El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
Because of spam, the US judicial system and the stupidity of our legislators, whew.com, stop-spam.org and i-color.info are for sale.
Please contact the owner at ad...@whew.com with your offer.
Funny how it doesn't mention the unlimited stupidity demonstrated by it's owner, time after time after time...
Wasn't whew.* already put up for auction? I seem to recall FergTarg flogging them here about this time last year. JustSomeGuy made a very reasonable offer on it too.
-- Dude: he's gonna wake up tomorrow morning and still be Mark Ferguson, which is a loss in any sense of the word. Perhaps if he woke up one morning to discover that he'd turned into a giant cockroach, that would be something, but I don't have a lot of faith that he's capable of that kind of self-improvement. -- Huey Callison, October 11, 2009
"The Elf from S.U.S.A.N." <e...@networkelf.net> posted <jYmdnXQUDOoIy23XnZ2dnUVZ_oBi4...@supernews.com> in news.admin.net-abuse.email on Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:13:09 -0600:
>From stop-spam.org:
>Because of spam, the US judicial system and the stupidity of our >legislators, whew.com, stop-spam.org and i-color.info are for sale.
>Please contact the owner at ad...@whew.com with your offer.
>Funny how it doesn't mention the unlimited stupidity demonstrated by it's >owner, time after time after time...
>Wasn't whew.* already put up for auction? I seem to recall FergTarg >flogging them here about this time last year. JustSomeGuy made a very >reasonable offer on it too.
and...fyi...insurgent.org is for sale...iffin anybody wants it I will entertain all reasonable and not so reasonable offers.
-- K. A. Cannon kevin.a.cannon at gmail dot com
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. -Charles Schultz
COOSN-266-06-02374 Hammer of Thor, April 2005 PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007 Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2 #9 People ruining UseNet lits. #6 Top Assholes on the Net lits. #5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time #15 AUK psychos and felons lits #5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine
> Because of spam, the US judicial system and the stupidity of our > legislators, whew.com, stop-spam.org and i-color.info are for sale.
> Please contact the owner at ad...@whew.com with your offer.
> Funny how it doesn't mention the unlimited stupidity demonstrated by it's > owner, time after time after time...
Oh it demonstrates that the Fergiot believes there must be lusers out there more stupid as himself, and he even might be right. At least he seems to be above Tardissimo(tm) Jamie B. in that fine evolution graphics:
Claus v. Wolfhausen <use-reply-to-mail...@remove-this.com> wrote:
> The Elf from S.U.S.A.N. wrote: > > From stop-spam.org: > > Because of spam, the US judicial system and the stupidity of our > > legislators, whew.com, stop-spam.org and i-color.info are for sale. > > Please contact the owner at ad...@whew.com with your offer. > > Funny how it doesn't mention the unlimited stupidity demonstrated by > > it's owner, time after time after time... > Oh it demonstrates that the Fergiot believes there must be lusers out > there more stupid as himself, and he even might be right.
This is a fine example of the 'stopped clock is right twice a day' aphorism. Assuming that Mark is actually capable of making his nameservers actually serve a zonefile at some point, it's only a matter of time before some incompetent shithead shows up and says "HELP, I'M BLOCKED BY (whatever Mark's retarded DNSBL is called again)..."
In article <R86dnWAh4MjhfW3XnZ2dnUVZ_smdn...@speakeasy.net>,
<huey.calli...@gmail.com> wrote: >This is a fine example of the 'stopped clock is right twice a day' >aphorism. Assuming that Mark is actually capable of making his >nameservers actually serve a zonefile at some point, it's only a >matter of time before some incompetent shithead shows up and says >"HELP, I'M BLOCKED BY (whatever Mark's retarded DNSBL is called >again)..."
Is there something wrong with that? It's the measure of success of a DNSBL, as demonstrated by the silly cartooneys still trumpeted to NANAE by lower tier DNSBLs operators.
Vernon Schryver <v...@calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote: > <huey.calli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >This is a fine example of the 'stopped clock is right twice a day' > >aphorism. Assuming that Mark is actually capable of making his > >nameservers actually serve a zonefile at some point, it's only a > >matter of time before some incompetent shithead shows up and says > >"HELP, I'M BLOCKED BY (whatever Mark's retarded DNSBL is called > >again)..." > Is there something wrong with that?
Yes. At some point, some productive member of society, probably an ISP abuse desk staffer or an email deliverability consultant, will be pestered for details of how to get out of Mark's DNSBL, and the entire fifteen minute conversation that will start with that question and end with "So I don't need to worry about it then?" "Not at all", will be a huge waste of time for everybody involved.
> It's the measure of success of a DNSBL, as demonstrated by the silly > cartooneys still trumpeted to NANAE by lower tier DNSBLs operators.
Only here. Back in the real world, the measure of success of a DNSBL is counted in how much spam it stops, and how much not-spam it doesn't.
