[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why do people do this? [Was fishingboat in root]



I DID NOT ASK YOU TO SEND ME YOUR SHIT E-MAIL MESSAGES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
TAKE A HINT AND DON'T SEND ANY MORE. FUCK YOU ALL

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karun" <karun@dambiec.com>
To: "Layne" <a515luna@ptd.net>; <debian-security@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Why do people do this? [Was fishingboat in root]


> The only harrasment I can see which is occuring on this list, is you
> harassing the members. If you want to unsubscribe go to www.debian.org
> and read the instructions on the webpage.
>
> Karun
>
> Layne wrote:
>
> >TAKE ME OFF YOUR STUPID FE-MAIL LIST BEFORE I CALL MY LAWYER FOR
HARASSMENT
> >YOU BASTARDS
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Brian P. Flaherty" <vze2rfri@verizon.net>
> >To: <debian-security@lists.debian.org>
> >Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:04 PM
> >Subject: Why do people do this? [Was fishingboat in root]
> >
> >
> >>So, I found it in netwatch.c.  Why do people create these files?  I
> >>have enough to do already, without wasting time looking for the source
> >>of spurious files.
> >>
> >>static unsigned char fillmac[] = {  0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0  };
> >>static FILE *fish = NULL;
> >>static char fishname[] = "/root/.fishingboat";
> >>static int fishlen = 0;
> >>static char *fishp;
> >>
> >>Could a message go in the README.Debian file in netdiag that says
> >>something to the effect of "netwatch will create a silly file,
> >>/root/.fishingboat, don't worry about it."  How about on the manpage
> >>in the files section?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Brian P. Flaherty
> >>
> >>--
> >>      /"\
> >>      \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
> >>       X        AGAINST HTML MAIL    and garbage files lying around
> >>      / \
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-request@lists.debian.org
> >>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> >>
> >listmaster@lists.debian.org
> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>



Reply to: