OT: Sig length

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com>
To: "Brett Schulte" <brett@brettschulte.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: newsgroup posts being cancelled


> Thanks for your understanding Brett, and I apologize for the confusion.
>
> If you'll reconnect to the news server, the connection agent at this end
> will pick up a new set of filters and re-authorize your posting.
>
> I'm glad you're here.  You are certainly welcome.
>
> (And for what it's worth, I *completely* agreed with the sentiment
> expressed by your long sig! :)


Recently several people asked me to trim my signature length.  Personally I
find it very frustrating when people respond to a post with an off topic
remark, particularly if it's to comment on spelling, punctuation, or other
posting preferences.  We all know how annoying and bossy people in NG can
be.  In fact - if someone TELLS me to do something I'm likely to do the
contrary just to demonstrate that they have no business telling me what to
do!

In this case however Steve himself apparently asked me as well - though I
never saw that.  While I don't like being told what to do by other
participants - I DO respect the rules (when I'm aware of them) of the host
or owner of the system I'm on.  So - while I don't like changing my sig (and
Steve himself said he very much agreed with it) I have killed it to conform
to the policies I am now aware of and I apologize for having made it an
issue.  I suggest in the future if someone isn't conforming to a policy that
rather then tell them what to do just politely suggest they review whatever
FAQ.  This would make for much less friction and greater harmony.

Thanks all-

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 4:39:00 AM
grc.privacy 4590 articles. 0 followers. Follow

223 Replies
1159 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 57

"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote in message
news:amm5ve$cea$1@news.grc.com
[...]
> Recently several people asked me to trim my signature length.
[...]
> Brett

I guess, I don't need to tell you, you can have different sigs.
That way, you can play nice here and write your biography elsewhere. :o)

--
Al
(change raptor to eagle)
0
Al
9/23/2002 5:05:00 AM
"Al Darby" <al@raptor.com.au> wrote in message
> I guess, I don't need to tell you, you can have different sigs.
> That way, you can play nice here and write your biography elsewhere. :o)

Of course - but the point remains.  If I had know it was a policy - I
wouldn't have done it.  But if some annoying poster tries to tell me what to
do because HE doesn't like it - well that's another story.  If I paid
attention to all the trolls.... well I'd have less time for the good things
in life!

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 5:13:00 AM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote:

[crap]
>This would make for much less friction and greater harmony.

Right.  And in the interests of harmony, you come back with numerous
off-topic posts, and this really lousy job of making peace.

If Steve blocked your posts, it was no mistake.  If there was any error,
Brett, it was leting you come back.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/23/2002 6:39:00 AM
pchelp wrote:
> "Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote:
>
> [crap]
>> This would make for much less friction and greater harmony.
>
> Right.  And in the interests of harmony, you come back with numerous
> off-topic posts, and this really lousy job of making peace.
>
> If Steve blocked your posts, it was no mistake.  If there was any
> error, Brett, it was leting you come back.

Well, I wouldn't want to see posters blocked merely for being disagreeable.

Letting Brett back with the understanding that when someone does suggest a
change in posting habits it is because that person probably knows what is
acceptable here is fine by me.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/23/2002 6:42:00 AM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> posted the following to 
grc.security

> "Al Darby" <al@raptor.com.au> wrote in message
> > I guess, I don't need to tell you, you can have different sigs.
> > That way, you can play nice here and write your biography elsewhere. :o)
> 
> Of course - but the point remains.  If I had know it was a policy - I
> wouldn't have done it.  But if some annoying poster tries to tell me what to
> do because HE doesn't like it - well that's another story.  If I paid
> attention to all the trolls.... well I'd have less time for the good things
> in life!
 
Brett,

If you were to read RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines - you would learn 
how to do many things correctly.
http://www.cybernothing.org/cno/docs/rfc1855.html

For instance cross posting unrelated comments to several newsgroups is 
frowned upon.

Posting private emails is frowned upon.

Sig length should be a maximum of 4 lines.

It's all there in the RFC.

A couple of excerpts:
"Read both mailing lists and newsgroups for one to two months before you 
post anything. This helps you to get an understanding of the culture of 
the group."

"If you include a signature keep it short. Rule of thumb is no longer 
than 4 lines. Remember that many people pay for connectivity by the 
minute, and the longer your message is, the more they pay"

"6.0 Security Considerations
Security issues are not discussed in this memo."
 
If there is a place for this at all, since it concerns an RFC, it would 
be techtalk.

Follow-up to techtalk

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/23/2002 8:34:00 AM
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:39:32 -0600, "Brett"
<"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote:

>
>
>Recently several people asked me to trim my signature length.  Personally I
>find it very frustrating when people respond to a post with an off topic
>remark, particularly if it's to comment on spelling, punctuation, or other
>posting preferences.  We all know how annoying and bossy people in NG can
>be.  In fact - if someone TELLS me to do something I'm likely to do the
>contrary just to demonstrate that they have no business telling me what to
>do!

USENET newsgroups etiquette about signatures

-------------------
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html

extract: 

Signatures

At the end of most articles is a small blurb called a person's
signature. In Unix this file is named .signature in the person's login
directory---it will vary for other operating systems. It exists to
provide information about how to get in touch with the person posting
the article, including their email address, phone number, address, or
where they're located. Even so, signatures have become the graffiti of
computers. People put song lyrics, pictures, philosophical quotes,
even advertisements in their ``.sigs''. (Note, however, that
advertising in your signature will more often than not get you flamed
until you take it out.) 

Four lines will suffice---more is just extra garbage for Usenet sites
to carry along with your article, which is supposed to be the intended
focus of the reader. Netiquette dictates limiting oneself to this
``quota'' of four---some people make signatures that are ten lines or
even more, including elaborate ASCII drawings of their hand-written
signature or faces or even the space shuttle. This is not cute, and
will bother people to no end. 

Similarly, it's not necessary to include your signature---if you
forget to append it to an article, don't worry about it. The article's
just as good as it ever would be, and contains everything you should
want to say. Don't re-post the article just to include the signature. 

--------------

http://www.use-net.ch/netiquette_engl.html#signatures


Don't Overdo Signatures

Signatures are nice, and many people can have a signature added to
their postings automatically by placing it in a file called
"$HOME/.signature". Don't overdo it. Signatures can tell the world
something about you, but keep them short. A signature that is longer
than the message itself is considered to be in bad taste. The main
purpose of a signature is to help people locate you, not to tell your
life story. Every signature should include at least your return
address relative to a major, known site on the network and a proper
domain-format address. Your system administrator can give this to you.
Some news posters attempt to enforce a 4 line limit on signature files
-- an amount that should be more than sufficient to provide a return
address and attribution.

------------------

regards
0
graham
9/23/2002 8:52:00 AM
"Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> If you were to read RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines - you would learn
> how to do many things correctly.

And you might wanna review this part:  "Don't wander off-topic, don't ramble
and don't send mail or post messages solely to point out other people's
errors"

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 1:19:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message:
> Right.  And in the interests of harmony, you come back with numerous
> off-topic posts, and this really lousy job of making peace.
> If Steve blocked your posts, it was no mistake.  If there was any error,
> Brett, it was leting you come back.

Thanks for your kind thoughts.  :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 1:20:00 PM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> posted the following to 
grc.security.software

> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> > If you were to read RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines - you would learn
> > how to do many things correctly.
> 
> And you might wanna review this part:  "Don't wander off-topic, don't ramble
> and don't send mail or post messages solely to point out other people's
> errors"
 
Brett,

You have a problem. You were graciously given a second chance and you're 
blowing it. You said you would follow the rules if you knew the rules. I 
provided that information to you and you came back in attack mode.

I've said this many times and I suspect I'll have to go on saying it; 
this is *not* usenet. If you learned your posting habits on usenet you 
have some re-learning to do.

Civility and courtesy are highly prized in these forums.

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/23/2002 1:44:00 PM
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:13:31 -0600, "Brett"
<"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote:

>"Al Darby" <al@raptor.com.au> wrote in message
>> I guess, I don't need to tell you, you can have different sigs.
>> That way, you can play nice here and write your biography elsewhere. :o)
>
>Of course - but the point remains.  If I had know it was a policy - I
>wouldn't have done it.  But if some annoying poster tries to tell me what to
>do because HE doesn't like it - well that's another story.  If I paid
>attention to all the trolls.... well I'd have less time for the good things
>in life!

Speaking of the good things in life, there are situations where the
rules of conduct are unexpressed or vague, but considerate people try
to be sensitive to the wishes of others. Your dismissal of reasonable
requests by some to trim your sig as something coming from trolls
speaks volumes about your sensitivity to others and what this
experience has taught you.
0
use
9/23/2002 1:55:00 PM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote in
news:amn4e4$15ui$1@news.grc.com: 

> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
>> If you were to read RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines - you would
>> learn how to do many things correctly.
> 
> And you might wanna review this part:  "Don't wander off-topic,
> don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to point
> out other people's errors"

What is yout problem Brett?  

> I suggest in the future if someone isn't conforming to a policy 
> that rather then tell them what to do just politely suggest they
> review whatever FAQ.  This would make for much less friction and
> greater harmony.

I don't think you have any intentions of "harmony".  
0
Mark
9/23/2002 2:53:00 PM
Security Conscious wrote:

Your dismissal of reasonable
> requests by some to trim your sig as something coming from trolls

Brett really tricked me. I thought that issue was finished up a long 
time ago. Here goes another ballbat on the dead horse. <G>

I really saw no trolls in that thread. I'm not going to go back and read 
it again, but IIRC, it was mentioned that some people pay by the minute, 
wasn't it? Or am I mixing that with yet another thread about sigs?

I should think that anyone claiming to be 'sensitive', and wanting the 
same from others, **would have given prior thought** to hard-drive space 
usage and download times; and made any comment about sigs unnecessary in 
the first place, on their own. As cynical as I can be, I first think 
about the implications of what I do prior to doing it.


> speaks volumes about your sensitivity to others 

:-) Yeah, right. More likely ego trip? :-)

> and what this experience has taught you.

Added another 'sort of subtle' method of getting peoples' goat to his 
repertoire? <G>

Perhaps it's time for some betting? <G>

Cheers

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/23/2002 4:15:00 PM
pchelp wrote:
....and this really lousy job of making peace...

So that's what that was. Had me fooled all to hell. <G>

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/23/2002 4:16:00 PM
"Security Conscious" <use.Lockdown@at.your.own.risk> wrote in message
> Speaking of the good things in life, there are situations where the
> rules of conduct are unexpressed or vague, but considerate people try
> to be sensitive to the wishes of others. Your dismissal of reasonable
> requests by some to trim your sig as something coming from trolls
> speaks volumes about your sensitivity to others and what this
> experience has taught you.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I don't see how it's
relevant.  The "wishes" of others aren't my problem or concern unless they
happen to be the ones who make the rules.  If you don't like the style or
content of my posts feel free to skip them rather than editorializing on
them and save us both some time!

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 7:30:00 PM
"Waldo Hamilton" <waldo@mei.ws> wrote in message
> I should think that anyone claiming to be 'sensitive', and wanting the
> same from others, **would have given prior thought** to hard-drive space
> usage and download times

Nope - I actually could care less.  That's THEIR problem.  Rather than try
and change the behavior of OTHERS (me in this case) those challenged with
bandwidth or storage issues or whatever else should change their OWN
behavior - in this case just download headers and skip my posts if they
don't like them.

You can't change the world - you can only change how you deal with it.  If
more people would get that they'd be a lot less frustrated.  In any case -
it's Steve's server and I'm more than happy to comply with his rules - just
not the rules of weenies who pick on posts rather than contributing any
content.

Enough said on this matter?  If ya don't like it - plonk it!  :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 7:35:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> Right.  And in the interests of harmony, you come back with numerous
> off-topic posts, and this really lousy job of making peace.

Who said ANYTHING about making peace?  I was merely explaining that I don't
mind following the rules - but only from those that MAKE the rules - not
self appointed NG cops like yourself.

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 7:37:00 PM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote:

>"Security Conscious" <use.Lockdown@at.your.own.risk> wrote in message
>> Speaking of the good things in life, there are situations where the
>> rules of conduct are unexpressed or vague, but considerate people try
>> to be sensitive to the wishes of others. Your dismissal of reasonable
>> requests by some to trim your sig as something coming from trolls
>> speaks volumes about your sensitivity to others and what this
>> experience has taught you.

>You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I don't see how it's
>relevant.  The "wishes" of others aren't my problem or concern unless they
>happen to be the ones who make the rules.

Now, there it is in a nutshell.

I'm going to make an educated guess that Steve -- who makes the rules --
wants the wishes of others to mean more to you.  Maybe he even said so
in that private email you so rudely (selectively?) quoted.


>If you don't like the style or
>content of my posts feel free to skip them rather than editorializing on
>them and save us both some time!
>
>Brett

But think how much MORE time we'd all save if you posted nothing at all.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/23/2002 7:52:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message

> I'm going to make an educated guess that Steve -- who makes the rules --
> wants the wishes of others to mean more to you.

Sorry but Steve doesn't get to decide that.


> But think how much MORE time we'd all save if you posted nothing at all.

Have you been elected to some sort of post or do you just troll for the fun
of it?  If you don't like me and/or my posts - don't read them.  Simple
really.  If you look you'll see there are plenty of others who interact and
participate in my threads without a problem... so MAYBE the problem is you?

In any case - let's just agree to disagree and end this OK?  :)


Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 8:19:00 PM
"Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> I've said this many times and I suspect I'll have to go on saying it;
> this is *not* usenet.

Then why are you quoting RFC 1855 to me?  Read it yourself:  "Don't wander
off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to point
out other people's errors" and then maybe YOU "would learn how to do many
things correctly".

Perhaps you should follow your own advice.  :)
0
Brett
9/23/2002 8:42:00 PM
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:35:41 -0600, "Brett"
<"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote:

>Nope - I actually could care less.  That's THEIR problem.  Rather than try
>and change the behavior of OTHERS (me in this case) those challenged with
>bandwidth or storage issues or whatever else should change their OWN
>behavior - in this case just download headers and skip my posts if they
>don't like them.
>
>You can't change the world - you can only change how you deal with it.  If
>more people would get that they'd be a lot less frustrated.  In any case -
>it's Steve's server and I'm more than happy to comply with his rules - just
>not the rules of weenies who pick on posts rather than contributing any
>content.
>
>Enough said on this matter?  If ya don't like it - plonk it!  :)
>
>Brett

OK ,, sounds good to me.
But before I go ,, If you want to do as Steve wants for his newsgroups,,
perhaps a little reading is in order for you.

First - http://grc.com/discussions.htm

CyberSpace Netiquette 101 

Has a link to newsgroup  "netiquette"

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/dont.html

The seven don'ts of newsgroups.

6.  Select an appropriate group, and don't post your question to more
than one group (at least if you don't know how to crosspost). And don't
reply to an article without looking at the list of groups to which your
article would be sent. 

-- 
 Buzz
0
Buzz
9/23/2002 8:59:00 PM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> posted the following to 
grc.security

> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> > I've said this many times and I suspect I'll have to go on saying it;
> > this is *not* usenet.
> 
> Then why are you quoting RFC 1855 to me?  Read it yourself:  "Don't wander
> off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to point
> out other people's errors" and then maybe YOU "would learn how to do many
> things correctly".
> 
> Perhaps you should follow your own advice.  :)

You're repeating yourself. 

How can one wander OT in an OT thread.

RFC 1855 applies because netiquette applies, here even much more than on 
usenet.

I suspect you'll find that your demand that this community adapt to your 
standards will go unmet.

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/23/2002 9:34:00 PM
 "Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> responds
> Who said ANYTHING about making peace?  I was merely explaining that I don't
> mind following the rules - but only from those that MAKE the rules - not
> self appointed NG cops like yourself.

The thing is that when Steve started these groups it was understood that he did 
not like having a hand in moderating them. They are pretty much self-moderating 
which means that the members of the groups are expected to keep each other in 
line. I myself try not to get involved unless a post is so off the wall that it 
could do more harm than good, bad or incorrect advice... or if a poster is so 
belligerent it takes away from the original intent of the post. I do my best 
not to get involved and for the most part rarely do.To me this is neither of 
those times. My only purpose for posting now is that since you have stated that 
you only follow the rules from he who makes them, that is one of his rules. I 
admit some of the enforcement is merely nit picking but those that chose to 
antagonize (and I don't mean that in a bad way <g>) from time to time should 
come to expect it. 

-- 
vodka

whenever I feel blue............I start breathing again.
0
vodka
9/23/2002 10:11:00 PM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote in
news:amnq5c$1sl1$1@news.grc.com: 

> You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I don't see how
> it's relevant.  The "wishes" of others aren't my problem or
> concern unless they happen to be the ones who make the rules.  If

Hmm.  I guess that about sums you up.  Have fun living, ... somewhere.

> you don't like the style or content of my posts feel free to skip
> them rather than editorializing on them and save us both some
> time! 
0
Mark
9/23/2002 10:29:00 PM
"Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> I suspect you'll find that your demand that this community adapt to your
> standards will go unmet.

You don't read so good - I don't expect anyone to do ANYTHING.  I just don't
like self appointed NG trolls telling me what to do.  :)

Bye!

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 10:48:00 PM
"vodka" <b@man.robin> wrote in message
> I myself try not to get involved

I agree.  Unless someone is vulgar, abusive, or spamming I ignore it.  If
they are crossing those lines I report it.  But I will never waste my time
correcting someone else because a) it's not my role to do so and b) because
it will likely just make them do it more (as has been the case here).

There will always be NG trolls that like to nit pick and feel the need to
direct others... and they will always lose.  Oddly these are often the same
people who have very little to say on the topic at hand.  Funny huh?

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 10:53:00 PM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> posted the following to 
grc.security

> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> > I suspect you'll find that your demand that this community adapt to your
> > standards will go unmet.
> 
> You don't read so good - I don't expect anyone to do ANYTHING.  I just don't
> like self appointed NG trolls telling me what to do.  :)
> 
> Bye!
> 
> Brett

I read between the lines very well, thank you.

I notice that anyone who tries to correct your misimpressions is a 
troll.

That's funny. 

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/23/2002 11:08:00 PM
"Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> I notice that anyone who tries to correct your misimpressions is a
> troll.

Anyone who takes it upon themselves to direct others when it is not there
roll to do so is just trying to start an unnecessary flame war - just as you
have done.  For what reason I have no idea - don't you have better things to
do than pick on others posts?

 I suspect that's why your "Anonymous" - people who behave badly generally
prefer to do it in secrecy.

Brett
0
Brett
9/23/2002 11:17:00 PM
In grc.privacy, "Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> said...
> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> > I suspect you'll find that your demand that this community adapt to your
> > standards will go unmet.
> 
> You don't read so good - I don't expect anyone to do ANYTHING.  I just don't
> like self appointed NG trolls telling me what to do.  :)

Steve :-

===================================================================
From: Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
Newsgroups: grc.news,grc.news.feedback

Folks,

People who are new to our groups sometimes don't know where to post. 
That's certainly understandable.  But I would appreciate it if those 
of you who are regulars here, and who do know where things should go, 
would help to move discussions to where they should go.

I know that abusive jerks often respond to such helpful efforts with 
angry attacks like "who the hell made you god?", or "who appointed 
you hall monitor?"  It's only natural for such attacks to tend to 
reduce people's willingness to take the initiative.

But PLEASE know that I appreciate every single instance I see of 
anyone helping to maintain order here.  I can not do it if I am to 
get anything else done, and it's inherently a "distributed task".

So please, those of you who are willing to work to help keep things 
running smoothly here ... know that I very much appreciate your every 
effort.  Just ignore the jerks who attack as I do.  They don't have 
the best interests of these groups at heart and should be ignored.
[...]
===================================================================


Brett :-

===================================================================
From: "Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
Newsgroups: grc.privacy,grc.security,grc.security.software

[...]
Who said ANYTHING about making peace?  I was merely explaining that I 
don't mind following the rules - but only from those that MAKE the 
rules - not self appointed NG cops like yourself.
===================================================================

Steve makes the rules. He wants posting to appropriate groups. He wants 
us to point that out to people who don't do so. He doesn't want us to 
respond with 'NG cop' attacks. 

You say you don't mind following Steve's rules. So let's see you do so, 
please.

Follow-ups set to grc.privacy (just because it's the first of an 
unnecessary cross-post list).

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
9/23/2002 11:37:00 PM
In article <amo7g4$2bb3$1@news.grc.com>, "Brett" 
<"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> says...
>"Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
>> I notice that anyone who tries to correct your misimpressions is a
>> troll.
>
>Anyone who takes it upon themselves to direct others when it is not there
>roll to do so is just trying to start an unnecessary flame war - just as you
>have done.  For what reason I have no idea - don't you have better things to
>do than pick on others posts?
>
> I suspect that's why your "Anonymous" - people who behave badly generally
>prefer to do it in secrecy.

You started the flame war with your pompous and belligerent original post. 
IMO, that was *clearly* your intention. Let's all hope your stay this time 
is as painless and short as possible.
-- 
Phil
0
Phil
9/23/2002 11:59:00 PM
Milly <-@-.-> wrote:

....
>Steve makes the rules. He wants posting to appropriate groups. He wants 
>us to point that out to people who don't do so. He doesn't want us to 
>respond with 'NG cop' attacks. 
....

Well met, Milly.  IMO, Brett now officially has enough rope.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/24/2002 12:08:00 AM
 "Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> responds
> "vodka" <b@man.robin> wrote in message
> > I myself try not to get involved
> 
> I agree.  Unless someone is vulgar, abusive, or spamming I ignore it.  If
> they are crossing those lines I report it.  But I will never waste my time
> correcting someone else because a) it's not my role to do so and b) because
> it will likely just make them do it more (as has been the case here).

I wouldn't go so far as to report anything to anybody and I agree that *is* not 
my place, but like I said these groups are self moderating and if someone is 
not following the rules then it will be pointed out, AFAIK this is our hosts 
wishes. One of the rules so to speak. 
-- 
vodka

whenever I feel blue............I start breathing again.
0
vodka
9/24/2002 12:13:00 AM
Brett wrote:

> Enough said on this matter?  If ya don't like it - plonk it!  :)

I don't <<plonk>>. But I do laugh at people who demand that. Then, if 
they get talking dumb enough, and persistent enough I start making bets 
on them keeping it up by predicting what their responses next will be. 
Your arguing looks like a possibility for it. <G>

You're actually being pretty dictatorial in your own right, ne? <G>

Cheers

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/24/2002 12:33:00 AM
Brett wrote:
> Nope - I actually could care less.  That's THEIR problem.  Rather than try
> and change the behavior of OTHERS (me in this case) those challenged with
> bandwidth or storage issues or whatever else should change their OWN
> behavior - in this case just download headers and skip my posts if they
> don't like them.

> Brett

Killfiled
0
Jessie
9/24/2002 12:48:00 AM
Brett wrote:

> Sorry but Steve doesn't get to decide that.

Ha!!! My money's on Steve on that one. Hands down. <G> <G>

Sometimes you aren't too careful what you say, are you?

>>But think how much MORE time we'd all save if you posted nothing at all.

Quit that! He might take you up on it too soon. <G>

> Have you been elected to some sort of post or do you just troll for the fun
> of it?

No need to be. Your attitude here speaks for itself.


If you don't like me and/or my posts - don't read them.  Simple
> really.  

Giving orders again?

If you look you'll see there are plenty of others who interact and
> participate in my threads without a problem...so MAYBE the problem is you?

Maybe when you don't have a problem, you aren't doing what you're doing 
here? The history of this thing doesn't show me anybody to look at 
except your attitude. I usually don't react negatively to your posts, 
but this one is a real winner. Kinda dumb, really. I'd thought better of 
you before you did it. But you jes' keep talkin' yer tawk, mista. It's 
ruttin' time again. <G> <G>

Cheers

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/24/2002 12:59:00 AM
Brett wrote:
....but only from those that MAKE the rules - not
> self appointed NG cops...

TPCTKB

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/24/2002 1:01:00 AM
> > I'm going to make an educated guess that Steve -- who makes
> > the rules --wants the wishes of others to mean more to you.
> 
> Sorry but Steve doesn't get to decide that.

Ah, but I do.

In my original eMail to you, I wrote ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

After the lessons learned from our experiences with the ten-forward 
groups, I am enforcing some additional structure in the grc 
newsgroups.  The goal is to make it a better place for everyone by 
enforcing more discipline upon the posters.

In this case, many people were asking you to shorten your signature 
until I finally had to get involved.  I asked you to as well ... 
which request you ignored.

We are a community of people who struggle to get along.  When many 
people reasonably ask you to make a reasonable change in your 
behavior, and when I concur with that request, you have a choice:  
Get along with the community by making that change, or become a 
passive read-only participant.  The choice IS yours.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This really is a community here Brett.  And when I said that we 
struggle to get along, that's more often true than not.

Doing so means working to treat each other with respect, and give 
each other the benefit of any doubt where a less mature person might 
choose to flame.

Online communities are notoriously volatile and prone to trouble, and 
we have (too) often seen how just one determined, noxious, poster can 
damage the peace.  But this place is too valuable to allow the needs 
of the one to overwhelm the needs of the many.

The demonstration of mutual respect -- even if it needs feigning -- 
is the key. It was the complete abandonment of that ethic within the 
ten-forward groups, more than anything else, which finally caused me 
to decide to close the group.  I'm truly glad that those people had 
another venue they could use since I wished them no ill, I only 
wished that they would traffic their preferred style of online banter 
elsewhere.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/24/2002 1:01:00 AM
Brett wrote:
"Don't wander
> off-topic, don't ramble and don't send mail or post messages solely to point
> out other people's errors" and then maybe YOU "would learn how to do many
> things correctly".

Which you apparently take to mean you can do anything you want and it's 
tough for others, right? If you don't push, people won't push back. Does 
that make sense? <G>

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/24/2002 1:05:00 AM
Brett wrote:

I just don't
> like self appointed NG trolls telling me what to do.  :)

Which should make you both about even. You can do what you want, and 
it's tough for those who don't like it. So others can be NG cops, and 
it's tough if **you** don't like it. Maybe the two will cancel each 
other? <G>

Cheers

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/24/2002 1:08:00 AM
Brett wrote:

>  I suspect that's why your "Anonymous" - people who behave badly generally
> prefer to do it in secrecy.

That's dumb as hell, seeing as his full name's at the bottom of his 
posts. Been that way for several years now. <G>

And you disparage others' ability to read? Gimmee a break, willya?

Cheers

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/24/2002 1:11:00 AM
Phil Youngblood wrote:

> You started the flame war with your pompous and belligerent original post. 
> IMO, that was *clearly* your intention. 

You're maybe right on this. <G>

> Let's all hope your stay this time is as painless and short as possible.

Not too short. I need a hard drive. Gimmee a couple of weeks anyway. <G>

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/24/2002 1:14:00 AM
["Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>] wrote ...

Since our eMail dialog over the weekend, I have heard from the person 
whose eMail address you have been deliberately using -- and are using 
here with only a slight cosmetic alteration.  I promised him that you 
would not be allowed to continue using his well known and long-
standing eMail address, nor any deliberately close facsimile of it, 
in your postings here.  You are, for that reason, again blocked from 
posting.

If you will change your eMail address to something which was not 
stolen from someone else and make a trial (blocked) posting to the 
grc.test newsgroup, it will be brought to my attention and I'll again 
lift the posting block on you.

I have also been asked to pursue some research into your past antics 
on other forums where you are roundly regarded as a continually 
troublesome troll and have been largely kill-filed.  This was 
apparently the motivation for your decision to switch to 
impersonating someone well known and popular there ... which 
unethical action, of course, caused additional trouble.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

At this point I regard this as hearsay, though troubling, background 
information about you.  Aside from the promise I made to the true 
owner of the eMail address you have impersonated, it is only your 
actions here over which I have any rightful concern.

That said, in the private eMail from me which you quoted publicly and 
without my consent I said ...

> > I'm glad you're here.  You are certainly welcome.

It is worth noting that I am less glad today than I was when I wrote 
that.  If I get much less glad, you will be returned to being a read-
only participant in these groups.  Everyone here knows, from much 
experience with me, that I would *much* rather err -- and repeatedly 
do -- in the direction of tolerance and forgiveness than kneejerk 
censorship and banishment.  And I never intend to change that.

But I also meant what I said in my first eMail to you about my 
decision to begin maintaining a somewhat firmer reign on the top 1% 
of nonsense that goes on here.  Eliminating that will only make this 
a better place for everyone.  You would be well served to quickly 
remove yourself from that category.

Thanks for your understanding.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/24/2002 1:20:00 AM
Brett" < wrote:
> "pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>> Right.  And in the interests of harmony, you come back with numerous
>> off-topic posts, and this really lousy job of making peace.
>
> Who said ANYTHING about making peace?  I was merely explaining that I
> don't mind following the rules - but only from those that MAKE the
> rules - not self appointed NG cops like yourself.

Brett,

The only rules I've seen people try to ask you to follow are pretty clearly
laid out in Steve's documents for these newsgroups, or other linked
documents on those pages.

All I've ever seen you do is argue against those rules.

It's not reasonable to ask Steve to intercede at every point, and he has
pages available for everyoen to refer people to for "the rules".

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/24/2002 1:37:00 AM
Brett

(and all aliases and IPs) are plonked here.  I don't like posting this 
sort of thing, (but very occasionally it is worth making public), but 
you, sunshine, are dust.

Live in silence.

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/24/2002 1:46:00 AM
Brett <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>"@?.?.invalid> writes:

>Who said ANYTHING about making peace?

Oh dear.   Bye-bye.

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/24/2002 1:54:00 AM
"graham (another one)" <igor001@hotmail.com> writes:

>Don't Overdo Signatures

Thank-you Graham.  Spot-on. :)

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/24/2002 1:58:00 AM
"Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> wrote in message
news:amm5ve$cea$1@news.grc.com...

<snip>
| Recently several people asked me to trim my signature length.
<snip>

| Thanks all-
|
| Brett

    I would like to thank everyone for an enjoyable time spent reading this
thread. To add my own two hundredths of a dollar, I think that both sides
have made some sound statements. While I agree with Brett that some people
tend to have fixations on petty things, I also agree with the frustrated
grade school hall monitors that we do need rules. I also think that there
are a lot of people in here with WAY too much time on their hands. Having
said that, I think we all need to take a deep breath and shake hands  before
the teacher makes us all come in from recess early.... (In non-allegory
talk: give it a rest, eh?)


--
Da Mutt.

Please remove your.ignorance to contact me by email.
0
Muttley
9/24/2002 2:07:00 AM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote ...

<snip>

| I have also been asked to pursue some research into your past antics
| on other forums...

<snip>

| But I also meant what I said in my first eMail to you about my
| decision to begin maintaining a somewhat firmer reign on the top 1%
| of nonsense that goes on here.

<snip>

| _________________________________________________________________
| Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >

    Please disregard my tongue-in-cheek post, I should have renewed my
headers before posting. Didn't know what you and everyone else were dealing
with (besides being somewhat brain dead by not picking up on it), but it did
kinda make an enjoyable Monday night read. <g>

--
Da Mutt.

Please remove your.ignorance to contact me by email.
0
Muttley
9/24/2002 2:28:00 AM
Brett wrote:

> "pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> 
>> I'm going to make an educated guess that Steve -- who makes the rules
>> -- wants the wishes of others to mean more to you.
> 
> Sorry but Steve doesn't get to decide that.
> 
Actually he does. Not that you'll see this judging from what I read. But 
it's his own server so he gets to make the rules as to who gets to play 
with it.
0
Jason
9/24/2002 9:17:00 AM
Waldo Hamilton wrote ... 

> TPCTKB

Hmmm. Care to enlighten me?
-- 
_____________________________________________________
brett       ~~~Quocunque Jeceris Stabit~~~
0
brett
9/24/2002 5:36:00 PM
In message <MPG.17fab316e66d655a989692@news.grc.com>, brett 
<brett@deadspam.com> writes
>Waldo Hamilton wrote ...
>
>> TPCTKB
>
>Hmmm. Care to enlighten me?

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black
-- 
 From invalid, Reply To works.
Kevin A.
0
Kevin
9/24/2002 6:10:00 PM
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 18:01:15 -0700, Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
wrote:

>Get along with the community by making that change, or become a 
>passive read-only participant.  The choice IS yours.

=Thank you=, Steve. 

I wasn't part of the argument with Brett originally, but his most
recent post here (or the one two posts "above" yours in this thread)
was as arrogant, rude, and clueless as anything it has been my
displeasure to see here. :/  You were a lot more polite than he
deserved in your response, in email and here.

If you had shut him off then, I wouldn't have blamed you one bit.  If
he doesn't get a clue and learn some manners now (even if he's faking
it)....   You don't need my permission or blessing to run this place
as you see fit, but you'd certainly have both. ;>



-- 
Catherine Hampton <ariel@spambouncer.org>
The SpamBouncer         *     <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
Personal Home Page      *         <http://www.devsite.org/>

(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header
is a spam trap.)
0
Catherine
9/24/2002 6:49:00 PM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> Since our eMail dialog over the weekend, I have heard from the person
> whose eMail address you have been deliberately using -- and are using
> here with only a slight cosmetic alteration.  I promised him that you
> would not be allowed to continue using his well known and long-
> standing eMail address, nor any deliberately close facsimile of it,
> in your postings here.

Steve - much of what I do is to make a point.  In this case - it is that no
one "owns" a munged or fake email address.  To suggest otherwise is absurd
and for you to block posts based solely on similairities to legitimate
addresses is a slippery slope indeed.

> This was
> apparently the motivation for your decision to switch to
> impersonating someone well known and popular there ... which
> unethical action, of course, caused additional trouble.

Unethical?  It's to make a point.  You own ONLY your email address.  You
don't own mispellings or munges.  I never posted using anyones name but my
own or "impersonated" anyone; I only use various null email addresses and
unless you tell me exactly why you think someone has a claim to a .null
address I probably will use it again, particularly now that this individual
has complained to you.  Note that he has also complained to my ISP, my news
hosting company, and anyone else who will listen and they all told him what
I've told you.... he doesn't own it.  Oddly your the only one he's been able
to convice otherwise. :)


Brett
0
Brett
9/24/2002 8:06:00 PM
[Catherine Hampton] wrote ...

> >Get along with the community by making that change, or become a 
> >passive read-only participant.  The choice IS yours.
> 
> =Thank you=, Steve. 
> 
> I wasn't part of the argument with Brett originally, but his most
> recent post here (or the one two posts "above" yours in this thread)
> was as arrogant, rude, and clueless as anything it has been my
> displeasure to see here. :/  You were a lot more polite than he
> deserved in your response, in email and here.
> 
> If you had shut him off then, I wouldn't have blamed you one bit.  If
> he doesn't get a clue and learn some manners now (even if he's faking
> it)....   You don't need my permission or blessing to run this place
> as you see fit, but you'd certainly have both. ;>

This is an extremely valuable place. And it is, I believe, steadily 
growing in value as we collect a growing number of sincere, 
interested, and informed people.

There is nothing I am dispositionally less suited for than being some 
mother hen censor, yet the job is mine until I can get eCommerce 
running and move my staff from "on the phone" to "online here" ... 
which is a near-term goal of mine.  At that point some very good 
people, whom I have known and employed in one instance for as many as 
fifteen years, will be able to afford the time to appear here to keep 
an eye on these groups. Though I consider it to be unfortunate, it's 
clear that a "central authority" of some sort is required in any 
unmoderated public forum such as this.  My employees also have more 
common sense than I do (which I have learned to trust and respect) so 
I think everyone here will be pleased by their tempering presence.

....

In interacting with Brett it appears that part of the problem may be 
that he doesn't read all of what's being posted in threads where he 
participates. Several times he has claimed ignorance of things I have 
posted. I can't know whether that's a game or the truth.  But either 
way the result is a communications gap that has created confusion.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/24/2002 8:07:00 PM
Folks,

Brett's postings have been blocked, but I thought you should see the 
recent posting of his, still under the eMail address I asked him not 
to use which apparently deliberately mimics that of another well-
known newsgroup personality:  <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>

>-------------------------------------------------------------------

"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> Since our eMail dialog over the weekend, I have heard from the person
> whose eMail address you have been deliberately using -- and are using
> here with only a slight cosmetic alteration.  I promised him that you
> would not be allowed to continue using his well known and long-
> standing eMail address, nor any deliberately close facsimile of it,
> in your postings here.

Steve - much of what I do is to make a point.  In this case - it is 
that no one "owns" a munged or fake email address.  To suggest 
otherwise is absurd and for you to block posts based solely on 
similarities to legitimate addresses is a slippery slope indeed.

> This was
> apparently the motivation for your decision to switch to
> impersonating someone well known and popular there ... which
> unethical action, of course, caused additional trouble.

Hardly.  It's to make a point.  You own ONLY your email address.  You 
don't own misspellings or munges.  I never posted using anyones name 
but my own or "impersonated" anyone; I only used a null email address 
and unless you tell me exactly why you think someone has a claim to a 
..null address I probably will use it again, particularly now that 
this individual has complained to you.  Note that he has also 
complained to my ISP, my news hosting company, and anyone else who 
will listen and they all told him what I've told you.... he doesn't 
own it.  Your the only one he's been able to convince otherwise.
:)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/24/2002 8:14:00 PM
Kevin A. wrote ... 

> In message <MPG.17fab316e66d655a989692@news.grc.com>, brett 
> <brett@deadspam.com> writes
> >Waldo Hamilton wrote ...
> >
> >> TPCTKB
> >
> >Hmmm. Care to enlighten me?
> 
> The Pot Calling The Kettle Black

Ah! Cheers!
-- 
_____________________________________________________
brett       ~~~Quocunque Jeceris Stabit~~~
0
brett
9/24/2002 9:14:00 PM
Steve Gibson wrote ... 

> Brett's postings have been blocked, but I thought you should see the 
> recent posting of his, still under the eMail address I asked him not 
> to use which apparently deliberately mimics that of another well-
> known newsgroup personality:  <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>

Posting under this name is leaving me feeling ever more embarrassed <g>
-- 
_____________________________________________________
brett       ~~~Quocunque Jeceris Stabit~~~
0
brett
9/24/2002 9:17:00 PM
[brett] wrote ...

> Posting under this name is leaving me feeling ever more embarrassed <g>

That's okay brett (with a lower-case 'b').  Collisions do naturally 
occur in cyberspace.

One thing you can easily do to forever remove all doubt is to change 
your news server logon from "anonymous" to using a username and 
password (which must be the same).  This activates the second-
generation Cecil-ID system for your posts and also allows you to 
cancel any of your own postings.

You retain *full* anonymity, since neither your username nor password 
ever appear.  Rather, if your username and password are identical (as 
they should be for this purpose), you'll find that a "hash" of them 
is appended to every "Poster" header.  So long as you have used an 
extremely good (uncommon and unguessable) username and matching 
password, this provides extremely strong posting authentication.

Your posts will be provably from you and no one else because the 
cryptographic hash is (for all practical purposes) a "one way" 
function.  No one can take your public "hash" and determine what 
username and password will give the same result.

Thus, all of your postings will be uniquely tagged as being from you. 
Then, because of this strong authentication, cancel requests from you 
will be honored for postings carrying the same Cecil-ID hash value.

:)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/24/2002 9:38:00 PM
brett posted the following to grc.security

> Posting under this name is leaving me feeling ever more embarrassed <g>

No problem. We've put away the tar and feathers. 

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/24/2002 9:39:00 PM
Steve Gibson wrote ... 

> [brett] wrote ...
> 
> > Posting under this name is leaving me feeling ever more embarrassed <g>
> 
> That's okay brett (with a lower-case 'b').  Collisions do naturally 
> occur in cyberspace.
> 
> One thing you can easily do to forever remove all doubt is to change 
> your news server logon from "anonymous" to using a username and 
> password (which must be the same).  This activates the second-
> generation Cecil-ID system for your posts and also allows you to 
> cancel any of your own postings.
> 
Thanks, Steve :)
-- 
_____________________________________________________
brett       ~~~Quocunque Jeceris Stabit~~~
0
brett
9/24/2002 10:41:00 PM
Anonymous Bob wrote ... 

> brett posted the following to grc.security
> 
> > Posting under this name is leaving me feeling ever more embarrassed <g>
> 
> No problem. We've put away the tar and feathers. 

Argh! Stag The Sequel <g>
-- 
_____________________________________________________
brett       ~~~Quocunque Jeceris Stabit~~~
0
brett
9/24/2002 10:43:00 PM
In article <MPG.17fa6767f4ce7db798ac27@207.71.92.194>, Steve Gibson 
says...
> Brett's postings have been blocked, but I thought you should see the 
> recent posting of his, still under the eMail address I asked him not 
> to use which apparently deliberately mimics that of another well-
> known newsgroup personality:  <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
> 
Thanks Steve,

I really did not feel the urge to spend time adjusting four e-mail 
clients, two being different kinds I use to read these groups, just to 
filter out posts from Brett.  

Paul,
-- 
Hey, I don't block the adds, I just let Ad Zapper read them for me.
0
Lurker
9/24/2002 10:56:00 PM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> Steve - much of what I do is to make a point.  In this case - it is
> that no one "owns" a munged or fake email address.  To suggest
> otherwise is absurd and for you to block posts based solely on
> similarities to legitimate addresses is a slippery slope indeed.

So do you disagree?
0
Brett
9/24/2002 11:37:00 PM
Brett <brett@null.com> writes:

>You own ONLY your email address.

Many of us 'own' several domains.  That is several 'infinite' addresses. 
If you chose to come so close to one of mine, I'd be asking questions as 
well.  It's not just a matter of 'fact' it is also one of 'degree'.

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/25/2002 12:27:00 AM
brett <brett@deadspam.com> writes:

>Steve Gibson wrote ...
>
>> Brett's postings have been blocked, but I thought you should see the
>> recent posting of his, still under the eMail address I asked him not
>> to use which apparently deliberately mimics that of another well-
>> known newsgroup personality:  <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
>
>Posting under this name is leaving me feeling ever more embarrassed <g>

brett <brett@deadspam.com> is welcome here - there is no confusion. :))

There are some UseNet *rseholes who call themselves Jim.

Wot Me Worry, as Alfred Neumann might say.

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/25/2002 12:46:00 AM
Brett <brett@null.com> writes:

>"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
>> Steve - much of what I do is to make a point.  In this case - it is
>> that no one "owns" a munged or fake email address.  To suggest
>> otherwise is absurd and for you to block posts based solely on
>> similarities to legitimate addresses is a slippery slope indeed.
>
>So do you disagree?

Please don't push the envelope.  You may have much to contribute, but 
this is not UseNet, and what is acceptable here is judged by and large 
by:

Privacy, Security, or Techtalk.

If not, or a troll, go elsewhere.  Obviously some OT threads come in, 
and are often welcomed, but remember the possible calibre of those who 
lurk.

I.E., if you don't want to sound like a prat, don't e-talk as one, and 
I'm one who remembers the lesson....

BTDIGTTS

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/25/2002 1:16:00 AM
Brett wrote:
> "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
>> Steve - much of what I do is to make a point.  In this case - it is
>> that no one "owns" a munged or fake email address.  To suggest
>> otherwise is absurd and for you to block posts based solely on
>> similarities to legitimate addresses is a slippery slope indeed.
>
> So do you disagree?

Personally, I wouldn't want to be receiving emails due to other people's
attempts to unmunge the addresses posted in your headers.

But I get the feeling it's just another one of those troll questions, so
I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/25/2002 1:17:00 AM
[Lurker] wrote ...

> Thanks Steve,
> 
> I really did not feel the urge to spend time adjusting four
> e-mail clients, two being different kinds I use to read these
> groups, just to filter out posts from Brett.

And, with the conclusion this thread has taken, it appears that
you won't have to after all.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/25/2002 1:52:00 AM
[Brett] wrote ...

> So do you disagree?

See my reply to your repost of this above.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/25/2002 1:54:00 AM
[Brett] wrote ...

> Steve - much of what I do is to make a point.

Perhaps, with regard to your future here, that's an unfortunate 
stance to take Brett.  This is not the public USENET ... which
is one reason why many of the people who frequent these groups
have chosen to do so.

> In this case - it is that no one "owns" a munged or fake
> email address.  To suggest otherwise is absurd and for you
> to block posts based solely on similairities to legitimate
> addresses is a slippery slope indeed.

The evidence suggests and supports the allegation that you were
using someone else's well known eMail address for the sake of 
impersonating and, perhaps, punishing them.  You further comments
below further substantiate the idea that you were doing so and
will again for putative reasons.

> > This was apparently the motivation for your decision to switch
> > to impersonating someone well known and popular there ... which
> > unethical action, of course, caused additional trouble.
> 
> Unethical?  It's to make a point.  You own ONLY your email address.
> You don't own mispellings or munges.  I never posted using anyones
> name but my own or "impersonated" anyone; I only use various null
> email addresses and unless you tell me exactly why you think someone
> has a claim to a .null address I probably will use it again,
> particularly now that this individual has complained to you.

To get any mileage from your attitudes, Brett, you will need to 
peddle them elsewhere.  Telling me that you intend to deliberately 
defy my well-meaning request that you cease impersonating others here 
as you have in other public forums is the quickest way to help me 
solve my problem of spending an inordinate amount of time worrying 
about what's the "fairest" thing to do about you.  You've provided 
the answer.

I have been quite patient with you, and I have given you every 
benefit of the doubt ... to the point of assuming in your benefit 
that you might not have been reading all of the contents of the 
threads you've been participating in.  (Because I was reluctant to 
believe that you were being as deliberately manipulative as you 
apparently have been.)

> Note that he has also complained to my ISP, my news hosting
> company, and anyone else who will listen and they all told him
> what I've told you.... he doesn't own it.  Oddly your the only
> one he's been able to convice otherwise. :)

Nothing odd about it to my mind.  I'm probably the only person among 
those who chooses to care.  As for your personal grudge against this 
person, that's between you and him.  It has nothing to do with us.  I 
honored his request as I would anyone else's in a similar situation.

I think we're done here.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/25/2002 2:00:00 AM
Jim Crowther wrote:
> Brett <brett@null.com> writes:
> 
>> You own ONLY your email address.
> 
> 
> Many of us 'own' several domains.  That is several 'infinite' addresses. 
> If you chose to come so close to one of mine, I'd be asking questions as 
> well.  It's not just a matter of 'fact' it is also one of 'degree'.
> 

Just in case anybody does not know, he has been doing tje same thing on the
Spamcop server.
0
maxm
9/25/2002 2:34:00 AM
[Jim Crowther] wrote ...

> It's not just a matter of 'fact' it is also one of 'degree'.

It closely follows the model of a trademark.

The test made by the courts is not whether the mark is identical,
but whether it is close enough so as to be confused with the 
previously existing mark. If it appears likely that an average
person might be confused, then the challenged mark is judged to
be too close and infringing upon the lawful rights of the
existing trademark holder.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/25/2002 3:24:00 AM
Steve Gibson wrote:

> Nothing odd about it to my mind.  I'm probably the only person among 
> those who chooses to care.  As for your personal grudge against this 
> person, that's between you and him.  It has nothing to do with us.  I 
> honored his request as I would anyone else's in a similar situation.

> I think we're done here.

Interesting idea about whether it's done or not. I've got a private 
email from 'him' too. I probably won't bother with trying to find real 
routing of the email, but what I did look at superficially seemed a bit 
weird and disconnected. Perhaps devious is the word to use. Manipulative 
probably fits too. Nothing new in the email...just the same kind of 
stuff as here. If anybody has any trouble with the issue and the 
information would help, ask and it can be sent.

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/25/2002 4:46:00 AM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> The evidence suggests and supports the allegation that you were
> using someone else's well known eMail address for the sake of
> impersonating and, perhaps, punishing them.

No - I am using a INVALID MUNGED address and have a to ntime - ever -
impersonated anyone or misrepresented my identity.

> Telling me that you intend to deliberately defy my well-meaning request

I'm sorry I wasn't clear.   I won't do something against the policy on a
private server (even though I disgaree with it) but I will do continue to do
it elsewhere.

> As for your personal grudge against this  person

You've been around long enough - and no enough about my preofessional
background - to know there are two side to every story.

> It has nothing to do with us.  I  honored his request as I would anyone
else's > in a similar situation.

You may find that to be a very time consuming commitment but that's up to
you.  In any case - your server - your rules - no problem.  :)

> I think we're done here.

I agree.  Thanks and again sorry for wasting your time - but perhaps
clarifying things isn't such a waste after all.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 7:30:00 PM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17facc4e742df6de98ac35@207.71.92.194...
> The test made by the courts is not whether the mark is identical,
> but whether it is close enough so as to be confused with the
> previously existing mark. If it appears likely that an average
> person might be confused, then the challenged mark is judged to
> be too close and infringing upon the lawful rights of the
> existing trademark holder.

Not at all - in such cases you'd have to prove "damages" (or the potential
of) and in the case of an invalid null email address there are none.  Bad a
analogy.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 7:33:00 PM
> I agree.  Thanks and again sorry for wasting your time - but perhaps
> clarifying things isn't such a waste after all.
>
> Brett
>
>

You sure have an odd way of making peace with someone Brett.
0
Jason
9/25/2002 7:38:00 PM
"Brett" <brett@null.com> wrote:

>"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
>> The evidence suggests and supports the allegation that you were
>> using someone else's well known eMail address for the sake of
>> impersonating and, perhaps, punishing them.

>No - I am using a INVALID MUNGED address and have a to ntime - ever -
>impersonated anyone or misrepresented my identity.

The address is indeed invalid, as the null.com domain has no mail server
-- most likely because of abuse like yours.

The domain is owned by someone, and it is not yours to forge:

Registrant:
   Jean, Raphaelle (NULL-COM-DOM)
   This Domain Is Not For Sale
   510 r Augereau
   Paris, Paris 75007
   FR
   713156
   raphaelle@bluemail.ch

   Domain Name: NULL.COM

   Administrative Contact:
      Jean, Raphaelle raphaelle@bluemail.ch
      This Domain Is Not For Sale
      510 r Augereau
      Paris, Paris 75007
      FR
      713156

   Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
      Jean, Raphaelle raphaelle@bluemail.ch
      This Domain Is Not For Sale
      510 r Augereau
      Paris, Paris 75007
      FR
      713156

   Record last updated on 10-Aug-2002.
   Record expires on 21-Jan-2004.
   Record created on 20-Jan-1995.


pchelp
0
pchelp
9/25/2002 7:43:00 PM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> Nothing odd about it to my mind.  I'm probably the only person among
> those who chooses to care.

BTW I can't let that go unanswered.  I don't think that's the case at all -
it's just that no one else perceives it as a violation of any kind.  A
trademark issue?  Well let him spend the money and try to find the
precedent.  I don't see how it affects you or GRC in any case - it seems
you're just taking sides in a petty NG war.

Is it stupid?  SURE!  But if I can annoy someone who's been antagonizing me
for two years without sinking to his level of flaming, name calling,
trolling, using vulgarity, or violating any TOS then hell yes I find it
*very* amusing.  Agitating you was the only negative result so far (and I do
regret that).  But again - it's your server so you make the rules.  :)
0
Brett
9/25/2002 7:47:00 PM
"Jim Crowther" <Don't.use.Lockdown@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote > Many
of us 'own' several domains.  That is several 'infinite' addresses.
> If you chose to come so close to one of mine, I'd be asking questions as
> well.  It's not just a matter of 'fact' it is also one of 'degree'.

....and if you used mine I would be too.  But that doesn't mean I have the
right to DO anything about it.  For example... could I create an address at
my domain called steve@grc.brettschulte.com.  Damn right I could and I don't
believe he'd have a legal or moral leg to stand on if he didn't like it.

In THIS case however we're talking a private server - so if Steve determines
that a particular use is inappropriate so be it.  That doesn't make him
right mind you - but he is "king of his castle".
0
Brett
9/25/2002 8:01:00 PM
In article <amt3tf$18kj$1@news.grc.com> Brett wrote:
> "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> > Nothing odd about it to my mind.  I'm probably the only person among
> > those who chooses to care.
> 
> BTW I can't let that go unanswered.  I don't think that's the case at all -
> it's just that no one else perceives it as a violation of any kind.  A
> trademark issue?  Well let him spend the money and try to find the
> precedent.  I don't see how it affects you or GRC in any case - it seems
> you're just taking sides in a petty NG war.
> 
> Is it stupid?  SURE!  But if I can annoy someone who's been antagonizing me
> for two years without sinking to his level of flaming, name calling,
> trolling, using vulgarity, or violating any TOS then hell yes I find it
> *very* amusing.  Agitating you was the only negative result so far (and I do
> regret that).  But again - it's your server so you make the rules.  :)

With all due respect to each and every individual in the GRC newsgroups
and the present discussion, this thread is X-posted to 4 separate
groups.  In future, please followup only to the grc.privacy NG.  Thanks.

Followups set to grc.privacy.

-- 
Alan
Sneaking up on Einstein:
< http://www.cox-internet.com/hermital/holoprt2.htm >
0
hermital
9/25/2002 8:01:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> The domain is owned by someone, and it is not yours to forge:

Wrong.  I used .null NOT .null.com.  Do your homework.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 8:03:00 PM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> Personally, I wouldn't want to be receiving emails due to other people's
> attempts to unmunge the addresses posted in your headers.

Sam - it's not a valid address.  If it was then it would most certainly be a
violation (and I wouldn't do it)  but a .null is not valid.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 8:04:00 PM
Brett <brett@null.com> wrote in news:amt2v5$17f0$1@news.grc.com:

> No - I am using a INVALID MUNGED address and have a to ntime - ever -
> impersonated anyone or misrepresented my identity.

You move in very elevated circles if you have the authority or 
permission to use null.com - personally I doubt you have.

Use a properly formatted .invalid domain, register your own bit-bucket, 
or get permission to use one.

Like some of us here have done.

-- 
Jim Crowther
0
Jim
9/25/2002 8:07:00 PM
"Brett" <brett@null.com> wrote in news:amt4sc$19ko$1@news.grc.com:

> "pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>> The domain is owned by someone, and it is not yours to forge:
> 
> Wrong.  I used .null NOT .null.com.  Do your homework.

Your current address (as you can see above) is being displayed as 
brett@null.com.

-- 
-Insert worn-out cliched anti-MS flame here...it'll make you cool-
    (Extra coolness awarded for doing so from your Windows box)

"Never, ever, EVER, sarcastic.  Ever."
0
BlueJAMC
9/25/2002 8:08:00 PM
Brett wrote:
> "pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>> The domain is owned by someone, and it is not yours to forge:
>
> Wrong.  I used .null NOT .null.com.  Do your homework.

He's talking about the address you are using now.

If you want an unroutable address that is "free for use", try
me@privacy.net, I beleive they have accounts setup to discard unwanted
emails.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/25/2002 8:09:00 PM
Brett wrote:
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> Personally, I wouldn't want to be receiving emails due to other
>> people's attempts to unmunge the addresses posted in your headers.
>
> Sam - it's not a valid address.  If it was then it would most
> certainly be a violation (and I wouldn't do it)  but a .null is not
> valid.

However, Brett, there is only one way to unmunge it, and it is clearly
intended to unmunge into someone else's address. You know this, I know this.
Everyone does.

If I were to use brett@NOSPAM.null.com I could be equally accused of trying
to mimic your current email address.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/25/2002 8:11:00 PM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in
news:amt55i$1a5d$1@news.grc.com: 

> If you want an unroutable address that is "free for use", try
> me@privacy.net, I beleive they have accounts setup to discard
> unwanted emails.

Also, example.com is a good one which doesn't accept e-mail, so if 
you want an e-mail address to go nowhere, example.com would be a good 
option.

However, at this point, I get the feeling this isn't really what 
Brett wants.

-- 
-Insert worn-out cliched anti-MS flame here...it'll make you cool-
    (Extra coolness awarded for doing so from your Windows box)

"Never, ever, EVER, sarcastic.  Ever."
0
BlueJAMC
9/25/2002 8:13:00 PM
Greetings,

"Brett" <brett@null.com> wrote in message
news:amt4sc$19ko$1@news.grc.com...
>
> "pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> > The domain is owned by someone, and it is not yours to forge:
>
> Wrong.  I used .null NOT .null.com.  Do your homework.
>
> Brett

Erm.. your headers from the above response...

====
Path: news.grc.com!.
From: "Brett" <brett@null.com>
Newsgroups: grc.privacy,grc.security,grc.security.software,grc.test
Subject: Re: OT: Sig length
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 14:03:08 -0600
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <amt4sc$19ko$1@news.grc.com>
====

Makes it appear that you ARE using a null.com e-mail address.

--
Regards,
Neale NOON
0
noonie
9/25/2002 8:17:00 PM
[Brett] wrote ...

> Not at all - in such cases you'd have to prove "damages" (or
> the potential of) and in the case of an invalid null email
> address there are none.  Bad a analogy.

That's not correct Brett.  I own many trademarks and have a great 
deal of experience with the process.  You're quite wrong.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/25/2002 8:17:00 PM
"Brett" <brett@null.com> wrote:

>"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.17facc4e742df6de98ac35@207.71.92.194...
>> The test made by the courts is not whether the mark is identical,
>> but whether it is close enough so as to be confused with the
>> previously existing mark. If it appears likely that an average
>> person might be confused, then the challenged mark is judged to
>> be too close and infringing upon the lawful rights of the
>> existing trademark holder.

>Not at all - in such cases you'd have to prove "damages" (or the potential
>of) and in the case of an invalid null email address there are none.  Bad a
>analogy.

Are you _feigning_ obtuseness, Brett, or is it real?  (For the record, I
firmly believe it's an act.)

The idea Steve must "prove" anything is ridiculous.  He takes the
trouble to explain his decisions, but there's nothing to prevent him
making his decisions on the merest whim.  You need only violate a
principle he regards as important.  You have no recourse, courts of law
are irrelevant, analogies are only analogies.

Fortunately for us all, Steve follows a rational set of standards, and
he articulates them.  Agreement with those standards seems pretty
consistent here, but it's not a requirement.

Count yourself lucky I'm not in charge.  I'd have banned you permanently
long ago, and I'd engage in no further dialogue with you on the subject.
You're an offensive, baselessly argumentative, intractably trollish
contributor here.  Your cross-posted, off-topic trolls have caused
nothing but disruption.  You have potential to be useful, I'm sure, but
you haven't ever realized it and I'm convinced you never will.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/25/2002 8:22:00 PM
"Brett" <brett@null.com> wrote:

>"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>> The domain is owned by someone, and it is not yours to forge:

>Wrong.  I used .null NOT .null.com.  Do your homework.

LOL!

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/25/2002 8:23:00 PM
Steve
The thread is posted across several grc.group including grc.test.
Pease tell everyone forward to grc.privacy only

Thank
NS
0
Nice
9/25/2002 8:27:00 PM
"Brett" <brett@null.com> wrote:

>Is it stupid?  SURE!  But if I can annoy someone who's been antagonizing me
>... then hell yes I find it *very* amusing.  Agitating you was the only
>negative result so far ...

Just for the record, Steve, since this is what we have to look forward
to, and nothing of real value AFAICT, I'd be unconcerned if you were to
summarily drop this guy in the bit-bucket.

This is not a demand, nor even (quite) a suggestion.  Just a comment.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/25/2002 8:29:00 PM
[Brett] wrote ...

> No - I am using a INVALID MUNGED address and have a to ntime
> - ever - impersonated anyone or misrepresented my identity.

Here are three snippets of headers from postings you recently made
to the spamcop newsgroup where Greg -- the person you have been 
impersonating -- is a frequent visitor and contributor:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Path: news.spamcop.net!not-for-mail
From: "GregR" <spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
Newsgroups: spamcop
Subject: Re: [SpamCop-List] what is going on with this list?
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:41:07 -0600
Organization: SpamCop
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl-200-67-93-121.prodigy.net.mx
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Path: news.spamcop.net!not-for-mail
From: "GregR" <spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
Newsgroups: spamcop
Subject: Re: [SpamCop-List] what is going on with this list?
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:41:13 -0600
Organization: SpamCop
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl-200-67-93-121.prodigy.net.mx
-----------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Path: news.spamcop.net!not-for-mail
From: "GregR" <spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
Newsgroups: spamcop
Subject: Re: ANTI-SPAM VICTORY!  "Mike's List" Figured it out!!!!
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:41:25 -0600
Organization: SpamCop
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl-200-67-93-121.prodigy.net.mx
-----------------------------------------------------------------

As the posting's NNTP-Posting-Headers clearly show, this is the IP 
and provider through whom you have been connecting to the Internet.

I consider your use of Greg's name, and your apparent intention to 
closely copy his eMail address, to be a deliberately confusing 
impersonation of him.  If I were this person I would be quite upset 
with you, and his request to prevent your use of his close-copied 
eMail address here is something I feel well within reason to honor.


> You've been around long enough - and no enough about my preofessional
> background - to know there are two side to every story.

I'm afraid that I know nothing about your professional background 
Brett.  I only know of you what we have all seen demonstrated here.  

You have shown yourself to be an argumentative person who seems 
unwilling or unable to admit when you have acted in error.  That 
being so, I would be loath to trust your professional opinion, 
concerned as I would be that similar errors in your judgement would 
be hidden or covered up.  An error never acknowledged can never be 
corrected.

I have made plenty of mistakes in the past, some which I regret to 
such as extent that they help to shape my personality today.  But 
that's what growth and maturity are all about -- and it's one of the 
places where growth and maturity come from.  Public admissions may 
not be necessary, but private ones certainly are.


> > It has nothing to do with us. I honored his request as I
> > would anyone else's in a similar situation.
> 
> You may find that to be a very time consuming commitment but that's
> up to you. In any case - your server - your rules - no problem.  :)

Indeed, it is excessively time-consuming.  But it's part of the 
responsibility that comes along with offering a public forum such as 
this.


> > I think we're done here.
> 
> I agree.  Thanks and again sorry for wasting your time - but
> perhaps clarifying things isn't such a waste after all.

I don't consider it a waste of time at all.  A consumption of 
valuable time, certainly, but not time wasted.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/25/2002 8:44:00 PM
BlueJAMC wrote in
news:Xns92949AE6B3E2FBlueJAMCnoneofthatsp@207.71.92.194: 

> Also, example.com is a good one which doesn't accept e-mail, so if
> you want an e-mail address to go nowhere, example.com would be a
> good option.

Sorry, that's not so.  The owner, Network Solutions, will not give 
permission.

"These domain names are reserved for use in documentation"



-- 
Jim Crowther
0
Jim
9/25/2002 8:52:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
news:3d921b56.181163932@news.grc.com...
> "Brett" <brett@null.com> wrote:

> >Is it stupid?  SURE!  But if I can annoy someone who's been antagonizing
me
> >... then hell yes I find it *very* amusing.  Agitating you was the only
> >negative result so far ...
> Just for the record, Steve, since this is what we have to look forward
> to, and nothing of real value AFAICT, I'd be unconcerned if you were to
> summarily drop this guy in the bit-bucket.
> This is not a demand, nor even (quite) a suggestion.  Just a comment.

> pchelp

I will second that.
In fact, three strikes and get benched.
This guy  play bad ball game here. And doesn't listen to team manager.
He also add grc.test his fields just to run up the score against Steve.
Very rude in his part.

NS
0
Nice
9/25/2002 9:05:00 PM
Jim Crowther <Don't.use.Lockdown@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
wrote in news:Xns9294DE6884346jimxncrowfamorguk@207.71.92.194: 

> BlueJAMC wrote in
> news:Xns92949AE6B3E2FBlueJAMCnoneofthatsp@207.71.92.194: 
> 
>> Also, example.com is a good one which doesn't accept e-mail, so
>> if you want an e-mail address to go nowhere, example.com would
>> be a good option. 
> 
> Sorry, that's not so.  The owner, Network Solutions, will not
> give permission.

Actually, it looks like the "owner", if you can call it such, is 
IANA.  In reality, it appears they've just set aside the domain 
names, similar to .test, .example, .invalid and .localhost.

But, I suppose there's no reason a different address could be used.

-- 
-Insert worn-out cliched anti-MS flame here...it'll make you cool-
    (Extra coolness awarded for doing so from your Windows box)

"Never, ever, EVER, sarcastic.  Ever."
0
BlueJAMC
9/25/2002 9:07:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> You have no recourse, courts of law
> are irrelevant, analogies are only analogies.

....and no one has suggested otherwise.  We're talking trademarks not about
the right to post.  Try to keep up.

> You're an offensive, baselessly argumentative, intractably trollish
> contributor here.

....and you're a name calling troll perpetuating a pointless agruement - and
cross posting while you tell ME not to!  :)

>  and I'd engage in no further dialogue with you on the subject.

Please start now?

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 9:10:00 PM
BlueJAMC wrote:
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in
> news:amt55i$1a5d$1@news.grc.com:
>
>> If you want an unroutable address that is "free for use", try
>> me@privacy.net, I beleive they have accounts setup to discard
>> unwanted emails.
>
> Also, example.com is a good one which doesn't accept e-mail, so if
> you want an e-mail address to go nowhere, example.com would be a good
> option.

Well, what I meant is privacy.net has _specifically_ established a battery
of email addresses for people to use in fields where an address is required,
but where no reply is wanted.

So, if you want a bit-bucket address, but don't want to go to the trouble of
setting one up, or getting someone's authorization, and you KNOW you will
never care what gets sent there intended for you, that is an option.

See:
http://www.privacy.net/email/

> However, at this point, I get the feeling this isn't really what
> Brett wants.

I agree.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/25/2002 9:21:00 PM
"hermital" <hermital@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
> With all due respect to each and every individual in the GRC newsgroups
> and the present discussion, this thread is X-posted to 4 separate
> groups.  In future, please followup only to the grc.privacy NG.  Thanks.

Just out of curiosity - why THAT one?
0
Brett
9/25/2002 9:49:00 PM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> Here are three snippets of headers from postings you recently made
> to the spamcop newsgroup where Greg -- the person you have been
> impersonating -- is a frequent visitor and contributor:
> As the posting's NNTP-Posting-Headers clearly show, this is the IP
> and provider through whom you have been connecting to the Internet.

I have ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, *NEVER* posted anything as GregR or anyone
else other than myself.  Never.  If I had I'm certain that the Spamcop admin
or my ISP would do more than just laugh at him when he whines (as they do
now) as that would clearly be a violation.

> I consider your use of Greg's name, and your apparent intention to
> closely copy his eMail address, to be a deliberately confusing
> impersonation of him.

I have never used his name - only the same invalid munged reply address.
Regardless of what you "consider" it to be it's not a violation of law or
the policies of my ISP or news hosts providers... and I have already agreed
not to do it on your server.

> You have shown yourself to be an argumentative person

Sure - when there is an interesting pricible at stake.  Healthy discussion -
barring abuse and name calling - is how good ideas get sorted out from bad.

> who seems
> unwilling or unable to admit when you have acted in error.

I hope that's not the case - I DID mistakenly post using null.com today...
and admited the error, stopped, and sent them an apology.

I didn't want to digress into a long dissertation of my issue with GregR but
since YOU bring it up... he has a long tradition of him trolling, name
calling, and using vulgarity in newsgroups.  I don't do that; never have.
When he posts to or about me I politely email him asking him to stop (just
as RFC 1855 suggests).  He then insists I can't email him without his
"permission".  I say his posting to or about me IS "permission".  He has for
years contacted my providers and news hosts complaining that by send him a
single email asking him to not harass me in a newsgroup that I am "spamming"
him.  He has lost this argument EVERY time and is extremely frustrated and
bitter as a result. He frequently follows every one of my posts with more
off topic and harassing name calling.

So... if my using the same posting address he uses (but does not own as it
is an invalid address) annoys him I couldn't be happier and it couldn't
happen to a more deserving guy... but I won't do it here.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 9:50:00 PM
"BlueJAMC" <BlueJAMC@noneofthatspamhereatnetzero.net> wrote in
> Your current address (as you can see above) is being displayed as
> brett@null.com.

Damn it.  Touche - an error.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 9:50:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> LOL!

In the posts you were referring to - I did not use null.com.
0
Brett
9/25/2002 9:50:00 PM
Brett wrote ... 

> Not at all - in such cases you'd have to prove "damages" (or the potential
> of) and in the case of an invalid null email address there are none.  Bad a
> analogy.

Absolute hogwash! In cases of copyright infringement courts (on both 
sides of the pond) are empowered to make orders for delivery up and/or  
seizure in addition to the award of damages. Furthermore, if the matter 
is brought before the criminal courts, a person found guilty of copyright 
infringement is liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding 
level 5 on the statutory scale or to a spell not exceeding 2 years in the 
chokey or to both.
-- 
_____________________________________________________
brett       ~~~Quocunque Jeceris Stabit~~~
0
brett
9/25/2002 10:03:00 PM
"Nice Shot" <ns@nospam.non> wrote in message news:amt8e4$1ej5
> He also add grc.test his fields just to run up the score against Steve.

No - because Steve had said to.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 10:05:00 PM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> However, Brett, there is only one way to unmunge it, and it is clearly
> intended to unmunge into someone else's address. You know this, I know
this.
> Everyone does.

We also all know what bongs are for but it's not illegal to buy them.  :)

I never disputed my intent Sam - only that doing it was not in itself a
violation of any kind.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 10:09:00 PM
[Brett] wrote ...

> ... but I won't do it here.

Fair enough Brett.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/25/2002 10:11:00 PM
In article <amtb17$1hd0$4@news.grc.com> Brett wrote:
> "hermital" <hermital@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
> > With all due respect to each and every individual in the GRC newsgroups
> > and the present discussion, this thread is X-posted to 4 separate
> > groups.  In future, please followup only to the grc.privacy NG.  Thanks.
> 
> Just out of curiosity - why THAT one?

Essentially for two reasons:

1. I know, without a doubt, the thread doesn't belong in grc.test.
2. IMHO, the grc.privacy NG would seem to be the best place for this
continuing conversation wrt munged email addresses, individual rights,
and personal responsibilities.

Thank you for asking.

-- 
Alan
Sneaking up on Einstein:
< http://www.cox-internet.com/hermital/holoprt2.htm >
0
hermital
9/25/2002 10:12:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> Just for the record, Steve, since this is what we have to look forward
> to, and nothing of real value AFAICT, I'd be unconcerned if you were to
> summarily drop this guy in the bit-bucket.

I would be ashamed if I were you. If you have a problem with an individual
why not simply block or ignore them?  Do you always try to censor those you
disagree with or rally others against them?  Like book burnings too?

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 10:12:00 PM
In grc.privacy, Brett said...
> "hermital" <hermital@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
> > With all due respect to each and every individual in the GRC newsgroups
> > and the present discussion, this thread is X-posted to 4 separate
> > groups.  In future, please followup only to the grc.privacy NG.  Thanks.
> 
> Just out of curiosity - why THAT one?

See, again, the end of this repost. 

And read the whole thing, then ask yourself why you have so far made 
four posts *after* this one, all cross-posted to ...
grc.privacy,grc.security,grc.security.software,grc.test

And how that complies with 'following the rules'. 

=================================================================
From: Milly <-@-.->
Newsgroups: grc.privacy,grc.security,grc.security.software
Subject: Re: Sig length
Followup-To: grc.privacy
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:37:01 +0100
Message-ID: <MPG.17f9b5fdb74bdc1b98a10f@news.grc.com>


In grc.privacy, "Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL> said...
> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> > I suspect you'll find that your demand that this community adapt to your
> > standards will go unmet.
> 
> You don't read so good - I don't expect anyone to do ANYTHING.  I just don't
> like self appointed NG trolls telling me what to do.  :)

Steve :-

===================================================================
From: Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
Newsgroups: grc.news,grc.news.feedback

Folks,

People who are new to our groups sometimes don't know where to post. 
That's certainly understandable.  But I would appreciate it if those 
of you who are regulars here, and who do know where things should go, 
would help to move discussions to where they should go.

I know that abusive jerks often respond to such helpful efforts with 
angry attacks like "who the hell made you god?", or "who appointed 
you hall monitor?"  It's only natural for such attacks to tend to 
reduce people's willingness to take the initiative.

But PLEASE know that I appreciate every single instance I see of 
anyone helping to maintain order here.  I can not do it if I am to 
get anything else done, and it's inherently a "distributed task".

So please, those of you who are willing to work to help keep things 
running smoothly here ... know that I very much appreciate your every 
effort.  Just ignore the jerks who attack as I do.  They don't have 
the best interests of these groups at heart and should be ignored.
[...]
===================================================================


Brett :-

===================================================================
From: "Brett" <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
Newsgroups: grc.privacy,grc.security,grc.security.software

[...]
Who said ANYTHING about making peace?  I was merely explaining that I 
don't mind following the rules - but only from those that MAKE the 
rules - not self appointed NG cops like yourself.
===================================================================

Steve makes the rules. He wants posting to appropriate groups. He wants 
us to point that out to people who don't do so. He doesn't want us to 
respond with 'NG cop' attacks. 

You say you don't mind following Steve's rules. So let's see you do so, 
please.

Follow-ups set to grc.privacy (just because it's the first of an 
unnecessary cross-post list).

-- 
Milly
=================================================================

-- 
Milly
0
Milly
9/25/2002 10:13:00 PM
Brett wrote:
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> However, Brett, there is only one way to unmunge it, and it is
>> clearly intended to unmunge into someone else's address. You know
>> this, I know this. Everyone does.
>
> We also all know what bongs are for but it's not illegal to buy them.
> :)
>
> I never disputed my intent Sam - only that doing it was not in itself
> a violation of any kind.

Not of any law, but it is most certainly a violation of accepted netiquette.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/25/2002 10:32:00 PM
"BlueJAMC" <BlueJAMC@noneofthatspamhereatnetzero.net> wrote in
> However, at this point, I get the feeling this isn't really what
> Brett wants.

I don't think I ever denied or misrepresented my intentions - just that I
don't believe they're relevant.

Brett
0
Brett
9/25/2002 10:40:00 PM
"Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
 If you have a problem with an individual
: why not simply block or ignore them?
<snip>
Excellent advice Brett, but would that also apply to your
predicament with "GregR"?

Regards,
just axn
0
just
9/25/2002 11:20:00 PM
In article <Xns9294DE6884346jimxncrowfamorguk@207.71.92.194>, 
Don't.use.Lockdown@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk says...
> BlueJAMC wrote in
> news:Xns92949AE6B3E2FBlueJAMCnoneofthatsp@207.71.92.194: 
> 
> > Also, example.com is a good one which doesn't accept e-mail, so if
> > you want an e-mail address to go nowhere, example.com would be a
> > good option.
> 
> Sorry, that's not so.  The owner, Network Solutions, will not give 
> permission.
> 
> "These domain names are reserved for use in documentation"

See RFC 2606--

   To safely satisfy these needs, four domain names are reserved as
   listed and described below.

                   .test
                .example
                .invalid
              .localhost
   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also currently has the
   following second level domain names reserved which can be used as
   examples.

        example.com
        example.net
        example.orgh

I don't know how that makes NetSol the owner, perhaps they are now. 
*They* are evil :-)

-- 
Bloated Elvis
0
bloated
9/25/2002 11:46:00 PM
bloated elvis <thel8elvis@hotmail.com> writes:

>See RFC 2606--
>
>   To safely satisfy these needs, four domain names are reserved as
>   listed and described below.
>
>                   .test
>                .example
>                .invalid
>              .localhost
 >   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also currently has
 >   the following second level domain names reserved which can be used
 >   as examples.
>
>        example.com
>        example.net
>        example.orgh

So lets take that as best practice then.  *examples* - you listening 
Brett?

>I don't know how that makes NetSol the owner, perhaps they are now.

I think they always have been.

>*They* are evil :-)

I won't argue too much there.  Politics - yuk.

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/26/2002 12:09:00 AM
"Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:

>"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>> LOL!

>In the posts you were referring to - I did not use null.com.

You're delusory.  You used it as your address each and every time.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 12:41:00 AM
"Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:

>"Nice Shot" <ns@nospam.non> wrote in message news:amt8e4$1ej5
>> He also add grc.test his fields just to run up the score against Steve.

>No - because Steve had said to.

LOL!

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 12:46:00 AM
"Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:

>"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>> Just for the record, Steve, since this is what we have to look forward
>> to, and nothing of real value AFAICT, I'd be unconcerned if you were to
>> summarily drop this guy in the bit-bucket.

>I would be ashamed if I were you. If you have a problem with an individual
>why not simply block or ignore them?  Do you always try to censor those you
>disagree with or rally others against them?  Like book burnings too?

Like I said, Steve.  This is what we have to look forward to, and
virtually nothing of value.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 12:47:00 AM
pchelp wrote:
> "Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> "pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>>> LOL!
>
>> In the posts you were referring to - I did not use null.com.
>
> You're delusory.

Is that a word? *g*

> You used it as your address each and every time.

Earlier (a day or two back) he was using a different address.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/26/2002 12:49:00 AM
"Milly" <-@-.-> wrote in message
> See, again, the end of this repost.

Mill don't get so excited.  I had just hit reply.  :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/26/2002 1:18:00 AM
"just axn" <rbeNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> Excellent advice Brett, but would that also apply to your
> predicament with "GregR"?

Absolutely!  I haven't asked that he be shut off though I sure wouldn't mind
if he was.  :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/26/2002 1:19:00 AM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> Like I said, Steve.  This is what we have to look forward to, and
> virtually nothing of value.

Thanks for your opinion.  :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/26/2002 1:20:00 AM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> Not of any law, but it is most certainly a violation of accepted
netiquette.

Hmmm... yeah I guess.  Somehow given the situation I don't feel too bad
about it.

Brett
0
Brett
9/26/2002 1:21:00 AM
"brett" <brett@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> Absolute hogwash! In cases of copyright infringement courts (on both
> sides of the pond) are empowered to make orders for delivery up and/or
> seizure in addition to the award of damages. Furthermore, if the matter
> is brought before the criminal courts, a person found guilty of copyright
> infringement is liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding
> level 5 on the statutory scale or to a spell not exceeding 2 years in the
> chokey or to both.

I wouldn't bet on that in my country... :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/26/2002 1:31:00 AM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17fa6767f4ce7db798ac27@207.71.92.194
> Folks,
>
> Brett's postings have been blocked, but I thought you should see the
> recent posting of his, still under the eMail address I asked him not
> to use which apparently deliberately mimics that of another well-
> known newsgroup personality:  <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
>

<snipped>

Hi Steve,

I'm sorry, but I'm confused. You wrote in your post (above) that further
posting by brett has been blocked.

Then how come he has continued to post in this thread? And why have you
continued the discussion with him?

Either he has been blocked or he hasn't, this thread is getting confusing &
hard to keep up with.  The crosstalk that brett has been generating IMHO has
been a waste of bandwidth. But now I can't even work out your position, are
you blocking him or not ?

Is his attitude or behaviour becoming acceptable in this forum ? Or maybe
you are being taken for a ride and being made to look indecisive (for
bending over backwards in your efforts to accommodate 'brett' and possibly
'bring him around' through education and intelligent reasoning. It AINT
GUNNA HAPPEN).

You appear to 'have the patience of Solomon' and prefer to think the best of
folks. Even when they doggedly resist your attempts at reason and
persuasion.

I don't think you (or anyone else) is going to adjust brett's behaviour
anytime soon. IMHO I think it is time to move on, make good on your
declaration of banning brett from posting and let it go.

--


BullBar
0
BullBar
9/26/2002 1:45:00 AM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
news:3d9258c5.196893271@news.grc.com...
> "Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >"Nice Shot" <ns@nospam.non> wrote in message news:amt8e4$1ej5
> >> He also add grc.test his fields just to run up the score against Steve.

> >No - because Steve had said to.

> LOL!

> pchelp

Ha ha, How old is this kid, anyway?

NS
0
Nice
9/26/2002 1:49:00 AM
Brett wrote:

> I would be ashamed if I were you.

Have you given any thought to being ashamed of your own behavior? A few 
of us are musing over whether you're older than 8YO or not. My 7-YO 
daughter read this thread and says you act like a baby. Were you to see 
her say it, I should it might give you at least a short pause to look in 
the mirror when you pull these stunts. But you just do whatever stunts 
trip your trigger. She's laughing better than me at it. <G>

Cheers kiddy

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/26/2002 1:54:00 AM
Brett wrote:

> Absolutely!  I haven't asked that he be shut off though I sure wouldn't mind
> if he was.  :)

Judging by what I've seen of you here, he must have a lot of patience 
with you. <G>

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/26/2002 1:55:00 AM
pchelp wrote:

> Like I said, Steve.  This is what we have to look forward to, and
> virtually nothing of value.

I don't know about that. Couple of people brought me $35 each this 
morning on bets. Kept 'em small as I thought SG's comments might make 
him snap out of it. His vapors must be thicker than I thought.

Gotta start getting some new people in on it though. The old hands are 
starting to recognize the signs of this kind of troll better than they 
used to.  Actually, they did recognize it...they just refused to believe 
it could be so cornsistent.

But the internet can show you some greater wonders than banner ads, ne? 
This guy looks dense enough I might even consider a second scuzzi system 
on the corntrol machines. His predictability looks firmed up pretty well.

He's even emailed me about this hogwash a day or so ago with more of it. 
I think he wants us to think the sky's green. He appears to believe it 
too. Not sure whether he's trying to cornvince us or hisself. <G>

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/26/2002 2:06:00 AM
I just couldn't help noticing that some of the key player's and those that
were the quickest to jump
on this lynching, and hoist the noose, were the same players that had their
own sigs (length and content) chastised by Steve a year or so ago. While I
think it appears Brett is (was) at least part in the wrong.
I think not because so much because of his sig size , but the similarity
between his address and
someone else's. But of course, that is not what this continuing thread
indicates, now is it?
Yep, Brett got his back up, when being chastised by some of the more holy
than
thou company,
which seems to be always the case. And guess what? New to the NG, got
himself embattled, encircled by the same old rapists, developed the
requisite defense mechanisms and siege mentality and predictably, positioned
himself into a relatively intractable position.  But, shit, most of us have
had our chains jerked by
those same damned net cops and they remain (as always) the same group of
assholes..
Same old, same old,. hall monitors get their back up, and call the
Principal, he ain't got no choice, but to go along with the same bunch of
yes men, teacher's pets.
So, being new to the group and having a complete lack of understanding as to
the ferocity of the traditional GRC gang rape, when attacked by the
assholes, he proved that he could be just as much an asshole.
So, where is the news in all this predictable and understandable reactions
to reactions?.
Bullmoose

"BullBar" in message
> "Steve Gibson"  wrote in message
> > Folks,
> > Brett's postings have been blocked, but I thought you should see the
> > recent posting of his, still under the eMail address I asked him not
> > to use which apparently deliberately mimics that of another well-
> > known newsgroup personality:  <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
> <snipped>
> Hi Steve,
> I'm sorry, but I'm confused. You wrote in your post (above) that further
> posting by brett has been blocked.
<sorry, I had to cut some, due to overly bitchy server>
> BullBar
0
Bullmoose
9/26/2002 2:14:00 AM
Brett <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> writes:

>"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> Not of any law, but it is most certainly a violation of accepted
>netiquette.
>
>Hmmm... yeah I guess.  Somehow given the situation I don't feel too bad
>about it.

Please fix your quoting (see sig) and please respect the follow-up 
suggestions.

f/u to .privacy

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/26/2002 2:16:00 AM
BullBar <bullbar@dev.null> writes:

>I'm sorry, but I'm confused. You wrote in your post (above) that 
>further posting by brett has been blocked.

It was that 'From: ' address that was blocked, for reasons given.

However, I'd hope it not be long before he's history here - the first 
public object-lesson in ![Charm and Diplomacy].

This would have gone on far too long, if it wasn't for the education 
(and amusement?) given to others.

f/u's yet again set to grc.privacy - I see the ngs line is shortening... 
:)

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/26/2002 2:21:00 AM
Bullmoose,

Please excuse me for not quoting your post.

First. Brett isn't new here. He's been posting here for at least 11 
months. 

Second, Milly was good enough to post this for us, perhaps you missed 
it:
========================================================================
From: Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
Newsgroups: grc.news,grc.news.feedback

Folks,

People who are new to our groups sometimes don't know where to post. 
That's certainly understandable.  But I would appreciate it if those 
of you who are regulars here, and who do know where things should go, 
would help to move discussions to where they should go.

I know that abusive jerks often respond to such helpful efforts with 
angry attacks like "who the hell made you god?", or "who appointed 
you hall monitor?"  It's only natural for such attacks to tend to 
reduce people's willingness to take the initiative.

But PLEASE know that I appreciate every single instance I see of 
anyone helping to maintain order here.  I can not do it if I am to 
get anything else done, and it's inherently a "distributed task".

So please, those of you who are willing to work to help keep things 
running smoothly here ... know that I very much appreciate your every 
effort.  Just ignore the jerks who attack as I do.  They don't have 
the best interests of these groups at heart and should be ignored.
[...]
========================================================================

It seems to me that Steve expects some help with the newsgroups. I'm 
sorry if that offends you.

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/26/2002 2:31:00 AM
Hi folks:

I'm the person whose identity Brett has chosen to impersonate - both here, and
on other newsgroups.

I've used my current posting name/e-mail for years (and also append a .NULL to
it as a defense against spammers harvesting it).  While I must admit I'm
flattered that he'd admire me so much to want to rip off my identity, I'm at a
loss for an explanation - maybe he's envious of my success or technical
ability.  Whatever...  ;-)

As many of you are discovering, Brett's a known troll who's been harassing the
various anti-spam groups (spamcop, alt.spam, NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.email))
for a couple of years.  He's been almost universally kill-filed on all those
groups, so now it looks like he's found a new group to harass where the regulars
don't know about him.

I posted some of his newsgroup history on the Spamcop news servers recently - if
anyone would care to peruse it, they're archived at:

http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-list/2002-August/011131.html
http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-list/2002-August/011108.html
http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-list/2002-August/011052.html
http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-list/2002-August/011106.html

Since most of the Spamcop group has kill-filed him (and he can't seem to stand
being ignored), his latest gambit has been to forge posts with other
people's names and/or e-mail addresses (both those of myself, and others), and
also to rogue-cancel other posts from the server (apparently from people who
disagree with him).  Steve's posted some of the evidence, I have more.  Those
are verbatim copies from the Spamcop news server into a Netscape local folder
(though the forgeries have since been canceled from the server.  We could
probably get the server logs from the admins if needed).