Thankfully, there's no such thing as a metric for DNSBL quality (like, say, http://stats.dnsbl.com/) and if there were, Mark would have already decided (like SORBS has) that the operator was a nefarious ne'er-do-well that could never be trusted, so there'd be no way for a third party to judge the quality of the list without actually applying it to their own mailstream.
...assuming Mark can actually make a nameserver work, that is.
"The Elf from S.U.S.A.N." <e...@networkelf.net> writes:
>From stop-spam.org:
>Because of spam, the US judicial system and the stupidity of our >legislators, whew.com, stop-spam.org and i-color.info are for sale.
>Please contact the owner at ad...@whew.com with your offer.
Wait ... am I to understand that Mark has just set up a new blocklist "soon to be used by most internet service providers", that's run from a domain that's up for sale? Hello? * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:53:12 -0600, PV wrote: > "The Elf from S.U.S.A.N." <e...@networkelf.net> writes: >>From stop-spam.org:
>>Because of spam, the US judicial system and the stupidity of our >>legislators, whew.com, stop-spam.org and i-color.info are for sale.
>>Please contact the owner at ad...@whew.com with your offer.
> Wait ... am I to understand that Mark has just set up a new blocklist > "soon to be used by most internet service providers", that's run from a > domain that's up for sale? Hello? *
Apparently so. TA DA!! The Ferg strikes again!!!
-- Dude: he's gonna wake up tomorrow morning and still be Mark Ferguson, which is a loss in any sense of the word. Perhaps if he woke up one morning to discover that he'd turned into a giant cockroach, that would be something, but I don't have a lot of faith that he's capable of that kind of self-improvement. -- Huey Callison, October 11, 2009
> Thankfully, there's no such thing as a metric for DNSBL quality (like, > say, http://stats.dnsbl.com/) and if there were, Mark would have already > decided (like SORBS has) that the operator was a nefarious ne'er-do-well > that could never be trusted,
SORBS and I have plenty of reasons for that, and those with qualifications in higher mathematics have already proven the point. Those without said knowledge have refused to accept that point.
Personally I don't understand statistics enough to prove it myself, though I have a higher level of mathematics than most around here, so I defer to their better judgment.
Mind you when said operator of said statistics accuses you (falsely) of deliberately skewing the results where there is absolutely no evidence of past, or present, of *any* interference, that sheds the real intent of said site, individual and "statistics".
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: > > Thankfully, there's no such thing as a metric for DNSBL quality > > (like, say, http://stats.dnsbl.com/) and if there were, Mark would > > have already decided (like SORBS has) that the operator was a > > nefarious ne'er-do-well that could never be trusted, > SORBS and I have plenty of reasons for that,
Yes, but most of them are crazy, and the rest of them are all both nitpicking and also already well-qualified on the webpage. He's about as nefarious as Fred Rogers.
> and those with qualifications in higher mathematics have already > proven the point. Those without said knowledge have refused to accept > that point.
"Anyone who doesn't agree with me is stupid"? Really?
There's an idea that's been floating around this newsgroup for the better part of ten years: when one person calls you an ass, laugh it off, but when an entire newsgroup calls you an ass, it's time to get fitted for a saddle.
> Mind you when said operator of said statistics accuses you (falsely) > of deliberately skewing the results where there is absolutely no > evidence of past, or present, of *any* interference,
...except, you know, the statistics in question, which very clearly showed a massive change in your DNSBL's behavior, which either means you identified his query source and were purposefully poisoning his results, or you didn't, and pretty much emptied out the zone.
> that sheds the real intent of said site, individual and "statistics".
The thing that I find odd is that, although there are a great many DNSBLs that have been reflected quite poorly in his statistics, you're the only person that I've seen complain publicly. Other people, even some with private for-pay DNSBLs, have actually asked him to run the numbers on their lists, because some third-party verification of behavior, even with a small and somewhat synthetic mail stream, is something they find useful and informative.
I guess what it boils down to is this: I'm sorry that your DNSBL sucks, but as a DNSBL operator you should understand that, when a reviewer says that something sucks, it's not nearly as helpful to complain about the reviewer as it is to just fix the sucking.
Either that, or it's karmic payback for all of the irate emails you've gotten that say "YOUR BLOCKING MY MAIL. I'LL SUE."
I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
> ...except, you know, the statistics in question, which very clearly > showed a massive change in your DNSBL's behavior, which either means you > identified his query source and were purposefully poisoning his results, > or you didn't, and pretty much emptied out the zone.
I didn't change anything. That was well known at the time. All manipulation was of the Iverson fan club by him himself.. ;-)
>> ...except, you know, the statistics in question, which very clearly >> showed a massive change in your DNSBL's behavior, which either means you >> identified his query source and were purposefully poisoning his results, >> or you didn't, and pretty much emptied out the zone.
