Take this off the list, please {Was: Re: Web pages/Debian/languages: Great!
You (or a spoofer) once again has reincluded the list as a CC: address; I did NOT DO SO on either Emails.
I am leaving it on this response (once only) to END the discussion from my part; this includes offline as well.
As I said b4, believe me as a nut or liar if you need to: END this discussion.
In a message dated 2003/08/28 11:25:16 Eastern Daylight Time, alfie@ist.org writes:
Subj: Re: Web pages/Debian/languages: Great!
Date: 2003/08/28 11:25:16 Eastern Daylight Time
From: alfie@ist.org
To: Royandrecrabtree@aol.com
CC: debian-www@lists.debian.org, roy.crabtree@alumni.unc.edu, crabtreeroy@hotmail.com, ricardo.hernandez@rocketmail.com
File: Webpages (196 bytes) DL Time (491021 bps): <1 minute
Sent from the Internet
* Royandrecrabtree@aol.com [2003-08-28 10:11]:
>I have taken this off the mailing list. Please note both Peter and
>Alfie left it on list, in violation of the newbies FAQ.
Uhm? Sorry, I haven't scanned your other mail yet (I will respond to
it when I find the time for it, am a little bit stressed a little bit),
So you admit you did not bother to read what I originally sent, thus violating the newbie FAQs to begin with;
all the rest of the garbage you (and/or Peter) spewed thus becomes your responsibility for not reading it.
"Stressed a little bit": you seem to have enough time to continue to respond in full, and to the list, but not to read
the original Email. YOUR flaw, not professional, and quite typical. As well as the rest of your responses below.
Get unstressed (or not), read the original comm I sent, take the time to address the possibility YOU might be wrong, and if you
so freely choose to do so, grow up and rectify the wrongs you already HAVE done.
"Sorry": no, apparently not, because you responded AGAIN without bothering to read the original. Grow up.
but you are simply lying here. This is what your original mail had in
it:
More accurately, you are asserting (possibly correctly) that this is what you received (which may not be what I sent).
No; the mail back to me has the CC: left on it for posting to the list.
Did you reinclude it? I have an Email in front of me that I sent that does NOT have it when _I_ sent it.
No, I am not lying; I mailed the web master; whether you believe that is up to you.
Your response has the CC: list on it again; did you reinclude it?
Apparently, you have no expertise in how spoofing is done.
Since neither side is proof of original Email content, there is no point in pursuing this.
(Neither is a Cannibal (or other) track, in case you want to go further ... you need to look up virus, phage, prion;
and note that these are PUBLICLY acknowledged attacks, very ld.
Peter/Alfie/list, ignore this: [[Aside to Yehudi: I will not clean up your stables, and the blowback is still t come. 40+min/911,AE/F&D]]
You are obviously intelligent enough to see this; whether you drop the arrogance or not,
do not Email me again on this topic; you are still violating the newbie FAQs.
Subject: Web pages/Debian/languages: Great!
From: Royandrecrabtree@aol.com
To: debian-www@lists.debian.org
Cc: roy.crabtree@alumni.unc.edu, crabtreeroy@hotmail.com, ricardo.hernandez@rocketmail.com
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:53:47 EDT
It is nice to say that others sent it to debian-www when it was
original yourself who did it. I personally was speaking about the Ccs
I noted that you did not have to believe it; you can continue to believe whatever you wish;
did you reattach the CC: list or was it there when you received the reply?
that you had in your original mails, like stated here above.
Actually, again: that you are asserting that you received, which may not be what I sent. That is what spoofing is.
>I did not put this on the list.
Then the original mail was from someone else who mails as
Or: was modified by someone spoofing and intercepting me. Why did you leave off the explanation I gave?
<Royandrecrabtree@aol.com> and signs with Roy Andrew Crabtree. If you
like I can check the Received headers for you so we can find the
injecting host?
Why would you expect to see the actual injecting host if the spoofer is expert enough to intercept in the first place?
Why would THAT even be needed? There ARE other forms of compromise; too numerous to list here.
You are technically competent (elst you would not be tracking my points and twisting them);
Therefore, that you left off the actually relevant explanation (the one I gave) intimates you DO understand how spoofing is done.
And that you have elected to shyte in the conversation.
(shyte is defined under google.com/my name/taansaafl/shyte as a search, as of circa 2001/06ish time frame);
Relatively (as of June/01) where the spoofing against me shifted to nearly 100%.
Folks: this topic is DANGEROUS: think of me as a liar and SHUT UP ON IT. Or you might be drawn into it.
>1) There was a web page error and the mailing address was wrong to the web
>master (my actual correspondent).
Debian is an open project and it communicates open. Therefore most of
the addresses you find on our webpages point to mailing lists.
