> > 4. Analysis of spam for the benefit of the group. > > You have made a logical leap that I do not follow. How does it > benefit the group?
Some people have issues reading the signs, particularly the Received: lines. I only did this after you requested additional analysis, however. > > 6. Scooping wired.com by a whole 3 days. > > Again, big difference between sending an uncorroborated email with no > analysis and no investigation, and Wired's story. At least Wired > tired to investigate. In a distributed incident of this nature, someone has to be the first to post a "strange traffic on port x" message. In this case, the research cited by Wired served to independently corroborate the initial observation. Obviously, if I hadn't posted my message, they would have nothing to corroborate with. > Crimes happen all the time. You're right, so screw it. Let's elect a spammer as Prez, why not, I suppose it's better than the current twit. > > I have no intention of doing any further research. That is a job for > > the police and the appropriate federal electoral authorities. > > So, I again ask, why mail full-disclosure if it's a job for the > police? What job did you think that full-disclosure would perform? FD is monitored by every major LEA in the world. Posting here is a good way to notify all of them at once. Please drop this now. Posting the fulltext of an incident is a legitimate use of this list. The fact that it was spam is irrelevant. The usefulness of the post was underscored by Wired. Stu --- Stuart Udall stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/ --- * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2) _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