And as I e-mailed Steve earlier in the week, one of Brett's favorite tactics is
to start an off-topic post, and then to start e-mailing people uninvited, even
after being told to stop.  He even taunts the group to do something about it.

Here's a recent example from the NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.e-mail) newsgroup
(I've concealed the recipient's e-mail address, though they were intact in the
original newsgroup post):

--------------------------------------------------------------
>Delivered-To: <concealed>@<concealed>
>From: "Brett" <spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
>To: <concealed@concealed>
>Subject: Re: The END of SPAM may be here!
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 19:45:36 -0600

>"Hawkeye-X" <concealed@concealed> wrote in message
>> Do me a favor.
>> FOAD, trollboy. You try to pull the same BULLSHIT every other month.

>Why are you *always* the only one who can't play nice?  Please try and
>refrain from the insult and vulgarity.. thanks!

Do you recall our long-standing "DO NOT EMAIL ME" discussion? It applies here,
and I ask you again NOT to email me. You are not welcome in my box, and
dangerously close to being the first EVER manual bounce edit.

So again, FOAD trollboy.

Hawkeye-X
[posted to alt.usenet.kooks since he's starting to act like one]
--------------------------------------------------------------

The community standard on the Spamcop groups (if not just plain common courtesy)
is to not mail people after being told not to do so.  True to form, I see he's
apparently started doing that here as well.

His history of abuse just goes on and on, so please be forewarned....

Brett will probably try to spin this into a flame war (another of his favorite
newsgroup activities), but I won't go there.  He no doubt dislikes me intensely
because I've exposed his abusive history to several newbies on other newsgroups,
and they in turn have kill-filed him.  I've posted the facts here for anyone to
read if they care to, and those facts speak for themselves.

--
GregR - Another Beemer Biker ...o&o>

[Remove the null-routing to reply]
0
GregR
9/26/2002 2:53:00 AM
"Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > > <snip>If you have a problem with an
individual
> > > why not simply block or ignore
them?<snip>

> > "just axn" <rbeNOSPAM@shaw.ca> wrote in
message
> > Excellent advice Brett, but would that
also apply to your
> > predicament with "GregR"?

> "Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote
back:
> Absolutely!  I haven't asked that he be
shut off though I sure wouldn't mind
> if he was.  :)

Umm, which part of my question do you not
understand Brett?
--
just axn
0
just
9/26/2002 2:54:00 AM
Hi Anonymous Bob (Bob Vanderveen)
Please excuse me for not quoting *your* post. <g>
And I am sorry for saying he was relatively new here.
I had done a serch on his name, and only found him for a much shorter time.
Guess he changed his name, I don't know.
Just don't remember his name, like I have reason to remember yours.
------------------------------
"Anonymous Bob"  wrote in message > Bullmoose,
>
> Please excuse me for not quoting your post.
>
> First. Brett isn't new here. He's been posting here for at least 11
> months.
>
> Second, Milly was good enough to post this for us, perhaps you missed
><
<snip due to bitchy server>
========================================================================
>
> It seems to me that Steve expects some help with the newsgroups. I'm
> sorry if that offends you.
> --
> Bob Vanderveen
------------------------
"I'm sorry if that offends you"? Was I talking to you? Man, I told two
people, you would react, precicely as you did.
No Bob, of course it doesn't offend me in the least, what Steve does with
his newsgroups.
To the contrary, I enjoy them, and have for a very long time.
And it isn't Steve or the newsgroup that offends me, It is you, and just a
very few people like you.
I made my statement to someone else, You attack (predictable), and start a
flame, but only after your back channel discussions with your other, and
kindred spirits.
But I do wish someone would explain to someone what you mean by "Steve
expects help with his newsgroups".
Hell, I can learn, I will even be able to understand, if he has assigned you
and/or anyone else,  the
exalted position of hall monitor. It would help everyone visiting, to have a
list of these individuals, so that we may bow respectfully, and to the
proper depth, depending on their relative position on your intimated list.
Then people like Brett, will sit up and notice the pecking order, and of
course heave to, when a more important personage is looming on the horizon.
Of course you know, I will not, necessarily do the same.
Now, you stop the flame you started, I will immediately desist. I always
keep my word.
Bullmoose
0
Bullmoose
9/26/2002 2:57:00 AM
GregR wrote:

> Here's a recent example from the NANAE (news.admin.net-abuse.e-mail) newsgroup
> (I've concealed the recipient's e-mail address, though they were intact in the
> original newsgroup post):

Oops, forgot to include the headers on that post - here they are if anyone wants to
find it on the newsgroup and read it for themselves:

--------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hawkeye-X <concealed@concealed>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Paging Brett "I'll Email anyone" Schultz
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 20:48:24 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <nekvoukk67ben5ek5d97iap8kiepnukp3b@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net news.admin.net-abuse.email:1764703
X-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 19:48:48 PDT (newsmaster1.news.pas.earthlink.net)
--------------------------------------------------------------

--
GregR - Another Beemer Biker ...o&o>

[Remove the null-routing to reply]

Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Proud to be 'anmother Internet terrorist'
(e-mail from Tommy Brock at Removeyou.org 5/24/02).
0
GregR
9/26/2002 3:05:00 AM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote:

>pchelp wrote:
>> "Brett" <brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>>>> LOL!
>>
>>> In the posts you were referring to - I did not use null.com.
>>
>> You're delusory.

>Is that a word? *g*

Heh.  Yes, but I misused it.  Brett is not, unfortunately, himself a
delusion.  'Deluded' is what I meant.


>> You used it as your address each and every time.

>Earlier (a day or two back) he was using a different address.

Yes, but at all times I was referring to the one he was indeed using
(brett@null.com).

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 3:15:00 AM
Brett wrote:

> I only use various null email addresses

Really?  Please explain this to the group:

---------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Telling Conversation with a Spammer
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:59:27 -0600
From: "Brett" <briank.o@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: spamcop
---------------------------------------------------------

There's several more posts with that same e-mail address - you can see them if
you sort by "Sender" and work your way backwards time-wise.

That "briank.o@prodigy.net" e-mail address just happens to belong to Brian
O'Neil, another Spamcop regular.  Example here, check any of Brian's posts for
confirmation:

---------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Charter Abuse Address
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:03:20 -0400
From: "Brian O'Neill" <briank.o@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups:  spamcop, spamcop.routing
---------------------------------------------------------

> Note that he has also complained to my ISP, my news
> hosting company, and anyone else who will listen and they all told him what
> I've told you.... he doesn't own it.

Wrong again.

From the *multiple* abuse complaints filed against you with your current ISP (by
several people), the only thing that most have heard back is silence.  Nothing
even *remotely* resembling what you assert above.

Which is precisely why you're persona non-grata (and almost universally
kill-filed) on the other newsgroups - if Prodigy won't solve their problem, the
user base can (and will) step up to the plate and solve it for them.  :-)

--
GregR - Another Beemer Biker ...o&o>

[Remove the null-routing to reply]
0
GregR
9/26/2002 3:21:00 AM
Waldo Hamilton <waldo@mei.ws> wrote:

>pchelp wrote:

>> Like I said, Steve.  This is what we have to look forward to, and
>> virtually nothing of value.

>I don't know about that. Couple of people brought me $35 each this 
>morning on bets. Kept 'em small as I thought SG's comments might make 
>him snap out of it. His vapors must be thicker than I thought.

>Gotta start getting some new people in on it though. The old hands are 
>starting to recognize the signs of this kind of troll better than they 
>used to.  Actually, they did recognize it...they just refused to believe 
>it could be so cornsistent.

>But the internet can show you some greater wonders than banner ads, ne? 
>This guy looks dense enough I might even consider a second scuzzi system 
>on the corntrol machines. His predictability looks firmed up pretty well.

LOL!

"I'm not a gambling man, myself," said the bettor.  "I only bet on a
sure thing."


>He's even emailed me about this hogwash a day or so ago with more of it. 
>I think he wants us to think the sky's green. He appears to believe it 
>too. Not sure whether he's trying to cornvince us or hisself. <G>

It's either a sick game or it's just sick.  Not that there's a practical
difference, for anyone but his analyst.

Rumor has it he's responsible for an IT dept. of some kind.  I wonder if
his boss knows what he's doing online.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 3:22:00 AM
"Bullmoose" <Bullmoose@triad.rr.com> wrote:

[Trollish defense of an inveterate troll...]

If you gave Damn One about this place, Bull___, you'd be in here
offering words of wisdom on constructive topics.

Instead, you spot flame, and you run to pour on gasoline.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 3:33:00 AM
pchelp wrote:

> LOL!
> 
> "I'm not a gambling man, myself," said the bettor.  "I only bet on a
> sure thing."

That's what I said. Only a sure thing.

> It's either a sick game or it's just sick.  Not that there's a practical
> difference, for anyone but his analyst.

Pretty much what my daughter said.

> Rumor has it he's responsible for an IT dept. of some kind.  I wonder if
> his boss knows what he's doing online.

What if he works for Evidence Eliminator?

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/26/2002 4:08:00 AM
?Man, I didn't (and wouldn't have), said anything to you. And you know that,
and everyone else does.
So, one might ask, why did pchelp choose to attack BullMoose?
I was talking to BullBar, and had an opinion about hall monitors and
officious assholes.I can not help it, if it struck your nerve so
descriptively that you just had to take some of your patented shots.
Then you come at me with that Bull____ junk. in an obvious attempt to insult
and annoy me.
So, your well thought out Bull___, cheap shot,  is that your words of wisdom
and construction, is that the kind of path you are encouraging others to
take?
Or,is it just another step in your long history, of being the perpetual
jerk?
Now, what I see is.pch*lp, the second in an anticipated trilogy, as he
raises his ugly and disruptive head.
Now that word disruptive was first used to describe you by Steve, not me.
Ain't no future in having an opinion here. The back channel masters of the
flaming sigs will always.
come to the fore. pchelp, you sir are the guru,  the past and pluperfect
master of gasoline, destruction and inveterate perpetuator of flames. That
(by the way), holds all records on here for intensity and ugliness.
Talk about the kettle and pot. Damn!
Now, the reason I answered BullBar in the first place, is I think he may
have inadvertently usurped my name.At least it is a little close for
comfort.
So, now. Please, just get off my case. When I speak to you (if I do), you
may respond.
It is obvious to everyone that you harbor bad blood because of my past
feelings about your associations with and extremely stout (and loud) defense
of Abu and letting some one that admitted that he wishes the U.S. ill, be
involved in your defense and other efforts..
You took your shot at me, I responded  How about us leaving it alone for
another 6 months? Would that not show a little wisdom and add to the
decorum?
BullMoose
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
news:3d927ea5.206590442@news.grc.com...
>
> "Bullmoose" <Bullmoose@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
> [Trollish defense of an inveterate troll...]
>
> If you gave Damn One about this place, Bull___, you'd be in here
> offering words of wisdom on constructive topics.
>
> Instead, you spot flame, and you run to pour on gasoline.
>
> pchelp
>
0
Bullmoose
9/26/2002 4:17:00 AM
Waldo Hamilton <waldo@mei.ws> wrote:

>pchelp wrote:

>> It's either a sick game or it's just sick.  Not that there's a practical
>> difference, for anyone but his analyst.
>
>Pretty much what my daughter said.

Sharp kid.  Scruffle her hair (she'll hate that with a smile) and tell
her I said she's cool.


>> Rumor has it he's responsible for an IT dept. of some kind.  I wonder if
>> his boss knows what he's doing online.
>
>What if he works for Evidence Eliminator?

LOL!  Egad.  Maybe the boss is cheering him on?

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 4:17:00 AM
"Bullmoose" <Bullmoose@triad.rr.com> wrote:

....
>You took your shot at me, I responded  How about us leaving it alone for
>another 6 months? Would that not show a little wisdom and add to the
>decorum?

Why sure, big guy.  Zat mean you're gone back into your hole?

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 4:27:00 AM
Nice Shot wrote:

> Ha ha, How old is this kid, anyway?

Nobody's sure yet, but my 7-year-old daughter says he acts like a baby. 
I'll take her word for it.

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/26/2002 4:30:00 AM
pchelp wrote:

> Sharp kid.  Scruffle her hair (she'll hate that with a smile) and tell
> her I said she's cool.

Sharp enough to be scary. But of course, that's exactly what I was 
looking for. I call it a parent's debt to children. I also taught all 
three to question authority...even mine. Best way to keep me on my own toes.

BTW...I don't scruffle any of 'em's hair. I've already been ordered not 
to. I can live with it. <G>


> LOL!  Egad.  Maybe the boss is cheering him on?

Looks like a perfect fit, to me. SOS.

Waldo
0
Waldo
9/26/2002 6:24:00 AM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
news:3d928c91.210154921@news.grc.com...
>
> Why sure, big guy.  Zat mean you're gone back into your hole?
>

Keith, I've not seen one constructive thing from you in this whole thread.
Is this how you set the example of respect that Steve has made clear that he
wants on his server?
By trolling and exacerbating the situation?

~cat~
0
catseyenu
9/26/2002 6:43:00 AM
pchelp@pc-help.org (pchelp) wrote in
news:3d921b56.181163932@news.grc.com: 

> "Brett" <brett@null.com> wrote:
> 
>>Is it stupid?  SURE!  But if I can annoy someone who's been
>>antagonizing me ... then hell yes I find it *very* amusing. 
>>Agitating you was the only negative result so far ...
> 
> Just for the record, Steve, since this is what we have to look
> forward to, and nothing of real value AFAICT, I'd be unconcerned
> if you were to summarily drop this guy in the bit-bucket.
> 
> This is not a demand, nor even (quite) a suggestion.  Just a
> comment. 

Steve, _if_ you should so decide, I would not be displeased.
0
Mark
9/26/2002 6:47:00 AM
I'm sorry bullmoose but your post below (apparently an attempt at rebuttal
to one of my posts) seems to imply that I am one of those 'damned net cops'
or 'hall monitors' you mention.

To the best of my knowledge I have never used a .sig that didn't 'pass
muster', nor do I believe I have 'jump(ed) on this lynching' you mention. I
think you confuse me with someone else.

Also thanks for answering my enquiry to Steve, I replied to a post of HIS,
making a comment, not to a post of yours..

You seem to have taken it upon yourself to turn the conversation (I was
trying to have with Steve) in a direction of your choosing. If you wanted to
address issues other than what I addressed in my posting, please create your
own subthread or reply directly to the post(s) that has/have upset you so
that we know which post(s) you are referring to. I didn't even realise that
you were referring to one of my postings until you mentioned it further down
the thread.


--


BullBar

"Bullmoose" <Bullmoose@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:amtqii$219b$1@news.grc.com
> I just couldn't help noticing that some of the key player's and those
> that were the quickest to jump
> on this lynching, and hoist the noose, were the same players that had
> their own sigs (length and content) chastised by Steve a year or so
> ago. While I think it appears Brett is (was) at least part in the
> wrong. I think not because so much because of his sig size , but the
> similarity between his address and
> someone else's. But of course, that is not what this continuing thread
> indicates, now is it?

> Yep, Brett got his back up, when being chastised by some of the more
> holy than
> thou company,
> which seems to be always the case. And guess what? New to the NG, got
> himself embattled, encircled by the same old rapists, developed the
> requisite defense mechanisms and siege mentality and predictably,
> positioned himself into a relatively intractable position.  But,
> shit, most of us have had our chains jerked by
> those same damned net cops and they remain (as always) the same group
> of assholes..

> Same old, same old,. hall monitors get their back up, and call the
> Principal, he ain't got no choice, but to go along with the same
> bunch of yes men, teacher's pets.
> So, being new to the group and having a complete lack of
> understanding as to the ferocity of the traditional GRC gang rape,
> when attacked by the assholes, he proved that he could be just as
> much an asshole. So, where is the news in all this predictable and
> understandable reactions to reactions?.
> Bullmoose
>

> "BullBar" in message
>> "Steve Gibson"  wrote in message
>>> Folks,
>>> Brett's postings have been blocked, but I thought you should see the
>>> recent posting of his, still under the eMail address I asked him not
>>> to use which apparently deliberately mimics that of another well-
>>> known newsgroup personality:  <"spamalyzer@suespammer.org.NULL>
>> <snipped>
>> Hi Steve,
>> I'm sorry, but I'm confused. You wrote in your post (above) that
>> further posting by brett has been blocked. <sorry, I had to cut
>> some, due to overly bitchy server> BullBar
0
BullBar
9/26/2002 7:26:00 AM
BullBar posted the following to grc.privacy

BullBar,

FWIW, I think his comments were not aimed at you. He just picked a spot  
to inject his input. There's a thread in the spareroom newsgroup at 
securecomp were they discussed coming over here to make trouble. There 
has also been a few of the same people who posted in that thread who 
mysteriously had to test their sigs in the test newsgroup here.

All coincidental, I'm sure.

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/26/2002 7:33:00 AM
No problem on this end, Bullbar.
I am most sorry that you took it that way, I in no way wished to convey or
infer that you
were one of those few officious, self appointed,net cops on this NG, Not at
all.

Now, that thread is a different kettle of fish all together.
If you were the initiator of that thread, I again apologize.
But to my best knowledge, you were not. and I (as you say) jumped in, at
what was the most
recent posting of the thread, at the time I started writing my post.
Again, sorry you took it that way, didn't mean it the way, you now feel that
I did.
Now, you did say that you didn't feel I was directing it at you ( and you
were correct),
until you saw reference to you further down in the thread.
That thing further down, *was* to another person, but did mention that the
first reason that
I did jump into the thread, was that I saw a name that was very much like my
own. My first
thought was, well, he likes my name so much, that he will use part of it.
But, then, we run into yet another opportunity to get past small problems.
You are taking it upon yourself to chastise me a little, and give me a
lesson in net etiquette, by telling me not to jump into a thread, when
someone else's is addressing another, unless I start a sub thread. But, then
you object to what I have to say to another person further on in the thread,
and... Jump in, instead of starting your own  "sub thread", as you say.
Again, I really don't see this as any kind of net etiquette problem, unless
the parties really wish to make it one. I never did put much in store in
such made up problems and imagined slights, as some of our fish wives on
this ng would like every thing to be just as their concepts, would have it.
In short, BullBar, this whole thing about netiquette thingy is much ado
about nothing.
I do hope that you do not think that I was including you in that "asshole"
cliques.
I am not like that, never have been that diplomatically wishy washy, if I
thought you to be an asshole, you would never, not a moment, doubt to whom I
was directing the tag.<g>
Ok, now so that you know exactly where I am coming from, it was not directed
at you.
And one of my hobbies is picking fights with braindumping retards, that have
nothing better to do than be net cops, and officious hall monitors and back
channel assholes, the same type of petty and officious scoundrels with which
I fought in the Gvt. a good part of my career.. I really do hate those types
of mothers and will take any and all opportunities to punish their quasi
officiousness and false sense of their own importantance. Be it in a
newsgroup, police station, or County Commissioners meetings.
Gosh, I sure hope you don't want to join or think that you are included in
that motley crew, as that would be a shame, what with a fine name like
yours.
Besides with a name like that, something tells me, you are as large and
combative as I.
And, I sure don't want to start a fight with someone, that I don't *know* I
can whop.<g>
BullMoose



BullBar" <bullbar@dev.null> wrote in message
news:amuck4$2ibp$1@news.grc.com...
>
> I'm sorry bullmoose but your post below (apparently an attempt at rebuttal
> to one of my posts) seems to imply that I am one of those 'damned net
cops'
> or 'hall monitors' you mention.
>
> To the best of my knowledge I have never used a .sig that didn't 'pass
> muster', nor do I believe I have 'jump(ed) on this lynching' you mention.
I
> think you confuse me with someone else.
>
> Also thanks for answering my enquiry to Steve, I replied to a post of HIS,
> making a comment, not to a post of yours..
>
> You seem to have taken it upon yourself to turn the conversation (I was
> trying to have with Steve) in a direction of your choosing. If you wanted
to
> address issues other than what I addressed in my posting, please create
your
> own subthread or reply directly to the post(s) that has/have upset you so
> that we know which post(s) you are referring to. I didn't even realise
that
> you were referring to one of my postings until you mentioned it further
down
> the thread.
>
> BullBar
>
> "Bullmoose" <Bullmoose@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
<had to dump part of this, due to bitchy server>
0
BullMoose
9/26/2002 8:15:00 AM
In article <amua98$2g5s$1@news.grc.com>, catseyenu@nurdreams.com says...
> "pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
> news:3d928c91.210154921@news.grc.com...
> >
> > Why sure, big guy.  Zat mean you're gone back into your hole?
> >
> 
> Keith, I've not seen one constructive thing from you in this whole thread.
> Is this how you set the example of respect that Steve has made clear that he
> wants on his server?
> By trolling and exacerbating the situation?
> 
> ~cat~

I am glad I'm not the only one that noticed. Brett is probably rolling 
on the floor lauging his ass off because certain people obviously feel 
*compelled* to keep replying instead of simply ignoring him.

-- 
Bloated Elvis
0
bloated
9/26/2002 11:43:00 AM
"bloated elvis" <thel8elvis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.17fcbce32dec157c9899c4@news.grc.com...
> I am glad I'm not the only one that noticed. Brett is probably rolling
> on the floor lauging his ass off because certain people obviously feel
> *compelled* to keep replying instead of simply ignoring him.
>
> --
> Bloated Elvis

Ain't that the truth!