Including the web master's malt address? That IS a vilation (and violation) of the web conventions, and would be an error on
the web master's part; in which case, if so, that I. EMailed to that list WOULD be your (Debian's) responsibility.
But only yours personally for REPOSTING to the list, violating the newbies FAQ, as well as your own request NOT TO DO SO.
>2) I made a mistake or did this intentionally and am unwilling to admit it.
Might be possible, yes. At least it seems that you haven't noticed
that the address is debian-www@lists.debian.org. Please notice the
lists -- might be a slightly hint.
Might not be what I originally saw, either.
Might be an error on your part to publish a web list as a webmasters address; if so. I am not going to take time to verify at this point.
Because: it would not necessarily be what was present on the Email in front of me when I first sent the original Email.
And THAT is the actual case. I _did_ review it.
Is your intention to actually iterate every possible sequence OTHER than the one I assert occurred?
>3) A viral attack or other spoof changed my mail addressing.
And included some interesting points of view? Would be a cool virus .)
Lying and twisting again, you are, I see: My assertion was a virus that spoofed Email headers and possibly content;
I have NOT yet claimed that the content WAS altered; (other than header); only noted that it MIGHT be the case.
At this point I tentatively denote that your (mal)intent to try to (mis)imply a point I did NOT make as if I had
is INTENTIONAL on your point to run a shyte spin.
Until you open up your comm, there is no ponit in continuing this.
I will leave your Email open for one more round; if you shyte spin again, I block you.
>4) AOL software, OS, browser or computer hardware error causing the address
>to be changed.
Yeah, blaming others is always a good idea.
Noting the spoofing sequences possible; you are repeating yourself.
A form of AO. Notably techno-geek denial ... not worth pursuing, since you will not acknowledge it.
>All unlikely except for #2 or #3. I AM asserting that my mail WAS tot
>he web master by visual inspection; I have been slammed once again.
No problem at all on our parts, no need to push it further....
Which you just did? By re-including the CC: mailing list? In vilation (and violation) of the FAQs?
>In any of those cases, both Peter and Alfie should have taken the
>responses off line.
Why should we have done it? "Post here, discuss here" (usenet jargon)
You apparently have never bothered to read the netiquette FAQs, much less obey them: grow up.
I have seen nothing that made me thing that you haven't sent the mail on
And: you will not look. Nor will I take the time to go through the spoofing sequences attacks possible;
I gave you the out of considering me as a nut or liar at the outset;
the childishness of your response (once again publishing to the list, unless you are again asserting I did that, which I did not),
Only points up that there is no point reiterating it again.
Grow up.
intention to the list. It is quite common that mails sent to a list are
discussed on the list, so there is nothing that I am feeling sorry for.
If you like to take it off list then please stop Cc'ing
debian-www@lists.debian.org, but you won't be able to receive answers
then :)
Since I have NOT addresed or CC:ed to the list yet (until this Email, which you refuse to note as my POV, and denote as a lie)
you will not discuss what I am saying and are maintaining your POV in place of it;
while trying to analyze my response as if yours is correct and mine not.
Typical techno-weanir behavior.
COmmon for the web.
>Read the newbies FAQ.
Which?
All of them; if you had done so already, you would not need to ask.
This attack corresponds to earlier Email to OTHER correspondents
>on this very topic.
Which attach? Sorry, I don't see any attack here.
As I stated directly, you would NOT see them, because they were to OTHER corrspodents, prior to
Email to you, on other discussions, which you were not involved in, would not see, and covered
the topic of spoofing and slam attacks going on ON the web.
Which in turn are used against me, in reverse when the topic is raised as an attack on the corrspondent who IS being attacked (me)
by the agent casusing it (not likely you or Peter; neither of you are adroit enough to do this; though you may think you are)
so on THAT topic: you were not involved,so you did NOT see it, and you are NOT responsible for its occurence.
The RESULT of those previous EMails is LIKELY to be THIS attack on me by 3rd party.
You are only responsible for your misinterpretations of my original Email, and the posting of response (without reading the original
Email) to a public list I did not Email to, thus violating the newbie and netiquette FAQs.
If you had apologizd for yor failure to read the first Email (you have not) I might regard your responses as professional
but you did not, could have, and declined to do so.
And attempted to excuse them. CHildish; churlish.
>>Uhm, is the huge Cc: list needed? Maybe people interested can track
>
>
>[Taken off list]
No, you didn't.
Yes, I did; posted only directly to you; likely you have been placing int back and asserting that I did it. Did you?
IF YOU DID NOT, THEN THE SPOFFER HA REINSERTED IT ONCE AGAIN.
And yet again, you re-responded to the CC: list without taking it off.
And tacitly admitted that you did above. Without having read the actual conversation.
Grow up.
So long,
Should I hope so, or hope not?
Alfie
--
Don't get mad, get interest.
-- unknown
Reply to: