Linux-Advocacy Digest #582, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 02:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: Windows (Tim Palmer)
Re: * User-friendly software.. (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
Re: A cute linux song (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:25:16 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:25:25 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:25:36 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:25:46 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:25:56 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:26:06 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:27:28 -0500
On 10 Jul 2000 21:36:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I still say Windows sucks.
>
And I stil say Lie-nux suck.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: * User-friendly software..
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:27:17 -0500
On Monday, 10 Jul 2000 17:42:59 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>begin 644 logo2.gif
>M1TE&.#=A( @ +,/ ( " (" @( @ " @,# P(" @/\ #_
>M /__ __\ _P#______RP ( @ ,$;/#)2:N]..O-N_]@*(ZD" #3
>MF9[HT[KON[:J"J.T;<]XOKH25E & ]9DM6+/<CQ2DE"B4A?+69G5H>^FQ?ZT
>MR&QI3"Z;*8FT.EU>K]L)=)S,GM3']T>>E-^/^G-V;H.$@(6'AW)N9XR-CH\D
>#$0 [
>end
>
>FTP Now 2.0: Powerful FTP software allow you to easily download and upload files and
>resume if errors occur. With the friendly interface, it is suitable for both
>beginners and experts!
>
>* Windows 95/98/NT/2000 supported
>* Recover a broken download
>
>It was registered to the download.com, winsite, Myfolder.net, and etc...
Does it run on Lie-nux? Didant think so. Lie-nux couldent run a program like that
becoz it would take
up to much resorces and LIE-nux neads 'em coz its so fucking slow.
>
>Download here:
>http://english.myfolder.net/Categories/Internet_and_Network/Telnet_and_FTP/Review/?sn=9707
>http://www.softwareblast.com/entries/000046c4.sml
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>SHhc1V'sl'D])m$MDvyX
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:29:00 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:30:52 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:34:38 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A cute linux song
Date: 11 Jul 2000 01:32:44 -0500
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 15:22:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> Well, he's coming from somewhere in AT&T, which owns the 12.x.x.x
>> domain. According to his nntp-posting-host, that is. It looks like
>> a dialup account. He's either pretty good at forging headers or he's
>> using Earthlink to read Usenet. I would guess the latter.
>
>Yes, this does concur with my own findings. I do believe that his is using
>Earthlink as his news server while he is connecting through AT&T World Net.
>The Path header on his postings seem to confirm that
>newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net was that news server that he posted to.
>The NNTP-Posting-Host header shows that was connected to the net through
>AT&T and his workstation or router had the ip address of 12.79.50.101 which
>corresponds to the host name of 101.new-york-20-25rs.ny.dial-access.att.net.
>Being connected through on ISP and posting through another ISP is not in and
>of itself wrong, but it can be suspicious. I sometimes have to do that
>myself, when my Mindspring's dialup servers are down, I have to connect
>through another ISP which Mindspring owns.
>
>What simon777 is doing wrong that I can not excuse is using a email address
>of [EMAIL PROTECTED] when that is not his account at Eathlink. Of
>course that is in keeping with his use of the X-No-Archive header to burn
>the evidence behind him.
>
>Using a valid appearing and yet invalid email address at Earthlink, can use
>up bandwidth and processor resources at Earthlink and other ISPs to handle
>attempts to delivers to this address and to handle the bounces. This would
>also consume the time of those writing the emails to him. If someone who
>knew nothing about Simon777's aactivities actually did establish an account
>at Earthlink with the name of simon777 they could be flooded with email
>addressed to their account that could be enough to overflow their mailbox.
>On a lark I checked to see if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a valid email address and
>guess what? Nope it is not.
>
>If this simon777 want to not want to be flooded with the emal that his
>comments could attract, then he should use a obviously phony address like
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] That would be the decent and sensible thing
>to do.
>
>P.S. About your email address, [EMAIL PROTECTED] , is that you way of saying,
>"email yourself"; or "Don't bother me! Tell it to your sysadmin."? ;-)
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
