Guest Dick D. Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? "Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> >"Alias" <iamaliasTAKE@gmailTHISOUT.com> wrote in message >news:gi8530$uhv$1@news.motzarella.org...<span style="color:green"> >> >> There's no law on how to craft a signature. Got any more lame analogies? >></span> >But there is, you just don't know it or acknowledge it. The rules for Usenet >are under the 'rules' of RFCs.</span> Nobody - N O B O D Y - pays attention to those any more. They went out when people stopped using Lynx. <span style="color:blue"> > >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ > >This is just one of the RFCs governing signatures. >http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2646.html My aim is not to be confrontational, >but to educate. > >Here are the rules http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/ > >which quote > >If you have a standard signature you like to append to your articles, >and you are running a form of news software that supports automatic >inclusion of a signature file, it is usually enabled by putting it in >a file called .signature in your home directory. The posting software >you use should automatically append it to your article. Please keep >your signatures concise, as people do not appreciate seeing lengthy >signatures, nor paying the phone bills to repeatedly transmit them. 2 >or 3 lines are usually plenty. Sometimes it is also appropriate to >add another line or two for addresses on other major networks where >you can be reached (e.g., CompuServ, Bitnet). Long signatures are >definitely frowned upon. DO NOT include drawings, pictures, maps, or >other graphics in your signature -- it is not the appropriate place >for such material and is viewed as rude by other readers. > ><span style="color:green"> >> Laws, btw, usually get changed because people break them. The more people >> that break a law, the better the chances are that the law will be >> repealed. An example was the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution. >></span> >Great, let's all go down to the mall tomorrow and shoot people. If we all do >it, it won't be illegal. ></span> Quote
Guest Andrew Taylor Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? "Dick D." <dick@dastardly.net> wrote in message news:v78hk49j66ve4dbs9eupbsjkpj6c2466lf@4ax.com... why are you now called dick? Quote
Guest ~BD~ Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? "Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote in message news:494891a4@newsgate.x-privat.org...<span style="color:blue"> > "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ee6njF4XJHA.5704@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"> >> >> Andrew, btw, is one of the good guys IMO (but I could just be wrong!)</span> > > You aren't wrong David. ></span> That's good to know, Andrew! <smile> Quote
Guest ~BD~ Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? "Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote in message news:49489158@newsgate.x-privat.org...<span style="color:blue"> > But there is, you just don't know it or acknowledge it. The rules for > Usenet are under the 'rules' of RFCs. > > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ > > This is just one of the RFCs governing signatures. > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2646.html > > Here are the rules > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/</span> Thank you. I have made a note of the references. <span style="color:blue"> > My aim is not to be confrontational, but to educate.</span> You must concentrate more on 'education', Andrew. In all the time you and I have been in correspondence, you have never mentioned these 'rules' before - I have NEVER seen them as far as I can remember. Perhaps you should post this information on U2U (both sites) too. These guidelines (they aren't enforceable, are they?) were laid down some 30 years ago. Even 10 years ago, the Internet was a very different place to what one sees today. It's the Wild West all over again .......... and there are far too many Outlaws! Cheers Dave Quote
Guest ~BD~ Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? "Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote in message news:4948a34d@newsgate.x-privat.org...<span style="color:blue"> > "Dick D." <dick@dastardly.net> wrote in message > news:v78hk49j66ve4dbs9eupbsjkpj6c2466lf@4ax.com... > > why are you now called dick? ></span> To be accurate, Andrew, he's a BIG DICK! (Sorry, couldn't help myself!) Quote
