From: (YourHumanNature)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs.behavior,alt.animals.dog,alt.pets.do gs.pitbull,alt.pets.dogs.labrador,rec.pets.dogs.mi sc
Subject: My GSD bit me.
Date: 15 Aug 2004 19:52:24 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 169
Message-ID:
References:


NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.170.201.38
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1092624744 4880 127.0.0.1 (16 Aug 2004
02:52:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 02:52:24 +0000 (UTC)

Observe the "X-Complaints-To: "

That's where you send your E-Mail to get him kicked by Google. Enough
complaints and they will permanently ban him.

Indeed they might permanently ban him on what he has already done.

But if that isn't enough you can always get AOL to kick him as well by
mailing them at:

or If you prefer you complain directly to the NOC
(Network Operations Center) 1-703-265-4670

The also a thing called a 'cancel bot'. Google for it to find out
what it is.
You see it is possible to delete every single post he has ever made...

-m-

In article ,
Michael Erskine wrote:
You see it is possible to delete every single post he has ever made...

And lose your own service provider in the process.

X- headers can be useful but they're not standardized and
not required, and anybody can add one that says anything, as
you can see.

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Stephen Hawking is a flip-flopper.

In article ,
Michael Erskine wrote:
You see it is possible to delete every single post he has ever made...

And lose your own service provider in the process.

X- headers can be useful but they're not standardized and
not required, and anybody can add one that says anything, as
you can see.

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Stephen Hawking is a flip-flopper.

In article ,
Michael Erskine wrote:
You see it is possible to delete every single post he has ever made...

And lose your own service provider in the process.

X- headers can be useful but they're not standardized and
not required, and anybody can add one that says anything, as
you can see.

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Stephen Hawking is a flip-flopper.

In article ,
Michael Erskine wrote:
You see it is possible to delete every single post he has ever made...

And lose your own service provider in the process.

X- headers can be useful but they're not standardized and
not required, and anybody can add one that says anything, as
you can see.

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Stephen Hawking is a flip-flopper.

In article ,
Michael Erskine wrote:
You see it is possible to delete every single post he has ever made...

And lose your own service provider in the process.

X- headers can be useful but they're not standardized and
not required, and anybody can add one that says anything, as
you can see.

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Stephen Hawking is a flip-flopper.

In article ,
Michael Erskine wrote:
You see it is possible to delete every single post he has ever made...

And lose your own service provider in the process.

X- headers can be useful but they're not standardized and
not required, and anybody can add one that says anything, as
you can see.

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Stephen Hawking is a flip-flopper.

(Melinda Shore) wrote in :

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.

It looks like Jer's net connection may have been fried by the storm. The
addresses shown in the headers of most of these recent messages trace back
to the AOL network, although the reported addresses change in almost every
message header from the New Improved Ninnyboy. Headers are also
inconsistent between AOL and Google news servers.

--
Kate
and Storm the FCR

(Melinda Shore) wrote in :

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.

It looks like Jer's net connection may have been fried by the storm. The
addresses shown in the headers of most of these recent messages trace back
to the AOL network, although the reported addresses change in almost every
message header from the New Improved Ninnyboy. Headers are also
inconsistent between AOL and Google news servers.

--
Kate
and Storm the FCR

(Melinda Shore) wrote in :

Usenet headers are generally unreliable - they're content,
not envelope - and figuring out what's actually going on
tends to be a heuristic process rather than deterministic.
For example, I have no idea why you brought up contacting
AOL, unless you actually believe that's a real email
address.

It looks like Jer's net connection may have been fried by the storm. The
addresses shown in the headers of most of these recent messages trace back
to the AOL network, although the reported addresses change in almost every
message header from the New Improved Ninnyboy. Headers are also
inconsistent between AOL and Google news servers.

--
Kate
and Storm the FCR