"Live Strong in Character - Don't Leave Your Family"



The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>There are better solutions then being paranoid about your sig, for
> >>example I use a spam trap. Check out my email address, it's not my
> >>real email address. It's actually a spam trap, it gets about 50 a
> >>day, I use it when I publicly want to publish an address, and don't
> >>want my real address spammed. Email sent to the address gets sorted,
> >>if it's from a Yahoo List, it gets processed into a folder on my mail
> >>reader, everything else gets tossed into a bucket called Suspected
> >>Junk Mail, once a week I run junkmail controls over it, then look at
> >>the 2 or 3 that are left, 99% of the time I use those to update the
> >>filter.....

> > Have fun - I've better things to do with my time.
> >

>
> The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1 minute,
> okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well. BTW guess
> what, your news reader puts your email address into every post,
> without regards to any sig.


First of all, my newsreader (which is separate from my email client)
puts the address I tell it to into every post, and that address is by
design one that nobody uses. Second, why should I waste 45 minutes
of my time at home each year on administrivia that I don't need to
do, particularly when I've arranged things so that I don't get a lot
of legitimate email to begin with?

Aside from technical errors, your suggestion is simply a poor fit to
my personal situation.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:

> Ernst Noch wrote:
> > The Wogster wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1
> >> minute, okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well.
> >> BTW guess what, your news reader puts your email address into every
> >> post, without regards to any sig.
> >>
> >> W

> > [email protected]?

>
> Sure, that could be a valid email address, or you lose one of the
> abilities of usenet, such as the ability to do a personal reply.


In case you don't know, "nobody" is the name of a standard Unix
account that really means just that - something no real user makes
use of. It is used to set the user ID to a value that will not
match that of any legitimate user. Needless to say, the "nobody"
account on a Unix system does not get email because email is not
set up for it.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> I submit that on or about Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:49:21 GMT, the person
> known to the court as [email protected] (Bill Z.) made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
> bundle) to the following effect:
>
> >Kunich's infantile statements aside, I set up a separate email account
> >with a short user name (more or less random letters) and within a few
> >days started getting spam on it.

>
> Amazing, isn't it? Nobody's ever bothered subscribing my address to
> spam lists. Must be something you said - or perhaps the way you said
> it...


Amazing when I had not given the address out to anyone whatsoever?
I set it up and waited a few days to see what would happen.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> I submit that on or about Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:42:40 GMT, the person
> known to the court as [email protected] (Bill Z.) made a
> statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
> bundle) to the following effect:
>
> >> Addresses in .sigs, yes, but not names in sigs without reference to
> >> any domain name.

>
> >That's not been my experience. As I said, you are unware of
> >the term "dictionary attack".

>
> And you are unaware of the usual sources of words for dictionary
> attacks. The clue is in the word "dictionary" :)


You really don't understand, do you? Or are you just playing dumb
or being dishonest?

>
> My money is on someone you ****** off deliberately signing you up :)


How does some third party diliberately sign you up using an email
address that no one but you and your ISP know, particularly when the
observed behavior is dependent on the length of the user-name portion
of the email address?

> Your particular situation being an imagined source of spam which is at
> odds with reality - but then what's new :)


You inability to accept data that you do not agree with is well known,
as is your tendency to get in over your head.


> >Also, telling someone that personal information about my purchasing
> >decisions is none of their business is not "paranoia". I'm under
> >no obligation to provide such information to people I've never met.

>
> LOL! And telling people that your particular helmet has certain
> properties then refusing to say which model it is (perhaps because
> some of those with whom you are arguing may well have the technical
> resources to check that claim) is just evasion - but you /pretended/
> it was paranoia, which was even funnier :-D


Guy is an idiot - the discussions were about helmets in general, not
my helmet in particular.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. says...

>Second, why should I waste 45 minutes of my time at home each
>year on administrivia that I don't need to do, particularly


Right on, Bill!!! Much better to spend 90 minutes this week on rbr
defending your email cloaking practices, right?

>when I've arranged things so that I don't get a lot of
>legitimate email to begin with?


I think I know how you set that up.
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Ernst Noch wrote:
>>
>>>The Wogster wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1
>>>>minute, okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well.
>>>>BTW guess what, your news reader puts your email address into every
>>>>post, without regards to any sig.
>>>>
>>>>W
>>>
>>>[email protected]?

>>
>>Sure, that could be a valid email address, or you lose one of the
>>abilities of usenet, such as the ability to do a personal reply.

>
>
> In case you don't know, "nobody" is the name of a standard Unix
> account that really means just that - something no real user makes
> use of. It is used to set the user ID to a value that will not
> match that of any legitimate user. Needless to say, the "nobody"
> account on a Unix system does not get email because email is not
> set up for it.
>


True, about nobody, however it's impossible to know, whether YOU know
that, or that nospam is a Unix machine or not. However it doesn't mean
that someone can't use it, just that traditionally it isn't used. Unix
has probably a dozen of those, often root doesn't receive mail either,
although sometimes it does, and then that gets tossed somewhere else.
One of my Linux setups had about 45 accounts, only 2 were capable of
receiving email.

Of course using such an address does not allow anyone to contact you
personally for any reason.....

W
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Change happens. For good or ill. Conservatives such as yourself wish
> to end change, and it's just not possible.


Gee, and yet Liberals such as yourself are always complaining that
Conservatives want to change everything. Lower taxes, less Big Brother Laws
and all that sort of thing. You know - all of the inventive fascism that you
lefties can come up with.

>> Explain to me these judgements you believe are being passed. If I
>> understand
>> you correctly you want the right to think whatever you like but refuse to
>> honor that same right for others.

>
> The strawman logical fallacy.


Sorry, not a strawman. The left wants to end the right of anyone with
religion to ever speak of it.
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Uh huh. Last year you said you had to take off to build 20 - 30
> servers (I forget the exact number), so if you are doing that in
> addition to the mundane task of administering email, you must work at
> a relatively small company.


I wonder - do you even wonder for a second what people think of you? It
isn't something that you'd want to know about.
 
"Ernst Noch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> No you didn't. Unless you crack your email program it appends your
>> address onto outgoing messages. All spammers used to do was do a copy of
>> the mail going though any particular server and that gave them the
>> addresses. It is still done to this day. Every time I post to the
>> newsgroup I get a large amount of junk email. Since I get all of my mail
>> at Yahoo! Mail they skim off the worst of it.
>>
>> Like this is a really hard problem to take care of.
>>

>
> No offense, but if you don't know the difference between Mail and News,
> maybe there are other things in that area where you can learn something
> new.


No offense but if you don't understand that the newgroups and email are
essentially the same thing there are some things that you could learn.
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The fact is that Doug is right - he talked about "Christian fanatics",
> not Christians in general, and the worst of these fanatics are
> murderering terrorists - surely you don't think the ones who are in
> jail for bombing clinics or murdering physicians were wrongfully
> convicted. Or do you?


We have long lists of these murderous Christian fanatics don't we? Now who
were they again....................
 
The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > The Wogster <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Ernst Noch wrote:
> >>
> >>>The Wogster wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The amount of time spent on it, on a weekly basis is under 1
> >>>>minute, okay so maybe 45 minutes a year, and it works really well.
> >>>>BTW guess what, your news reader puts your email address into every
> >>>>post, without regards to any sig.
> >>>>
> >>>>W
> >>>
> >>>[email protected]?
> >>
> >>Sure, that could be a valid email address, or you lose one of the
> >>abilities of usenet, such as the ability to do a personal reply.

> > In case you don't know, "nobody" is the name of a standard Unix
> > account that really means just that - something no real user makes
> > use of. It is used to set the user ID to a value that will not
> > match that of any legitimate user. Needless to say, the "nobody"
> > account on a Unix system does not get email because email is not
> > set up for it.
> >

>
> True, about nobody, however it's impossible to know, whether YOU know
> that, or that nospam is a Unix machine or not.


There is (or was when I set it up) no machine named 'nospam.pacbell.net,
and phone companies have historically preferred Unix. For instance,
the web server I can put pages on is a Unix machine running Apache.


> However it doesn't mean that someone can't use it, just that
> traditionally it isn't used. Unix has probably a dozen of those,
> often root doesn't receive mail either, although sometimes it does,
> and then that gets tossed somewhere else. One of my Linux setups had
> about 45 accounts, only 2 were capable of receiving email.


It is an existing account.
>
> Of course using such an address does not allow anyone to contact you
> personally for any reason.....


Good. That's a small price to pay for reducing spam.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Uh huh. Last year you said you had to take off to build 20 - 30
> > servers (I forget the exact number), so if you are doing that in
> > addition to the mundane task of administering email, you must work at
> > a relatively small company.

>
> I wonder - do you even wonder for a second what people think of you? It
> isn't something that you'd want to know about.


Transference.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > The fact is that Doug is right - he talked about "Christian fanatics",
> > not Christians in general, and the worst of these fanatics are
> > murderering terrorists - surely you don't think the ones who are in
> > jail for bombing clinics or murdering physicians were wrongfully
> > convicted. Or do you?

>
> We have long lists of these murderous Christian fanatics don't we? Now who
> were they again....................


Toquemada and his minions come to mind for starters. See
<https://www.cs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Torquemada.html>

Then there was the Thirty Years War
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War>

In our time, we have the "troubles" in Northern Ireland
<http://www.iraatrocities.fsnet.co.uk/>

Then we have the abortion issue, with Chritian violence (with
the recent capture of Eric Rudolph)
<http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaq_viol_abortion.htm>.

Seems we have a long history of torture, violence, and murder at the
hands of Christian fanatics (even though these people are not
representative of Christians in general in the 20th century).

If you guys are going to blame all Muslims for the crimes of a
handful of fanatics, you should similarly blame all Christians for
the crimes of their fanatics. Fair is fair. Of course, you can
admit that the problem is really the fanatics, and not disparage
decent people who practice either religion and who don't try to
force their beliefs on others.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On 08/04/2005 09:23 PM, in article
[email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> The fact is that Doug is right - he talked about "Christian fanatics",
>> not Christians in general, and the worst of these fanatics are
>> murderering terrorists - surely you don't think the ones who are in
>> jail for bombing clinics or murdering physicians were wrongfully
>> convicted. Or do you?

>
> We have long lists of these murderous Christian fanatics don't we? Now who
> were they again....................



Michael Griffin
Reverend Paul Jennings Hill
John Salvi
Eric Robert Rudolph
Timothy McVeigh
Terry McNichols
James Charles Kopp
Wesley Swift
William Potter Gale
Robert Jay Mathews
Dennis McGiffen
Chevie Kehoe
Buford O. Furrow, Jr.
Clayton Waagner
Shelley Shannon
Marjorie Reed
Michael Griffin
John Brockhoeft

And so on and so forth ...



--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [foreword] slash
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Some of those were patriots and freedom fighters.


http://www.armyofgod.com/ChuckSpingola.html

<The federal department of justice's "war on terrorism" will not
only be waged against the Muslims nations but also Christian terrorists
in our homeland. One might ask what do the Muslims and Christians have
in common? The Holy Bible and Koran both condemn baby murder and
homosexuality as capital crimes. The radical elements of both
religions are willing to do more than talk to resist the societal
promotion of both these capital crimes. The foreign terrorists
(Muslim) resist the imposition of the United States/United Nations
charter, which promotes "population control" (abortion) and
"diversity" (homosexuality), while the Christian/domestic terrorist
simply resists the "law" of the land, which promotes and often
subsidizes abortion and homosexuality.>

Just a quick note on mission purpose from your employer. --D-y
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Change happens. For good or ill. Conservatives such as yourself wish
> > to end change, and it's just not possible.

>
> Gee, and yet Liberals such as yourself are always complaining that
> Conservatives want to change everything.


Ah, yes - the logical fallacy of the false choice. "Either you're like
me, or you're a liberal." Uhh, Tom, I'm neither liberal nor
conservative. I judge each issue on it's merits, and make an
*informed* choice based on the evidence.

So, yet another strawman argument. I have never complained about
conservatives wishing to change things. The very fact that they wish
to make the clock run backward really isn't any kind of change - it's
just reactionary rightism.

> You know - all of the inventive fascism that you
> lefties can come up with.


Ah, yes - the ad hominem. When all else fails, call names. And I
think we're perilously close to Godwin here.


> >> Explain to me these judgements you believe are being passed. If I
> >> understand
> >> you correctly you want the right to think whatever you like but refuse to
> >> honor that same right for others.

> >
> > The strawman logical fallacy.

>
> Sorry, not a strawman.


Then you do not understand what a strawman argument is. Go look it up.

You are assigning me a belief or attitude that I do not have, and then
attack that assigned belief.

Classic strawman. So far your arguments are weak, and your logic
shaky. Come back when you actually have a point.

E.P.
 
I submit that on or about Fri, 05 Aug 2005 01:34:31 GMT, the person
known to the court as [email protected] (Bill Z.) made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

>> Amazing, isn't it? Nobody's ever bothered subscribing my address to
>> spam lists. Must be something you said - or perhaps the way you said
>> it...


>Amazing when I had not given the address out to anyone whatsoever?
>I set it up and waited a few days to see what would happen.


Either you published the address in the form you claim leads to spam,
in which case it could have been subbed by someone and your assertion
remains unproven, or you didn't, in which case it was probably a
dictionary attack based on random names and your assertion remains
unproven.

It remains the fact that in some years of posting to various places
using various versions of my own name and my own domain name,
including a valid reply-to in the headers, I have never experienced
the problem you describe, nor seen any evidence of it actually
happening.

What I have seen is some evidence of unusually paranoid behaviour from
you. Occam's razor leads me to believe this is another example of
your known paranoia.

That is enough of this sterile argument as far as I'm concerned, this
thread now goes in the bitbucket.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
I submit that on or about Fri, 05 Aug 2005 03:33:44 GMT, the person
known to the court as [email protected] (Bill Z.) made a
statement (<[email protected]> in Your Honour's
bundle) to the following effect:

>> I wonder - do you even wonder for a second what people think of you? It
>> isn't something that you'd want to know about.


>Transference.


That is one of the more flattering things they think of you, yes.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 

Similar threads

B
Replies
13
Views
427
Road Cycling
Alex Rodriguez
A