Guest David H. Lipman Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? From: "Dick D." <dick@dastardly.net> | "Andrew Taylor" <andrewcrumplehorn@spamcopSUBVERSIVE.com> wrote: <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >>"Alias" <iamaliasTAKE@gmailTHISOUT.com> wrote in message >>news:gi8530$uhv$1@news.motzarella.org...</span></span> <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred"> >>> There's no law on how to craft a signature. Got any more lame analogies?</span></span></span> <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >>But there is, you just don't know it or acknowledge it. The rules for Usenet >>are under the 'rules' of RFCs.</span></span> | Nobody - N O B O D Y - pays attention to those any more. They went out | when people stopped using Lynx. Yeah, Google Groupers. Otherwise Usenet users DO follow nettiqutte to a varying degree. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp Quote
Guest ~BD~ Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? In line:- "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.ubunturocks> wrote in message news:gi92pe$ltr$1@news.motzarella.org...<span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> I really appreciate that, Alias - even though you found nothing of >> interest. Thank you.</span> ><span style="color:green"> >> Maybe PABear will explain to someone like you why he thinks I'm >> special. He has often said "Please don't feed the trolls...especially >> /that/ troll".</span> > > I stopped worrying about what people said about me on Usenet way > before the turn of the century.</span> You and me, both! <span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green"> >> Have you ever visited Aumha (Robear's home territory) and challenged >> anyone to a duel over technical matters? You might find that >> interesting!! >> >> Dave</span> > > I assume it's moderated.</span> It is highly policed, but I got a hinky feeling about the place. They certainly didn't like me asking questions .......... and eventually banned me and removed all my posts. Fortunately Google has retained many of them. For some reason I felt that one might go there for help and leave with more malware than when one arrived. <shudder> <span style="color:blue"> > That said, PABear can come up with some useful copy and pastes every > once in a while and is well informed regarding Windows Updates.</span> You are quite right, he does .... and is! He also tells lies - I have NEVER been banned by any ISP. Thanks for listening, Dave Quote
Guest Passiveson Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? There are a number of reasons IP Address' are untracable or unknown to Whois. The IANA reserves a variety of IP Ranges for Benchmarking, Special Uses and the Autonomous System Numbers used for routing Internet traffic. For a more detailed overview go to: http://www.iana.org/numbers/ "~BD~" wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > It's good of you to take the time and trouble to look, Colton. > > I'll be most interested to learn what, if anything, you find. > > Good luck! > > Dave > > -- > "Colton" <educability@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:E9281952-8636-4A41-9A6A-223015703983@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green"> > > Dave, > > > > Thanks for the information. As soon as I get my virtual box up on > > this computer again, I'll see if I can't find out why we're looking at > > this as a newsgroup topic. > > > > -- > > > > Colton, PHP/VB6/HTML/CSS/Javscript/IIS/Apache > > OS: Vista Home Premium x86 SP1 > > > > - http://explosion.debug-inc.com > > - educability@gmail.com > > > > > > "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > > news:%231OLwgqXJHA.4380@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred"> > >> > >> "Colton" <educability@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> news:497BE699-D8B9-4A2D-8371-96B3542B15CB@microsoft.com... > >> Yes, why are we posting whois information for this IP address? > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Just a silly idea of mine in view of the fact that the authenticity > >> of the URL seemed questionable, viz:- > >> > >> Reverse DNS authenticity: Could be forged: hostname > >> 202-177-16-121.kdd.net.hk. does not exist > >> > >> Perhaps you should ask Peter Foldes (who first posted the URL) what > >> might happen if someone were to visit that site. I've not been there > >> , so have no idea if it is a trap or not. There are lots of clever > >> people on the Microsoft newsgroups, some with Virtual Machines. > >> Someone may have been/be able to take a look to see if the site > >> is/was infected in some way. > >> > >> Dave > >></span> > > </span> > > > </span> Quote