I've been lurking in this NG for quite some time now and have found some great tips and some wonderful
information.  It's a real shame when such an informative NG as this gets involved in something like this.  All
the nonsense and wasted bandwidth keeping such a person active.  All the intelligent people that get sucked
into such a thing end up making themselves look, let's say, less intelligent.  I have to wonder what makes it
so hard to simply ignore any or all such postings.  Wouldn't such posters of such postings move on if they
were ignored for any length of time?  Wouldn't the time saved from not replying to such posts be better used
for information and help on what this NG pertains to in the first place?  I came here to learn from the
information gathered from some intelligent people in this NG.  I don't come here to see so much nonsense every
time I open up this NG.  If I want nonsense, there are plenty of places on the web to find it!

jack
0
Starjack
9/26/2002 1:31:00 PM
Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote in message <MPG.17fbc01cdd6855ad98ac40@207.71.92.194>:

> I'm afraid that I know nothing about your professional 
> background Brett.  

That's because he has none. Many of us have come to the conclusion that 
Brett's a fraud. We debunked his "career" claims on alt.spam about a year 
ago.

> I only know of you what we have all 
> seen demonstrated here.  

And one of his claims was that he was a "well-known IT professional". 

Another one bites the dust.  :)

--
John
0
John
9/26/2002 3:31:00 PM
John Luftenberg <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> <MPG.17fbc01cdd6855ad98ac40@207.71.92.194>:
>
>> I'm afraid that I know nothing about your professional
>> background Brett.
>
> That's because he has none. Many of us have come to the conclusion that
> Brett's a fraud. We debunked his "career" claims on alt.spam about a year
> ago.

This one?

http://www.networkcomputing.com/1022/1022centerfoldtext.html

-- 
Robert
List of Lists - http://lists.gpick.com/
Eric Howe's Privacy and Security Site -
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/main-nf.htm
0
Robert
9/26/2002 3:41:00 PM
"Starjack" <Starjack2212@REMOVEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:amv289$69m$1@news.grc.com...

<snip>
I don't come here to see so much nonsense every
| time I open up this NG.  If I want nonsense, there are plenty of places on
the web to find it!
|
| jack

Amen! Very well put....

--
Da Mutt.

Please remove your.ignorance when contacting me by email.
0
Muttley
9/26/2002 4:36:00 PM
"Robert Wycoff" <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote:

>John Luftenberg <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote:

>> Many of us have come to the conclusion that Brett's a fraud. We
>> debunked his "career" claims on alt.spam about a year ago.

Egad.  He's had the temerity to be this intolerable for that long.


>This one?

>http://www.networkcomputing.com/1022/1022centerfoldtext.html

That October 1999 article indicates that someone named Brett Schulte was
"network manager for ERDAS, an Atlanta-based geographic imaging software
company."

ERDAS is here:  http://www.erdas.com

Here's their contact page:  http://www.erdas.com/contact/main.asp

But personally, I would be unwilling to bother them about what is
probably a former employee:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=124b50b5.0108220152.7c59a727%40posting.google.com>

Heh.  I especially like this query:

"Testie2K" <testie2K@excite.com> wrote:
> Now who here actually believes Brett has a real job?

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 4:54:00 PM
"catseyenu" <catseyenu@nurdreams.com> wrote:

>"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>news:3d928c91.210154921@news.grc.com...
>>
>> Why sure, big guy.  Zat mean you're gone back into your hole?
>>
>
>Keith, I've not seen one constructive thing from you in this whole thread.

To be brutally frank, In the case of Brett, I define "constructive" as
"the hell out of here."  He's been wreaking havoc here for about a year,
at considerable cost of many people's time and energies.

I'm willing to engage in some -- not a huge amount, but some -- shall we
say non-technical posting-time to make my views known and to respond to
Brett and others on the matter.  I frankly want this guy to be, at very
least, well recognized for the intransigent troll he is, and better
still, I'd like him to leave.  Voluntarily would be nice, but I'm not
particular.


>Is this how you set the example of respect that Steve has made clear that he
>wants on his server?
>By trolling and exacerbating the situation?

I'm not trolling anyone.  I'm taking a position and engaging in
dialogue, though I will agree that on balance it hasn't been very
constructive.  Pretty much what you yourself probably conceive yourself
to be doing with this post of yours.

I have continued to post more constructively on more constructive
threads.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 5:05:00 PM
Lurker <pchelpers@mindspring.com> wrote:

>Anonymous Bob <No.How@No.Way> wrote in
>news:MPG.17fc8247b8c1fe629897a2@news.grc.com: 

>> There's a thread in the spareroom newsgroup
>> at securecomp were they discussed coming over here to make trouble.

How _very_ interesting.


>Freakin lamas can't get over the politics group being moved after all
>this time?!? Perhaps they should look in the mirror and show a little
>respect to the newsgroups that led to their start up and their own
>newserver. :) 

.... and give some sort of payback for to the goodwill Steve showed them
by endorsing their efforts?  Would be nice.  NOT plotting with malice
aforethought to stir the pot would sure be a nice start.


>This thread is making all of us look bad!

Yes, I've thought about dropping the Brett matter and letting others do
the grumbling.  I'm not quite willing to do that.  Outspoken nature?
Character flaw?  Whatever.  I'll take my lumps.

pchelp
0
pchelp
9/26/2002 5:11:00 PM
>    I don't come here to see so much nonsense every
> time I open up this NG.  If I want nonsense, there are plenty of places on the web to find it!
>
> jack

Seems that this is the place.  <g>

Rick

--
If you had everything, where
would you put it?
0
rick
9/26/2002 5:39:00 PM
Brett wrote ... 

> "brett" <brett@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> > Absolute hogwash! In cases of copyright infringement courts (on both
> > sides of the pond) are empowered to make orders for delivery up and/or
> > seizure in addition to the award of damages. Furthermore, if the matter
> > is brought before the criminal courts, a person found guilty of copyright
> > infringement is liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding
> > level 5 on the statutory scale or to a spell not exceeding 2 years in the
> > chokey or to both.
> 
> I wouldn't bet on that in my country... :)

Which is? I'd be rather surprised id (broadly) parallel provisions did 
not exist.
-- 
_____________________________________________________
brett       ~~~Quocunque Jeceris Stabit~~~
0
brett
9/26/2002 6:09:00 PM
[brett] wrote ...

Enough of this brett.  Okay?  Let's drop it.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/26/2002 6:51:00 PM
Steve Gibson wrote ... 

> Enough of this brett.  Okay?  Let's drop it.

Sure :)
-- 
_____________________________________________________
brett       ~~~Quocunque Jeceris Stabit~~~
0
brett
9/26/2002 6:56:00 PM

Brett wrote:
> 
> "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> > Here are three snippets of headers from postings you recently made
> > to the spamcop newsgroup where Greg -- the person you have been
> > impersonating -- is a frequent visitor and contributor:
> > As the posting's NNTP-Posting-Headers clearly show, this is the IP
> > and provider through whom you have been connecting to the Internet.
> 
> I have ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, *NEVER* posted anything as GregR or anyone
> else other than myself.  Never.  If I had I'm certain that the Spamcop admin
> or my ISP would do more than just laugh at him when he whines (as they do
> now) as that would clearly be a violation.
> 
>


Then how did those posts and the original one from you have the same IP
address?

dsl-200-67-93-121.prodigy.net.mx, and your original one in this thread
200.67.93.121 .

-- 
                     
Sometimes I sits and thinks, and
  sometimes I just sits.
0
James
9/26/2002 7:27:00 PM
In article <3D935FBD.739C462D@wabasha.net> James Polyard wrote:
> 
> Then how did those posts and the original one from you have the same IP
> address?
> 
> dsl-200-67-93-121.prodigy.net.mx, and your original one in this thread
> 200.67.93.121 .
> 
James,

Please read Steve's post below, then give it a rest.  The incident is
dead.  Please help bury it.  Thanks.

Alan

-------- Original Message --------
From: Steve Gibson <support@grc.com>
Newsgroups: grc.news,grc.news.feedback
Subject: Recent events surrounding "Brett" ...
Followup-To: grc.news.feedback
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:50:22 -0700
Message-ID: <MPG.17fcf6cd6ce5a52e98ac49@207.71.92.194>

Folks,

I believe that when any group of people get together, who care about 
a place as much as many of us care about this one, personalities are 
bound to clash.  I think that we generally survive here as well as we 
usually do largely through the benefit of having a tight technical 
focus. Our usual discussions about technology are much less about who 
we are as individuals than what we know from training and experience. 
Since it is always my hope to have self-regulating and peaceful 
dialog, discussions of technology form a much safer foundation than 
the prone-to-becoming-personal, deliberately non-topical environment 
we once hosted in the ten-forward groups. As we learned and I finally 
came to understand, those groups were volatile by design. Once I 
finally understood that, it was clear that for this place at grc.com, 
that design was flawed.  But thanks to a focus upon technology, the 
rest of our technical groups have the benefit of natural "control 
rods" which are in place here for the most part.

However, as we have recently seen, whenever we veer from our usual 
technical charter into non-technical territory, we quickly step into 
a quagmire of personalities, individual differences, past grudges, 
and the whole messy and complex fabric of the politics of people. I 
believe that's inevitable. Those waters are made so treacherous by 
the isolated and anonymous nature of online communication, that it's 
extremely rare for anything of value to result. More often than not 
people wind up publicly dressing each other down with the active and 
passive participants either being disgusted, embarrassed, or coming 
away with hurt feelings.  And for what?  For indulging the misguided 
belief that they were going to change something -- anything -- about 
the other.

The mistake I made in this recent round was to use it for the purpose 
of attempting to state and set some precedent and policy for the 
groups. But I did it in the wrong venue, and by doing so I endorsed 
and encouraged exactly the sort of dangerous off-topic dialog which 
finally wound up exactly where it always will ... in chaos.

So ...

Let's get back to on-topic discussions of technology. We can all take 
a lesson from this, and hopefully learn something of value from this 
recent foray into damaging off-topic sniping. I will try to do better 
next time, and I hope that by setting a better and clearer example, 
the rest of you will be encouraged to do the same.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
hermital
9/26/2002 7:57:00 PM
John Luftenberg wrote:
> Steve Gibson <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> <MPG.17fbc01cdd6855ad98ac40@207.71.92.194>:
>
>> I'm afraid that I know nothing about your professional
>> background Brett.
>
> That's because he has none. Many of us have come to the conclusion
> that Brett's a fraud. We debunked his "career" claims on alt.spam
> about a year ago.
>
>> I only know of you what we have all
>> seen demonstrated here.
>
> And one of his claims was that he was a "well-known IT professional".
>
> Another one bites the dust.  :)

John,

I just wanted to leave a note to let you know that generally ad-hominem
(and/or privacy breaching) posts are frowned upon in these groups.

We don't tend to like 'net-stalking, and rather prefer people's posting
histories _here_ to be their posting histories _here_.

If they are able to be well behaved here (including not using other people's
email addresses, however munged) I don't really see any relevance to whether
or not they have had problems in other groups.

Anyways, feel free to make yourself welcome in these groups, but not if you
intend to follow Brett (or anyone else from your past) around and continue
an old flame-war.

In accordance with Steve's wishes to get this crap off his server, followups
are set to poster. I'd be happy to continue with any replies via email.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/26/2002 8:03:00 PM
GregR wrote:
> Brett will probably try to spin this into a flame war (another of his
> favorite newsgroup activities), but I won't go there.  He no doubt
> dislikes me intensely because I've exposed his abusive history to
> several newbies on other newsgroups, and they in turn have kill-filed
> him.  I've posted the facts here for anyone to read if they care to,
> and those facts speak for themselves.

Greg,

I just wanted to leave a note to let you know that generally ad-hominem
(and/or privacy breaching) posts are frowned upon in these groups.

We don't tend to like 'net-stalking, and rather prefer people's posting
histories _here_ to be their posting histories _here_.

If they are able to be well behaved here (including not using other people's
email addresses, however munged) I don't really see any relevance to whether
or not they have had problems in other groups.

I do see the need to defend your email address, but the vitriol isn't
neccesary. Your goal has been accomplished WRT which address is used here,
so could we not have flames and/or attacks here also?

Anyways, feel free to make yourself welcome in these groups, but not if you
intend to follow Brett (or anyone else from your past) around and continue
an old flame-war.

In accordance with Steve's wishes to get this crap off his server, followups
are set to poster. I'd be happy to continue with any replies via email.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/26/2002 8:05:00 PM
Steve Gibson wrote:

> Though I consider it to be unfortunate, it's 
> clear that a "central authority" of some sort is required in any 
> unmoderated public forum such as this.

I'm not sure I agree with you about a central authority being necessary 
but I certainly agree that you have the right to impose such authority.

One thing that might help (and, like Brett I don't have time to read all 
the messages in a long thread like this so forgive me if this suggestion 
repeats something that's already been done & pointed out) would be a FAQ 
outlining your rules-including references to those RFC's that you want 
to see enforced here.

In particular I'm referring to the posts by 'Anonymous Bob' early in 
this thread. In one place he points out that this is not usenet, but in 
another he says that RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines apply. But it 
seems to me that that RFC refers to usenet. Maybe you intend that RFC to 
apply here-your choice. But if people are going to direct others to it 
then I think it should be because *you've* said that it applies here-not 
because it applies in usenet.

A better choice for Bob to reference IMO would have been 
http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html - a site to which you 
*did* refer as applying in your FAQ.

So maybe this is a quibble-both sites seem to have many of the same 
rules-but if you're going to quote rules that somebody violated then it 
seems to me like you should quote the right set of rules. And unless 
I've missed something (entirely possible-your site has a *lot* of FAQs) 
then you haven't adopted that RFC as a rule for your site.

Sorry about this-Brett seems to have more than a fair share of 
stubbornness but in this minor matter I think he was right & Bob was 
wrong. This isn't usenet & we don't need to follow usenet rules-we need 
to follow *your* rules.
0
Calvin
9/26/2002 8:36:00 PM
Calvin Crumrine posted the following to grc.privacy
 
> A better choice for Bob to reference IMO would have been 
> http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html - a site to which you 
> *did* refer as applying in your FAQ.

Duly noted and thank you.

If you would like to discuss it further, as Steve has expressed his 
desire to let this thread die, my email address is 
rvanderveen@earthlink.net

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/26/2002 8:57:00 PM
Calvin Crumrine wrote:
> One thing that might help (and, like Brett I don't have time to read
> all the messages in a long thread like this so forgive me if this
> suggestion repeats something that's already been done & pointed out)
> would be a FAQ outlining your rules-including references to those
> RFC's that you want to see enforced here.

Such already exists, and has been quoted to Brett and others ad nauseum.

http://grc.com/nntpquickref.htm
http://grc.com/discussions.htm

> In particular I'm referring to the posts by 'Anonymous Bob' early in
> this thread. In one place he points out that this is not usenet, but
> in another he says that RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines apply. But it
> seems to me that that RFC refers to usenet. Maybe you intend that RFC
> to apply here-your choice. But if people are going to direct others
> to it then I think it should be because *you've* said that it applies
> here-not because it applies in usenet.

Well, I'm not sure about Bob's links, specifically, but nettiquette is
pretty universal.

> A better choice for Bob to reference IMO would have been
> http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html - a site to which you
> *did* refer as applying in your FAQ.

That one is linked from the discussions.htm url, above.

> So maybe this is a quibble-both sites seem to have many of the same
> rules-but if you're going to quote rules that somebody violated then
> it seems to me like you should quote the right set of rules.

Well, if the RFC and the newsreaders.com have rules that are textually
identical, this is just a quibble, and a poor one.

> And
> unless I've missed something (entirely possible-your site has a *lot*
> of FAQs) then you haven't adopted that RFC as a rule for your site.

See the links I posted above.

> Sorry about this-Brett seems to have more than a fair share of
> stubbornness but in this minor matter I think he was right & Bob was
> wrong. This isn't usenet & we don't need to follow usenet rules-we
> need to follow *your* rules.

This page:
http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html

Is linked from Steve's pages about the groups. Now, he doesn't state that
the rules there must be followed, but I think the intent is clear.

In accordance with Steve's desires for this thread to go away (see
grc.news), I've set followups to poster, and would be happy to continue any
dialog via email.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/26/2002 9:39:00 PM
"Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
news:MPG.17fc8247b8c1fe629897a2@news.grc.com...
[]
> mysteriously had to test their sigs in the test newsgroup here.
>
> All coincidental, I'm sure.

Bob... is it at all plausable that due to the discussion of 'rogue'
signatures, I made test posts with PGP (encrypted and signed, respectively)
to *make sure* that the ability to use PGP on Steve's server remained in
place?

Of course, it's a given that I'm a jerk who has no social skills ~~ so I'll
totally understand if you think I'm full of it.

:)
Hilly.

 --
Free Cheesy Bread now!
http://www.amnesty.org
http://www.dominos.com
0
Hilly
9/26/2002 11:02:00 PM
Hi Bob,

"Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
news:MPG.17fc8247b8c1fe629897a2@news.grc.com
> BullBar posted the following to grc.privacy
>
> BullBar,
>
> FWIW, I think his comments were not aimed at you.

Unfortunately I believe he was talking to me. Please see quote below:


<quote>

"Bullmoose" <Bullmoose@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:amu1q0$28pt$1@news.grc.com
> ?Man, I didn't (and wouldn't have), said anything to you. And you
> know that, and everyone else does.
> So, one might ask, why did pchelp choose to attack BullMoose?
> I was talking to BullBar, and had an opinion about hall monitors and
> officious assholes.

</quote>


> There's a thread in the spareroom newsgroup
> at securecomp were they discussed coming over here to make trouble.
> There has also been a few of the same people who posted in that
> thread who mysteriously had to test their sigs in the test newsgroup
> here.

Velly intelesting.......

--


BullBar
0
BullBar
9/27/2002 12:52:00 AM
Hi Bullmoose,

Thanks for your clarification, I had hoped you weren't directing the 'hall
monitor' stuff at me.

I think I may have found the source of my confusion:
You said below "and I (as you say) jumped in, at what was the most recent
posting of the thread, at the time I started writing my post."

Do you view this NG in 'Hide Read Messages' mode ?  When doing this myself I
have inadvertently responded to the 'incorrect' posting. What I mean is
this, the original posting (OT: Sig Length) now has at least 7 'subthreads'
under the initial post. Some of which have moved slightly from the 'thrust'
original post. When viewing a NG in 'hide read posts' mode these multiple
subthreads are no longer distinguishable, so a posting may seem strange or
out of context (I though you were accusing me of being a 'hall monitor' when
you weren't) when viewed via this mode.

To help me keep up with the various subthreads in this thread I have
returned the 'view all messages' mode. Now I can see the context of what
before seemed strange or not connected.

Sorry if the above sounds like preaching or teaching, I was just trying to
explain myself fully.

BTW The Macquarie dictionary has this to say about Bullbar(s):
bullbar - // noun a metal grid placed in front of a car to prevent damage to
the vehicle in case of collision, especially with kangaroos, stray cattle,
etc., on outback roads


--


BullBar



"BullMoose" <BullMoose@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:amufnh$2kvn$1@news.grc.com
> No problem on this end, Bullbar.
> I am most sorry that you took it that way, I in no way wished to
> convey or infer that you
> were one of those few officious, self appointed,net cops on this NG,
> Not at all.

<snipped>
0
BullBar
9/27/2002 1:40:00 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hilly <petmypaw@hvc.rr.com> writes:

>the ability to use PGP on Steve's server remained in place?

That's never been an issue.  Occasionally some folk have to make plain 
they are who they say they are (knowing there are lurkers who have 
verified the PGP keys) and so can post without fear of being confused 
with forgers.  Recent history is a case in point.

- -- 
Jim Crowther                             "It's MY computer" (tm)

PGP key:
mailto:pgp-public-keys@pgp.uk.demon.net?SUBJECT=GET%200x6EC9FEC1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk 2.0.5

iQA/AwUBPZO3dnnjyHhuyf7BEQLVsQCdEvUOTnfq8pItY5dxyr5gMy5ZuVUAoIb7
aEqTfM7Rzv9O+7x7kMGCmJqe
=l137
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Jim
9/27/2002 1:42:00 AM
Hi Jim.   :)

"Jim Crowther" <Don't.use.Lockdown@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
message news:WTh2qFG4d7k9EAO3@grc.com.ngs...
[]
> Occasionally some folk have to make plain
> they are who they say they are
[]

So you see my apprehension at the thought of some strange newsgroup
configuration somehow breaking PGP in any way.  With the high rate of rule
changes around here, you (I?) never know what's going to happen.

Regards,
Hilly.
0
Hilly
9/27/2002 2:39:00 AM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hilly <petmypaw@hvc.rr.com> writes:

>Hi Jim.   :)
>
>"Jim Crowther" <Don't.use.Lockdown@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in
>message news:WTh2qFG4d7k9EAO3@grc.com.ngs...
>[]
>> Occasionally some folk have to make plain
>> they are who they say they are
>[]
>
>So you see my apprehension at the thought of some strange newsgroup
>configuration somehow breaking PGP in any way.  With the high rate of rule
>changes around here, you (I?) never know what's going to happen.

Understood my friend. :))

There is no conspiracy against PGP that I am aware of, and the only 
effect I have seen is that some posters who persisted in using very long 
sigs (after correctly formatted sig-seps, so OE users get off) seemed to 
go silent until they changed their ways.

I may have mis-interpreted though, I only describe what I see.

- -- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk 2.0.5

iQA/AwUBPZPGunnjyHhuyf7BEQIf+ACcC0/tUBwa1fP+icdIccNdGRtljGgAn0dr
WsNqIAEjebkmXg6wNJh/O0ie
=b7gP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
0
Jim
9/27/2002 2:47:00 AM
Maybe someone should come up with an anti-troll program like spambo.


"GregR" <spamalyzer@suespammers.org.NULL> wrote in message
news:3D92796B.60799F42@suespammers.org.NULL...
0
pizza
9/27/2002 7:07:00 AM
"Calvin Crumrine" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> In particular I'm referring to the posts by 'Anonymous Bob' early in
> this thread. In one place he points out that this is not usenet, but in
> another he says that RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines apply.

I didn't understand this ethier - thanks for pointing it out.

> Sorry about this-Brett seems to have more than a fair share of
> stubbornness but in this minor matter I think he was right & Bob was
> wrong.

Maybe "unclear" would be better?  :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/27/2002 9:07:00 PM
"Robert Wycoff" <Don't.use.Lockdown@any.price> wrote in message
> This one?
> http://www.networkcomputing.com/1022/1022centerfoldtext.html

The print version was better - full color centerfold with pics (no jokes
please) and network design and came out just in time for Comdex.  :)

My previous (and irrelevant) career was in broadcasting and as a morning DJ
and radio station manager was similarly "debunked" (despite numerous trade
publications with photos and page numbers having been provided).


Brett
0
Brett
9/27/2002 10:21:00 PM
"Bullmoose" <Bullmoose@triad.rr.com> wrote in message news:amu1q0
> Now, what I see is.pch*lp, the second in an anticipated trilogy, as he
> raises his ugly and disruptive head.

FYI I've had a few privta emails warning me about that particular
individual... but thanks.

Brett
0
Brett
9/27/2002 10:26:00 PM
"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>  I frankly want this guy to be, at very
> least, well recognized for the intransigent troll he is, and better
> still, I'd like him to leave.  Voluntarily would be nice, but I'm not
> particular.

....and that is your problem.  If you simnply pass on whatever it is you
object to instead of feeding the flames this would have never gone so long.
You're the one fdoing the name calling.  You're the one with an agenda to
have me "well recognized for the intransigent troll he is".  Quite frankly -
you're the problem.  And still I don't suggest you be blocked, censored, or
even kill filed.  If someone ELSE decided to do that (and several have told
me they have) then so be it.  But that's an individual choice.  You on the
other hand seem to think everyone should follow your decisions?

Why is that?

Brett
>
>
> >Is this how you set the example of respect that Steve has made clear that
he
> >wants on his server?
> >By trolling and exacerbating the situation?
>
> I'm not trolling anyone.  I'm taking a position and engaging in
> dialogue, though I will agree that on balance it hasn't been very
> constructive.  Pretty much what you yourself probably conceive yourself
> to be doing with this post of yours.
>
> I have continued to post more constructively on more constructive
> threads.
>
> pchelp
>
0
Brett
9/27/2002 10:30:00 PM
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002 16:30:26 -0600, "Brett"
<brett_schulte@spamcop.net> wrote:

>"pchelp" <pchelp@pc-help.org> wrote in message
>>  I frankly want this guy to be, at very
>> least, well recognized for the intransigent troll he is, and better
>> still, I'd like him to leave.  Voluntarily would be nice, but I'm not
>> particular.
>
>...and that is your problem.  If you simnply pass on whatever it is you
>object to instead of feeding the flames this would have never gone so long.
>You're the one fdoing the name calling.  You're the one with an agenda to
>have me "well recognized for the intransigent troll he is".  Quite frankly -
>you're the problem.  

It's clear to me that Brett is a troll, and I agree with pchelp that
he should be dumped from the newsgroup.

>And still I don't suggest you be blocked, censored, or
>even kill filed.  

Of course not; having as many people trolled as possible is your goal
- keep the pot boiling.

>If someone ELSE decided to do that (and several have told
>me they have) then so be it.  But that's an individual choice.  You on the
>other hand seem to think everyone should follow your decisions?

He gave his opinion.

This is my first and last post on the 'Brett' problem. My killfile
will now make most of the problem go away.
0
Soames
9/27/2002 10:54:00 PM
"Soames Jennings" <Soames@semaos.com> wrote in message
> My killfile will now make most of the problem go away.

Thanks... that was EXACTLY my point.  :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/27/2002 11:05:00 PM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> We don't tend to like 'net-stalking...the vitriol isn't neccesary.
> Anyways, feel free to make yourself welcome in these groups, but not if
you
> intend to follow Brett (or anyone else from your past) around and continue
> an old flame-war.

Thanks Sam.  I'll refrain from replying to him and hope it stops here.

Brett
0
Brett
9/28/2002 1:23:00 AM
pizza delivery guy wrote:

> Maybe someone should come up with an anti-troll program like spambo.

Hmm..... Assuming we're talking about the same "Spambo"...  I'll reserve
comment until a later, more appropriate time... :-)

--
GregR - Another Beemer Biker ...o&o>

[Remove the null-routing to reply]

Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Proud to be 'anmother Internet terrorist'
(e-mail from Tommy Brock at Removeyou.org 5/24/02).
0
GregR
9/28/2002 2:18:00 AM
I am anxious to see the finished product of spambo. I have read some of the
posts in grc.spam.news and tried to keep up with the latest news and  i am
looking forward to the release of spambo. Steve has contributed alot to the
software community and that is why I enjoy coming here. Godbless Mr. GregR

"GregR" <spamalyzer@suespammers.org.NULL> wrote in message
news:3D951182.D1DB1B06@suespammers.org.NULL...
0
pizza
9/28/2002 2:33:00 AM
Brett wrote:
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> We don't tend to like 'net-stalking...the vitriol isn't neccesary.
>> Anyways, feel free to make yourself welcome in these groups, but not
>> if you intend to follow Brett (or anyone else from your past) around
>> and continue an old flame-war.
>
> Thanks Sam.  I'll refrain from replying to him and hope it stops here.

You might even find you can peacefully co-exist ;)

By the way, I liked the way I wrote my message better (*g*). Perhaps a
clearer indication of where editing has been done would be useful? Maybe
place your elipses in brackets, like so: [...]. I'd appreciate it, anyways,
and I'm sure other posters would too.

Also, followups on my post were to poster. I'm not sure what happened to
that. I've reduced the crosspost to hopefully wean this off the server.


Hmm, actually... I think OE is broken there, too. It seems when followups
are set to poster only, it sends to the group and only CC's to poster.
Jim, what is supposed to happen here?

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/28/2002 2:38:00 AM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:an34n9$1dpu$1@news.grc.com...
[]
> Jim, what is supposed to happen here?

I think Jim is busy trying to decide whether or not he's going to mention
anything about GregR's 8-line signature.

:-|
Hilly.
0
Hilly
9/28/2002 2:48:00 AM
"Hilly" <petmypaw@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> I think Jim is busy trying to decide whether or not he's going to mention
> anything about GregR's 8-line signature.

ROFLOL.

Brett
0
Brett
9/28/2002 3:01:00 AM
In article <an35ao$1ebt$1@news.grc.com>, petmypaw@hvc.rr.com says...
> 
> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:an34n9$1dpu$1@news.grc.com...
> []
> > Jim, what is supposed to happen here?
> 
> I think Jim is busy trying to decide whether or not he's going to mention
> anything about GregR's 8-line signature.
> 
> :-|
> Hilly.
ROTFLMAO !

You *know* it only works 1 way :-P

-- 
Bloated Elvis
0
bloated
9/28/2002 5:37:00 AM
bloated elvis wrote:
> In article <an35ao$1ebt$1@news.grc.com>, petmypaw@hvc.rr.com says...
>>
>> "Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>> news:an34n9$1dpu$1@news.grc.com...
>> []
>>> Jim, what is supposed to happen here?
>>
>> I think Jim is busy trying to decide whether or not he's going to
>> mention anything about GregR's 8-line signature.
>>
>> :-|
>> Hilly.
> ROTFLMAO !

Hey, NO FUN ALLOWED!

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/28/2002 7:25:00 AM
In message <an3li6$1t9d$1@news.grc.com>, Sam Schinke 
<sschinke@myrealbox.com> kicked in with

>Hey, NO FUN ALLOWED!
>
>Regards,
>Sam

<pun intended>
NOW you spilled my coffee and scared the cat! Thank you VERY much!
;-))
-- 
Fungus (aka Urgje)
PGP Key ID:0xDDD4F1E2
[urgje at dds dot nl]
0
Fungus
9/28/2002 12:16:00 PM
*** Note Subject has been changed. ***

Sam Schinke <sschinke@myrealbox.com> writes:

>Hmm, actually... I think OE is broken there, too. It seems when 
>followups are set to poster only, it sends to the group and only CC's 
>to poster. Jim, what is supposed to happen here?

 From RFC1036:

----------------------------
2.2.3.  Followup-To

     This line has the same format as "Newsgroups".  If present, follow-
     up messages are to be posted to the newsgroup or newsgroups listed
     here.  If this line is not present, follow-ups are posted to the
     newsgroup or newsgroups listed in the "Newsgroups" line.

     If the keyword poster is present, follow-up messages are not
     permitted.  The message should be mailed to the submitter of the
     message via mail.
----------------------------

 From what you say, it would appear OE is broken. :(

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/28/2002 1:55:00 PM
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C266EE.AA49AD40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Jim Crowther wrote:
>  From RFC1036:
>
> ----------------------------
> 2.2.3.  Followup-To
>
>      This line has the same format as "Newsgroups".  If present,
>      follow- up messages are to be posted to the newsgroup or
>      newsgroups listed here.  If this line is not present, follow-ups
>      are posted to the newsgroup or newsgroups listed in the
> "Newsgroups" line.
>
>      If the keyword poster is present, follow-up messages are not
>      permitted.  The message should be mailed to the submitter of the
>      message via mail.
> ----------------------------
>
>  From what you say, it would appear OE is broken. :(

Very. When I press the "Reply Group" button in OE, while my message with
followups to poster is selected, here's what I get in the new message (see
attachment).

It's not like the RFC is even remotely vague on this point.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.

------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C266EE.AA49AD40
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
	name="oebug.jpg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="oebug.jpg"
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------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C266EE.AA49AD40--
0
Sam
9/28/2002 7:57:00 PM
Sam Schinke <sschinke@myrealbox.com> writes:

>Very. When I press the "Reply Group" button in OE, while my message
>with followups to poster is selected, here's what I get in the new
>message (see attachment).
>
>It's not like the RFC is even remotely vague on this point.

Indeed. :(

It is one of over 200 'breakages' of long established standards that MS
chose to ignore *after* soliciting advice from those who helped write
said standards. [1][2]  :(

This can only have been deliberate.  I have no doubt as to why.

[1]     This is hearsay, but IIRC, certain individuals were asked in
        1993/4/5? to give their appraisals of the embryo O/OE.  AIUI,
        all suggestions that referred to RFCs were studiously ignored.
        There was a count of these, long expunged from Deja/Google (but
        not at the request of the authors) which made the count of these
        'violations' well past the 200 mark.

[2]     It is noted that each iteration of OE gets a lower score in the
        GNKSA.  I'm not suggesting that a 100% score there is ideal, as
        the GNKSA hasn't considered some scenarios, but it is a good
        'yardstick'.


<http://www.xs4all.nl/~js/gnksa/>

-- 
Jim Crowther                      "It's MY computer" (tm)
OEnemy tamed by OE-quotefix: <http://jump.to/oe-quotefix>
0
Jim
9/29/2002 1:36:00 AM
pizza delivery guy wrote:

> I am anxious to see the finished product of spambo. I have read some of the
> posts in grc.spam.news and tried to keep up with the latest news and  i am
> looking forward to the release of spambo. Steve has contributed alot to the
> software community and that is why I enjoy coming here.

Ahh... now I *don't* think we're talking about the same thing.  "Spambo" is the
posting name of one of the regulars on the SpamCop newsgroups, and we're
collaborating on a little project together (that I can't discuss the details of
right now).

> Godbless Mr. GregR

Why thank you - and back at 'cha.... :-)

Don't know what I did to deserve that one, but I've learned to never look a
gift compliment in the mouth.... :-)

--
GregR - Another Beemer Biker ...o&o>

[Remove the null-routing to reply]

Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Proud to be 'anmother Internet terrorist'
(e-mail from Tommy Brock at Removeyou.org 5/24/02).
0
GregR
9/29/2002 3:33:00 AM
I wish you good luck on your project.

"GregR" <spamalyzer@suespammers.org.NULL> wrote in message
news:3D9674A6.134AD21D@suespammers.org.NULL...
0
pizza
9/29/2002 3:40:00 AM
"pizza delivery guy" <its@notdeliveryits.com> wrote in message
news:an5son$14br$1@news.grc.com...
> I wish you good luck on your project.


GregR
It is your duty to follow up the cross post to grc. privacy or whatever.
Please do so as I will not particular in this thread
Thank you
NS
0
Nice
9/29/2002 3:51:00 AM
"Hilly" <petmypaw@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
> I think Jim is busy trying to decide whether or not he's going to mention
> anything about GregR's 8-line signature.

Perhaps these rules should only apply to "regular" posters - it would be
time consuming (and appear unfriendly) to correct first time or infrequent
visitors.  Steve?

For what it's worth I participate in other groups and while there's always
the occasional bitch and moan about sig length (and anything else you can
think of) I can think of no other group the actually regulates it.  Why this
one does I'm still unsure - I really do think it's the responsibility of
those with limited bandwidth to limit what that they download - not the
other way around.  While I feel for those with slow connections, If we were
to design the web for the lowest common denominator in connection speed it'd
be a boring place indeed.  :)

Brett
0
Brett
9/29/2002 4:52:00 AM
Brett posted the following to grc.privacy

> Perhaps these rules should only apply to "regular" posters - it would be
> time consuming (and appear unfriendly) to correct first time or infrequent
> visitors.  Steve?

My only excuse is that it's a slow night. ;-)

You've been posting here for about a year now. Do you consider yourself 
a "regular" or an "irregular" poster?

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/29/2002 5:23:00 AM
"Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> You've been posting here for about a year now. Do you consider yourself
> a "regular" or an "irregular" poster?

Well you're addressing one of my points while ignoring the other more
important one - but to answer you're question I'm probably regular by most
definitions.

Brett
0
Brett
9/29/2002 6:01:00 AM
Brett posted the following to grc.privacy

> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
> > You've been posting here for about a year now. Do you consider yourself
> > a "regular" or an "irregular" poster?
> 
> Well you're addressing one of my points while ignoring the other more
> important one - but to answer you're question I'm probably regular by most
> definitions.
 
Brett,

I have no obligation to respond to all you may have to say, but this 
particular point may be the more important one after all is said and 
done. Steve is running a business. As part of that business he has 
provided these forums as a public service to help people with security, 
privacy, and more general technical issues. The common mode of exchange 
is for someone to ask a question relating to those issues and others 
offer answers. You have presented yourself as an expert yet you offer no 
one any help. In that regard, you are most irregular.

BTW, censorship isn't an issue. This isn't Hyde Park and Steve has no 
obligation to provide anyone with a soapbox to express their opinions. 

"Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses." AJ Liebling 

-- 
Bob Vanderveen
"He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
Thomas Jefferson
0
Anonymous
9/29/2002 6:24:00 AM
Brett wrote:
> "Hilly" <petmypaw@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> I think Jim is busy trying to decide whether or not he's going to
>> mention anything about GregR's 8-line signature.
>
> Perhaps these rules should only apply to "regular" posters - it would
> be time consuming (and appear unfriendly) to correct first time or
> infrequent visitors.  Steve?

Usually the first few posts with long sigs get ignored, at least by my
observations.

My guess is that people hope that those with the long sigs will, upon
reading some volume of posts here, realize that such are most definately not
the norm and adjust their own settings to match. Usually when an otherwise
common behaviour is completely absent in a population, there is a reason.

This is part of why the RFC's and nettiquette guides recommend lurking in a
group or forum for a period before participating actively.

> For what it's worth I participate in other groups and while there's
> always the occasional bitch and moan about sig length (and anything
> else you can think of) I can think of no other group the actually
> regulates it.  Why this one does I'm still unsure - I really do think
> it's the responsibility of those with limited bandwidth to limit what
> that they download - not the other way around.  While I feel for
> those with slow connections, If we were to design the web for the
> lowest common denominator in connection speed it'd be a boring place
> indeed.  :)

Connection speed isn't the issue. Even at 56k, checking the groups takes me
a matter of minutes a day.

The _primary_ issue is bandwidth cost, in areas where bandwidth is metered
(and it also strikes me as possible that Steve's T-1's are metered, I know
many are, though know nothing about the particular setup here). Secondary
issues are good netiquette, and broken news-readers.

If you've seen two or three people using an un-fixed version of OE, all
top-posting, and all with two-digit length sigs participating in a long
thread, you'll realize that they'll probably hit the posting size limits for
these groups pretty rapidly. It gets worse when there are some participants
who also have long sigs and bottom-post, resulting in not only massive
amounts of needlessly used bandwidth but also in a hopelessly garbled and
illegible thread (note, not due to the bottom-posting, but due to the poor
combination of top/bottom posting, long sigs, and OE).

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/29/2002 2:21:00 PM
Anonymous Bob wrote:
> Brett posted the following to grc.privacy
>
>> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message
>>> You've been posting here for about a year now. Do you consider
>>> yourself a "regular" or an "irregular" poster?
>>
>> Well you're addressing one of my points while ignoring the other more
>> important one - but to answer you're question I'm probably regular
>> by most definitions.
>
> Brett,
>
> I have no obligation to respond to all you may have to say, but this
> particular point may be the more important one after all is said and
> done. Steve is running a business. As part of that business he has
> provided these forums as a public service to help people with
> security, privacy, and more general technical issues. The common mode
> of exchange is for someone to ask a question relating to those issues
> and others offer answers. You have presented yourself as an expert
> yet you offer no one any help. In that regard, you are most irregular.

Bob,

I see Brett posting links to interesting "items" from time to time. He also
posts questions or issues for discussion. There are others whose
participation is limited to that, so I don't see Brett's participation here
as "irregular" in that sense.

I think many participants here have a habit of glossing over the
contributive posts from a poster if they decide for whatever reason they
dislike their presence.

That Brett has been engaged in a flame-fest (one so far :P) is an extremely
poor criteria for people to be crying for his abolishment.

That aside, I think your and Brett's uses of regular, in this instance, are
incompatible. You seem to be using it in the sense that pertains to
uniformity (eg, I'm pretty regular as far as grc posters go), he seems to be
using it in the sense that pertains to frequency (eg, I regularly post in
the grc groups). But I'm sure everybody knew that arleady. *g*

> BTW, censorship isn't an issue. This isn't Hyde Park and Steve has no
> obligation to provide anyone with a soapbox to express their opinions.

Right. And if Steve wanted him to still be gone, he still would be. I have
no issue with Steve deciding either way, and I'm fairly certain that Brett
has expressed an identical position on _Steve's_ decisions in this respect.

But Brett wasn't talking about whether Steve blocking him would be
censorship, or should be viewed in a similar light (by my reading, anyways).
He seemed to be questioning the intellectual "integrity" of those posting
asking to have him removed.

For newsgroup posters to take it upon themselves to _continue_ to try to
have him removed for fairly minor transgressions (most of which have been
corrected) seems to be... off... somehow (I'm finding it difficult to
describe).

At issue (for me) is the fact that the only remaining "transgression" of
Brett's is that he continues to disagree with certain expressed sentiments,
most notably the sentiment that his postings have no value except as troll
posts. It's understandable for him to hold that particular disagreement, if
you ask me (I'm sure virtually anybody would, in reference to their own
posting habits :P).

Brett has expressed an awareness of the self-moderating nature of these
groups, and I think it behooves us as an open community to withold judgement
barring serious future offenses.

> "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses." AJ
> Liebling

Yes.

I've set followups to poster, though I know it's futile, given how well OE
behaves (*g*).

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/29/2002 2:24:00 PM
Anonymous Bob wrote:

> You have presented yourself as an expert yet you offer no
> one any help. In that regard, you are most irregular.

Well, if nothing else, at least he's consistent - no matter what newsgroup he
posts to... :-)

--
GregR - Another Beemer Biker ...o&o>

[Remove the null-routing to reply]
0
GregR
9/29/2002 8:02:00 PM
[Sam Schinke] wrote ...

> [...]
> 
> The _primary_ issue is bandwidth cost, in areas where bandwidth
> is metered (and it also strikes me as possible that Steve's T-1's
> are metered, I know many are, though know nothing about the
> particular setup here).

Thank goodness no. Flat-rate and only about 33% of available BW used 
most of the time.  (Thank goodness for optimized images and tiny 
downloads! :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/29/2002 8:49:00 PM
[Sam Schinke] wrote much right-on-target stuff ...

Sam,

I wanted to express to you and everyone here that your views closely 
match mine.  Occasional skirmishes are inevitable in any unmoderated 
public forum.  It is the ability to put them behind us and get on 
with business that differentiates these useful technical forums from 
the previous gossipy and trouble-prone topic-free ten-forward forums.

For people who want that, the securecomp forums are just a click 
away.

Thanks for your insightful and thoughtful posting Sam.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/29/2002 8:55:00 PM
In <an72fb$2602$1@news.grc.com>, Sam Schinke transmitsitlikethis:

> Anonymous Bob wrote:
> > Brett posted the following to grc.privacy

> >> "Anonymous Bob" <No.How@No.Way> wrote in message

     <cut>

> I think many participants here have a habit of glossing over the
> contributive posts from a poster if they decide for whatever reason they
> dislike their presence.

EVERY post is a contribution on some level.  And if there is a 
particular level/poster that any one should object to, then they have 
options that only have to do with THEMSELVES rather than take out 
others who they disagree with, on whatever level. This is what we mean 
by "self-moderating".  YOU moderate YOUR behaviour, ie, YOU block or 
killfile a poster, rather than ask for the removal of the OTHER 
person!  DUH!  

This is what it comes down to, whether or not they "like" someone or 
not, and surely, this is not the way to be?  They could also learn to 
LIVE AND LET LIVE, considering this is ONLY a newsgroup. Rather than 
add fuel to the fire, these *unconscious* objectors <:)> should learn 
how to use a filter in their newsreaders (and I am sure they can get 
some assistance with same in grc.sec.software if needs be), instead of 
coming in to swarm-flame a poster such as Brett.  I think the damage 
that can be done by those who would applaud abolishing anyone for 
anything, is far greater than any damage a poster could ever cause, 
especially in this case. 

 
> That Brett has been engaged in a flame-fest (one so far :P) is an extremely
> poor criteria for people to be crying for his abolishment.

Of course.  If this were the criteria and it was applied evenly 
to ALL who engaged in such behaviour, then there wouldn't be very many 
people left.  And surely, the biggest advocate for abolishing Brett - 
namely pchelp - would have been cast out long ago!!!  Ne, Waldo?

     <cut>

> > BTW, censorship isn't an issue. This isn't Hyde Park and Steve has no
> > obligation to provide anyone with a soapbox to express their opinions.

> Right. And if Steve wanted him to still be gone, he still would be. I have
> no issue with Steve deciding either way, and I'm fairly certain that Brett
> has expressed an identical position on _Steve's_ decisions in this respect.
 
> But Brett wasn't talking about whether Steve blocking him would be
> censorship, or should be viewed in a similar light (by my reading, anyways).
> He seemed to be questioning the intellectual "integrity" of those posting
> asking to have him removed.

I, too, question their integrity, intellectual or otherwise.  What's 
up with them anyways?

 
> For newsgroup posters to take it upon themselves to _continue_ to try to
> have him removed for fairly minor transgressions (most of which have been
> corrected) seems to be... off... somehow (I'm finding it difficult to
> describe).

I wanted to reply earlier to this comedy of events (in fact, it was 
quite surreal), but I, too, was lost for words.  As Bullmoose has 
already pointed out though, you have done a fine job - finally.  


> Brett has expressed an awareness of the self-moderating nature of these
> groups, and I think it behooves us as an open community to withold judgement
> barring serious future offenses.

"Self-moderating nature ..."?.  There seems to be only a few "selfs" 
around here who do most of the judging and they are sometimes 
(actually, most of the time) the biggest trouble-makers going.  Just 
take a look at this thread and at those out for blood - there is where 
the *real* trouble lies.  They are guilty of the very things they 
blame others for.  Here again we've seen a fine example of how some 
live by the "one rule for *us* and one rule for *them*" ethos.  What a 
joke!  Just look at all the fun they've had!  And, I'm gonna sound 
like *them* now, but what they were doing was essentially taking the 
p*ss out of the fact that 10F no longer exists, except for them.  I 
mean this was a very 10-F-ish sort of thread, don't you agree?  Ah 
well ...  

     <cut>

> Regards,
> Sam

waves,
"Those that know me are few;
Those that abuse me are honoured.
Therefore the sage wears rough clothing
and holds the jewel in his heart."
0
waves
9/29/2002 9:02:00 PM
Steve Gibson wrote:
> [Sam Schinke] wrote ...
>
>> [...]
>>
>> The _primary_ issue is bandwidth cost, in areas where bandwidth
>> is metered (and it also strikes me as possible that Steve's T-1's
>> are metered, I know many are, though know nothing about the
>> particular setup here).
>
> Thank goodness no. Flat-rate and only about 33% of available BW used
> most of the time.  (Thank goodness for optimized images and tiny
> downloads! :)

*g* That's something, anyways.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/29/2002 9:12:00 PM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.180108a1feaccf1798ac64@207.71.92.194...
[]
> It is the ability to put them behind us and get on with business
> that differentiates these useful technical forums from the previous
> gossipy and trouble-prone topic-free ten-forward forums.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> For people who want that, the securecomp forums are just a click
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Steve, SecureComp is many things... but it most definitely isn't gossipy and
trouble-prone.

If you're thinking about a group providing entertainment to the online
community, then you might want to think about your own house first.

:)
Hilly.
0
Hilly
9/29/2002 10:11:00 PM
"Hilly" <petmypaw@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:an7trl$2u8$1@news.grc.com...
>
> "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.180108a1feaccf1798ac64@207.71.92.194...
> []
> > It is the ability to put them behind us and get on with business
> > that differentiates these useful technical forums from the previous
> > gossipy and trouble-prone topic-free ten-forward forums.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > For people who want that, the securecomp forums are just a click
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Steve, SecureComp is many things... but it most definitely isn't gossipy
and
> trouble-prone.

I think Steve was referencing the existence of non-technical forums at the
securecomp server, rather than meaning to imply that the particular
drawbacks of having those groups here also exist there.

Regards,
Sam
--
Welcome to Earth. A subsidiary of Microsoft�.
0
Sam
9/29/2002 10:27:00 PM
"Hilly" <petmypaw@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message news:an7trl$2u8
> "Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> []
> > It is the ability to put them behind us and get on with business
> > that differentiates these useful technical forums from the previous
> > gossipy and trouble-prone topic-free ten-forward forums.
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=20
> > For people who want that, the securecomp forums are just a click
>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=20
> Steve, SecureComp is many things... but it most definitely isn't =
gossipy and
> trouble-prone.
> If you're thinking about a group providing entertainment to the online
> community, then you might want to think about your own house first.
> :)
> Hilly.

Agreed, to both.
Also, plenty trouble and gossip before, during, and after the =
ten-forward boards' presence here at grc, for that matter.
-d.max
0
d
9/29/2002 11:41:00 PM
"waves" <waves@imnotsayin.ok> wrote in message
news:MPG.18017a6854fc8f61989def@207.71.92.194...
>  I think the damage
> that can be done by those who would applaud abolishing anyone for
> anything, is far greater than any damage a poster could ever cause,
> especially in this case.

I agree.
0
Brett
9/30/2002 1:48:00 AM
"waves" <waves@imnotsayin.ok> wrote in message
> EVERY post is a contribution on some level.  And if there is a
> particular level/poster that any one should object to, then they have
> options that only have to do with THEMSELVES rather than take out
> others who they disagree with, on whatever level. This is what we mean
> by "self-moderating".  YOU moderate YOUR behaviour, ie, YOU block or
> killfile a poster, rather than ask for the removal of the OTHER
> person!  DUH!
>
> This is what it comes down to, whether or not they "like" someone or
> not, and surely, this is not the way to be?  They could also learn to
> LIVE AND LET LIVE, considering this is ONLY a newsgroup. Rather than
> add fuel to the fire, these *unconscious* objectors <:)> should learn
> how to use a filter in their newsreaders (and I am sure they can get
> some assistance with same in grc.sec.software if needs be), instead of
> coming in to swarm-flame a poster such as Brett.  I think the damage
> that can be done by those who would applaud abolishing anyone for
> anything, is far greater than any damage a poster could ever cause,
> especially in this case.

It's hard not to quote your entire post.  Thanks for reminding me that
newsgroups can not only bring out the worst of us but also the best of us.
While I don't consider your post an endorsement of me or my ideas I do
appreciate you standing up for ideals.  While most people just email me and
say "I agree but don't want to post and get flamed".  It's nice to see
someone with courage.

Brett
0
Brett
9/30/2002 2:06:00 AM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.180108a1feaccf1798ac64@207.71.92.194...
> > []
> > > It is the ability to put them behind us and get on with business
> > > that differentiates these useful technical forums from the previous
> > > gossipy and trouble-prone topic-free ten-forward forums.
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > > For people who want that, the securecomp forums are just a click
> >    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"Hilly" <petmypaw@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
 news:an7trl$2u8$1@news.grc.com...
> > Steve, SecureComp is many things... but it most definitely isn't gossipy
> > and trouble-prone.

"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:an7uoo$3n0$1@news.grc.com...
> I think Steve was referencing the existence of non-technical forums at the
> securecomp server, rather than meaning to imply that the particular
> drawbacks of having those groups here also exist there.

I think you are right, Sam--anyone who takes the time to visit the groups at
SecureComp will recognize that they are not gossipy or trouble-prone at all.
There is a mature, self-moderating community of posters at SecureComp.  I
for one appreciate Ridge and Randy for hosting the groups and have
subscribed to them all.

1)SecureComp... security and technical issues

2)TheTable... social and political issues

3)SpareRoom... a great place to interact with others and relax

4)WebofTrust...  PGP, Cert Creation and issues relation to encryption and
the important Web of Trust and Secure Data

Randy has even added a Chat component.


Doris
0
lord
9/30/2002 2:13:00 AM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.180108a1feaccf1798ac64@207.71.92.194...

> Occasional skirmishes are inevitable in any unmoderated
> public forum.  It is the ability to put them behind us and get on
> with business that differentiates these useful technical forums from
> the previous gossipy and trouble-prone topic-free ten-forward forums.
>
> For people who want that, the securecomp forums are just a click
> away.

 Steve,
I am surprised and disappointed to see you write to this.
You seem to have painted all with one broad stroke of your black brush,
including many that hold you in high esteem.
If this is in fact what you are doing you have lowered yourself to the
divisive level that you proclaim to abhor.
I believe you owe the good people who post at securecomp an apology.

Rick
..
0
catseyenu
9/30/2002 7:17:00 AM
[Steve Gibson] wrote ...

Following up to my own post to clarify my meaning which offended 
several people.  I meant, as Sam correctly understood, that 
SecureComp continues to offer non-topical-by-design groups which we 
no longer have here.  That's all.  :)

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
9/30/2002 8:22:00 PM
Thank you, Steve.

--
..
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18025263bb510aae98ac6b@207.71.92.194...
> [Steve Gibson] wrote ...
>
> Following up to my own post to clarify my meaning which offended
> several people.  I meant, as Sam correctly understood, that
> SecureComp continues to offer non-topical-by-design groups which we
> no longer have here.  That's all.  :)
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
catseyenu
9/30/2002 8:37:00 PM
waves wrote:

> Of course.  If this were the criteria and it was applied evenly 
> to ALL who engaged in such behaviour, then there wouldn't be very many 
> people left.

Ain't that the troot.

I wouldn't be for banning anybody, unless they became a genuine 
infringement on his business and welfare, and in a very real sense; but 
the final decision is his...not mine. I can live with that quite easily.

  At any rate, if SG gets down to banning somebody, I seriously doubt he 
would do it for any shallow or questionable reasons. And one thing I 
assume right off the bat is that for any amount of evidence **I see** 
going toward making a decision, I've probably only seen about 1 to 5% of 
everything he considered before deciding. I've seen, over nearly 4 years 
(at this website...we won't go into the magazines out in the garage that 
he was in on too), too much patience, and too thorough consideration of 
***all*** possible evidence prior to making any decision, to worry about 
anything like that. I'm gonna figger anybody who really gets banned 
probably more than earned it...whether they agree or not. Let 'em talk 
all they want; everybody more than likely saw it all happen. Wouldn't do 
any good to try to BS anybody about it, when we all saw it happen and 
why. My take is that it gets pretty serious and disruptive before he 
even comes in here about it.

The thing that strikes me as so blasted comical about all this bitching 
is that anybody wanting to bitch can just get a full refund and bag it 
outa here. I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut he'll refund every single 
penny you paid, with no questions asked. All ya gotta do is ask. Get 
your refund and head for another store. It's that easy. He's not getting 
dictatorial about it, either...he's ***only*** going as far as he's 
getting pushed...every single person here knows that, too. Nobody but a 
flamin' (bloody?) fool is going to expect to push people around, and not 
have them push back.

And surely, the biggest advocate for abolishing Brett -
> namely pchelp - would have been cast out long ago!!!  Ne, Waldo?

Nan'desuka.  HTH'd I get in there? <G> I started staying out of this a 
few days ago. I'm surprised *I* haven't been banned. Or have I? I'm not 
sure.

Overall, I think the bitching, on occasion, far outweighs the cost of 
entrance. The door **always** opens out just as easily as in.

I think it behooves each and every one of us...without exception...to 
**always** recognize that this guy is just plain too friggin' busy to 
have to deal with this crap allatime. He ain't a babysitter; he's trying 
to run a business.

Pay his bills for a while...then you (collectively) can start giving 
orders. Or buy the place; and you (collectively again) can run it any 
damned way you want. <G>

Or he can hire Seinfeld's Soup Nazi to moderate the place. If it becomes 
moderated, y'all earned it. If it goes away altogether, y'all earned it.

Quit junping all over the damned furniture and behave yerselfs. My 
youngest kid learnt when I took some of the toy and fun budget to 
replace his broken bed he insisted on jumping on and broke. He even had 
a light Christmas because of it. He didn't like it, but he sure takes 
better care of things now.

Cheers

Waldo
0
Waldo
10/1/2002 6:42:00 AM
"Sam Schinke" <sschinke@myrealbox.com> wrote in message:
> You might even find you can peacefully co-exist ;)

That's never worked so far - but I'm surprised and delighted at how easily
you seem to have been able to shut him up.  I wish you'd come participate in
the SC forum - maybe you'd be be able to do the same there when he starts up
again?  :)


Brett
0
Brett
10/1/2002 7:13:00 PM
[Brett] wrote ...

> That's never worked so far - but I'm surprised and delighted
> at how easily you seem to have been able to shut him up.  I
> wish you'd come participate in the SC forum - maybe you'd be
> able to do the same there when he starts up again?  :)

I have been ignoring everyone talking about what an effective and 
accomplished troll you are.  But you are evidencing no desire or 
intent to terminate this incessant nonsense ... and you are, in
fact, clearly encouraging it.  This is filling these newsgroups
with useless argumentative banter ... which is not what they are
for, which is not why the majority of people are here, and which
thereby continues to make everyone's trolling point for them.

Please drop this pointless and now quite tiresome topic.
Please do so now.  Thank you.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
10/2/2002 8:11:00 PM
"Steve Gibson" <support@grc.com> wrote in message
> Please drop this pointless and now quite tiresome topic.
> Please do so now.  Thank you.

Done. :)

Brett
0
Brett
10/2/2002 10:33:00 PM
[Brett] wrote ...

> > Please drop this pointless and now quite tiresome topic.
> > Please do so now.  Thank you.
> 
> Done. :)

Thanks for understanding Brett.

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Steve Gibson, at work on: < nailing down a million loose ends >
0
Steve
10/2/2002 11:03:00 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Privacy? What privacy?
Followup to grc.privacy http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/10/03/ftc.industry.ap/index.html Ponemon, a privacy consultant, said he has been contacted by many companies -- such as banks and a national supermarket chain -- asking how they should tell consumers that they gave huge swaths of consumer data to law enforcement. In many cases, Ponemon said, the companies sent the information on their own initiative in order to assist the terrorism investigation. Some firms, such as airlines and car rental agencies, are breaking their privacy policies by sharing data to analyze suspic...

Privacy.. which privacy ?
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8758/Tomorrow+the+FBI+will+be+able+to+wiretap+all+internet+users I can't see privacy here "ObiWan" <anzen.NO@SPAM.gmx.net> wrote in message news:f2f58g$2jv4$1@news.grc.com... > http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8758/Tomorrow+the+FBI+will+be+able+to+wiretap+all+internet+users > > I can't see privacy here Shhhhhhh...the wires have ears. On Wednesday, Anonymous Bob ventured about what: > ObiWan wrote <in reference to> Tomorrow+the+FBI+will+be+able+to+wiretap+all+internet+users >> >> I ca...

Lengthly series on privacy
A five part series: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15157222/ I have nothing to hide: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/05/is_there_a_good.html Bob Vanderveen ...

length and bytes::length
Currently, under C<length>, perlfunc reads: Note the I<characters>: if the EXPR is in Unicode, you will get the number of characters, not the number of bytes. To get the length of the internal string in bytes, use C<bytes::length(EXPR)>, see L<bytes>. Note that the internal encoding is variable, and the number of bytes usually meaningless. To get the number of bytes that the string would have when encoded as UTF-8, use C<length(Encoding::encode_utf8(EXPR))>. There was some talk to excise the bytes::* functions from the document...

OT: spam filters and .sig lines
I must apologize, my aggressive spam filter deleted all of Charles K. Clarkson's posts :( It was unintentional. His .sig: Mobile Homes Specialist matched /(?:Cialis|Viagra|firstclassminds|smartpills|livebbagul|xadmin\.ce\.ro)/ DISCARD Matched Regular Spam I only mention this in case this has happened to others... -- /var/log/syslog: Mar 27 11:00:27 chasecreek postfix/cleanup[12006]: [ID 197553 mail.info] 7DC6313B51: discard: body Mobile+Homes+Specialist from onion.develooper.com[63.251.223.166]; from=<beginners-return-62153-sx=insecurity.org@perl.org> to...

Automated enforcement of posting SIG length guidelines
Everyone, I have decided to enhance our existing posting filter to enforce a limit on signature lengths. I have resisted doing so in the hope that it would be unnecessary, but since abusive sigs continue to be problematic here, I've decided to finally take the initiative. Following standard USENET recommended practices, a maximum of four signature lines can accompany any posting. If the total character count below the first sig-separator is greater than 320 (4 * 80) or the line count is greater than 4, a posting error will be returned to advise the user that their sig ...

[OT] {FAQ} moz.org email list sig
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigD287CCC644D81AE96E495A0D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable /*hta; hi to all. to be terse, ? with thunderbird being RFC 'compliant' as it is, why is "lists.mozilla.org" not sig "-- " 'compliant' ? later. ?iyapsil? /*bta. =2E --=20 peace out. tc.hago, g =2E **** in a free world without fences, who needs gates. ** help microsoft stamp out piracy - give linux to a friend today. ** to me...

Good Sig?/Bad Sig??
Hi all, I installed 658ckt08 the other day and I have been unable to get a "good" check on Imad's sig. I used his included keys and also his keys d/l from a key server. Has anyone been successful? If so what was the source of Imad's pub key that you used? thanks Webster cryptically wrote: > Hi all, I installed 658ckt08 the other day and I have been unable to > get a "good" check on Imad's sig. I used his included keys and also > his keys d/l from a key server. Has anyone been successful? If so > what was the source of Imad's p...

Content-Length and string.Length
I have httphandler what processes some text and then output it to user. Everything is fine except Content-Length property. I use following coderesponse.AddHeader("Content-Length", resultString.Length.ToString());  But, I experience problems that actually content length user receive is bigger then Length property return. What to do? I need this working till tomorrow morning :( For now I have following workaround: byte[] s = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(resultString); response.AddHeader("Content-Length", s.Length.ToString()); response.BinaryWrite(s);   If your respo...

ot
Name: khe nhecy Email: alainaokiatyahoodotcodotid Product: Firefox Summary: ot Comments: ot Browser Details: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9b2) Gecko/2007121120 Firefox/3.0b2 From URL: http://hendrix.mozilla.org/ Note to readers: Hendrix gives no expectation of a response to this feedback but if you wish to provide one you must BCC (not CC) the sender for them to see it. ...

OT
Sorry for being OT, but can someone direct me to a users froup for discussing Net::FTP issues? Thanks Dan There isn't one specifically I believe, but you can go to groups.googe.com (sign up) and use comp.lang.perl.misc or comp.lang.perl.modules newsgroups. Ilya > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Horne [mailto:dhorne@xtra.co.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 6:35 PM > To: dbi-users@perl.org > Subject: OT > > > Sorry for being OT, but can someone direct me to a users froup for > discussing Net::FTP issues? > > Thank...

Length
I am writting a news page for an Intranet site I have got it showing a title picture and the story from the database but I only want to show 1st few lines of the story as I have a bound hyperlink field to send the user to a different page for the full story. How do I or what code do I use to tell it to only load the 1st few lines of text Your answer is here: Creating a Custom DataGridColumn Class Hope this helps, RegardsBilal Hadiar, MCP, MCTS, MCPD, MCTMicrosoft MVP - Telerik MVP You have two options: 1) Show only the first lets say 150 chars using SubString2) Show only the first se...

sig
mail.identity.default.suppress_signature_separator;true news? -- 123 Am 12.11.2011 20:10, schrieb Paul Mueller: > mail.identity.default.suppress_signature_separator;true > news? mail 123 ...

Different Sig Fonts / Same Sig File
So I have created a sig without my personal signature. When I go and create a brand new email it looks differently then when I simply am replying to someone's email. Is there a way to have it look the same regardless of what I am doing? Aaron ...

Web resources about - OT: Sig length - grc.privacy

Length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the International System of Quantities , length is any quantity with dimension distance. In other contexts "length" is the measured dimension ...

Sunrise streaker the latest prankster to go to extreme lengths to get on telly
It's a fine Spring Racing Carnival tradition: interrupting live TV broadcasts by waving like an idiot, bellowing something mates, or ripping ...

Keep ASIC reviews at arm's length from vested interests
Almost 18 months after a damning Senate report into the performance of ASIC, three separate reviews are underway, with varying concerns about ...

‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ full-length trailer drops: are you stoked?
The full-length trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens dropped last night. It feels like we’re getting this longer look at the film kind of ...

Subway And Shortchanged Sandwich-Eaters Settle 2013 Lawsuit Over Footlong Sub Length
... justice for your complaints. This case combined seven separate ones, which were filed after a flurry of publicity in 2012 over sandwich lengths. ...

Donald Trump Threatens To Boycott CNBC’s GOP Debate Over Opening/Closing Statements And Running Length ...
Donald Trump just made it very clear he can call the shots on how TV networks run GOP debates . Via Twitter, he’s just made known to the public, ...

'Dragon's Lair' hits Kickstarter in search of a feature-length movie
That Dragon's Lair debuted as a LaserDisc format game/interactive movie but was never a proper film was always a little weird, but that could ...

Pentatonix Proves the Naysayers Wrong With Their First Full-Length Original Album
After a summer tour with Kelly Clarkson, the a capella group celebrates their new release.

It's Body Length, Not Mass, That Lets the Cheetah Run So Fast
... whale’s 31 MPH, and a three-toed sloth runs less than one MPH . A new paper by a pair of French physicists concludes that it’s the body length, ...

Foot-Long? Judge OKs Settlement Over Subway Sandwich Length
Judge approves settlement over Subway sandwich length in cases started by social media post

Resources last updated: 12/2/2015 9:53:26 AM