Guest ~BD~ Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? Thank you, Passiveson. FYI, I was just about to post this to Amostbob! I don't like to see words like 'fraudulent' and 'bogus', but have no idea if something is really amiss. I'm hoping others will know! Dave 12/18/08 11:35:17 Spade Log 12/18/08 13:29:41 Fast traceroute 24.150.226.156 Trace 24.150.226.156 ... 1 No Response 2 92.16.32.1 26ms 29ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 3 92.31.250.64 28ms 26ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 4 78.144.2.133 95ms 28ms 27ms TTL: 0 (xe-9-3-0-scr001.log.as13285.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 5 78.144.1.0 29ms 27ms 27ms TTL: 0 (xe-11-0-0-scr010.thn.as13285.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 6 195.66.224.213 99ms 97ms 99ms TTL: 0 (rd1ny.ny.shawcable.net fraudulent rDNS) 7 66.163.74.1 99ms 98ms 98ms TTL: 0 (rc2hu-pos6-0.ny.shawcable.net ok) 8 66.163.74.13 99ms 98ms 98ms TTL: 0 (rc1hu-ge0-0-0.ny.shawcable.net ok) 9 66.163.77.153 111ms 110ms 111ms TTL: 0 (rc1sh-pos14-0-0.mt.shawcable.net ok) 10 66.163.66.70 111ms 110ms 110ms TTL: 0 (rc2sh-ge5-0-0.mt.shawcable.net ok) 11 66.163.77.118 123ms 124ms 123ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 12 66.163.65.22 123ms 122ms 123ms TTL: 0 (ra1ec-tge3-1.il.shawcable.net ok) 13 64.141.24.10 136ms 137ms 136ms TTL: 0 (h64-141-24-10.bigpipeinc.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 14 24.226.8.238 137ms 138ms 136ms TTL: 0 (d226-8-238.home.cgocable.net ok) 15 No Response 16 No Response 17 No Response 18 No Response 19 No Response 20 No Response 21 No Response 22 No Response 23 No Response 24 No Response 25 No Response 26 No Response 27 No Response 28 No Response 29 No Response "Passiveson" <Passiveson@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:6E2BB0F0-07F3-45FE-8E03-94FB70AED93F@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue"> > There are a number of reasons IP Address' are untracable or unknown to > Whois. > The IANA reserves a variety of IP Ranges for Benchmarking, Special > Uses and > the Autonomous System Numbers used for routing Internet traffic. > > For a more detailed overview go to: http://www.iana.org/numbers/</span> Quote
Guest BoaterDave@googlemail.com Posted December 20, 2008 Posted December 20, 2008 Re: Because Re: Why? On Dec 18, 1:43Â pm, "~BD~" <BoaterD...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: <span style="color:blue"> > I don't like to see words like 'fraudulent' and 'bogus', but have no > idea if something is really amiss. I'm hoping others will know!</span> I've now used Sam Spade as suggested, with this result. I'm still puzzled. Any help? 12/20/08 09:01:09 Fast traceroute 202.177.16.121 Trace 202.177.16.121 ... 1 No Response 2 92.21.32.1 25ms 26ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 3 92.31.253.102 25ms 26ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 4 78.144.2.3 27ms 26ms 24ms TTL: 0 (xe-11-2-0- scr001.log.as13285.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 5 213.161.78.213 28ms 26ms 26ms TTL: 0 (Opal- ge-2.2.0.mpr1.lhr3.above.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 6 64.125.27.165 99ms 102ms 99ms TTL: 0 (so-0-1-0.mpr2.dca2.us.above.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 7 64.125.28.50 126ms 126ms TTL: 0 (so-1-0-0.mpr4.iah1.us.above.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 8 64.125.25.18 157ms 155ms 156ms TTL: 0 (so-1-1-0.mpr4.lax9.us.above.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 9 124.215.192.129 160ms 156ms 174ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 10 59.128.2.73 157ms 156ms 156ms TTL: 0 (lacbb002.kddnet.ad.jp fraudulent rDNS) 11 203.181.100.165 279ms 276ms 276ms TTL: 0 (otecbb104.kddnet.ad.jp fraudulent rDNS) 12 124.211.33.14 279ms 278ms 282ms TTL: 0 (tr- ote116.kddnet.ad.jp fraudulent rDNS) 13 210.132.92.150 352ms 364ms 354ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 14 202.177.21.250 333ms 332ms 331ms TTL: 0 (202-177-21-250.kdd.net.hk probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) 15 202.177.16.121 315ms 313ms 314ms TTL: 53 (202-177-16-121.kdd.net.hk probable bogus rDNS: No DNS) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.