>I didn't change anything. That was well known at the time. All >manipulation was of the Iverson fan club by him himself.. ;-)
talk about deja view all over again some more are we also going to be treated to a resurrection of the global spamhaus led conspiracy to destroy sorbs?
I'm evidently not the only one who thinks it is more likely that M.Sullivan changed things inside SORBS to change Al Iverson's statistics than that Al Iverson's quite poor but not trivial and not entirely useless sample of email changed or that the many of sources of that mail suddenly changed to make SORBS listings that were causing the high false positive numbers to suddenly, coincidently, and dramatically decrease.
M.Sullivan strident claims that Al Iverson was violating SORBS acceptical usage policies by publishing the results of checking email against dnsbl.sorbs.net can only be seen proof that one should distrust statements about SORBS effectiveness from any source and those especially from M.Sullivan.
If M.Sullivan had not persistently lied about so many things including which SORBS DNSBL is recommended for the uninformed, it would be easier to believe that the changes in Al Iverson's numbers were just a strange coincidence. http://www.us.sorbs.net/using.shtml still recommends only the composite dnsbl.sorbs.net that M.Sullivan claimed here is the wrong list for comparision with other DNSBLS. See the configuration examples through the links on that page in such as http://www.us.sorbs.net/mailsystems/sendmail.shtml
I hope it won't be necessary to once again dig up Google records of M.Sullivan's statements from previous passes of this or other SORBS used bullfood. It's funny (sad, not amusing) how liars always think everyone is too dumb and stupid to remember their old stories or be able to prove that they wrote them.
I wonder about the trigger of this regurgitation. Has SORBS enjoyed some recent business successes or encountered some reverses? It seems that all mention of the sale of SORBS has disappeared from http://www.us.sorbs.net/ There is mention of "Technologies Pty Ltd" and a "SORBS spam firewall," but the Wayback Machine reports the same text in 2007.
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: > > ...except, you know, the statistics in question, which very clearly > > showed a massive change in your DNSBL's behavior, which either means > > you identified his query source and were purposefully poisoning his > > results, or you didn't, and pretty much emptied out the zone. > I didn't change anything. That was well known at the time.
That contradicts the available observable facts, and basically boils down to "I'm not lying, Al is lying", which neatly allows everyone to make their own determination as to who they choose to trust.
So, by all means: keep digging. You'll get to Kansas yet.
huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: > Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: >> huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: >>> ...except, you know, the statistics in question, which very clearly >>> showed a massive change in your DNSBL's behavior, which either means >>> you identified his query source and were purposefully poisoning his >>> results, or you didn't, and pretty much emptied out the zone. >> I didn't change anything. That was well known at the time.
> That contradicts the available observable facts,
How so? He accused, so did I, he changed stuff (says I), I changed stuff (says he), no evidence for or against, so I fail to see how it contradicts anything. Obervable facts are exactly that, something observable.. yet no-one observed anything except what Iverson and I said.. That can not be claimed to be observable *fact* for either case.
Of course if you are saying there are observable facts feel free to share with all, because I know that can only prove my case for the truth of the matter (which is why I guess you wouldn't do it.)
There is a simple fact:
At the time I could not change DNS responses for an individual without a lot of work, anyone with the slightest knowledge about DNS will know that. I have a method now of blocking an individuals usage of SORBS (by global "firewalling" and using the access control lists built into rbldnsd) however as Iverson (and 2 others) proved later, when an individual cares not about licenses or license agreements it is trivial for them to circumvent said controls and they will continue to breach licensing of data regardless of anyones wishes (mine, SORBS, even Spamhaus's firewalling.)
I revoked Iverson's license to use the data (privately first, then publicly,) he continued regardless stating that because the data was available on public nameservers it was therefore public domain. Reality is by continuing to use the data he was stealing.. he was using resources provided by/for SORBS in direct contravention of licensing (just like spammers and software pirates.) That is easily seen in the archives of USENET, and is yet another example of a so-called whitehat exhibiting purely blackhat behavior. Of course there are people like you that consider that perfectly acceptable behavior for a "whitehat".
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: > > Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > >> huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> ...except, you know, the statistics in question, which very > >>> clearly showed a massive change in your DNSBL's behavior, which > >>> either means you identified his query source and were purposefully > >>> poisoning his results, or you didn't, and pretty much emptied out > >>> the zone. > >> I didn't change anything. That was well known at the time. > > That contradicts the available observable facts, > How so? He accused, so did I, he changed stuff (says I), I changed > stuff (says he), no evidence for or against, so I fail to see how it > contradicts anything. Obervable facts are exactly that, something > observable.. yet no-one observed anything except what Iverson and I > said..
That's only true if Al Iverson is the only person who was looking at SORBS nameservers. Since I'm pretty sure that he isn't, the corroboration of the zones being emptied is an observable fact by any of those people.
> Of course if you are saying there are observable facts feel free to > share with all, because I know that can only prove my case for the truth > of the matter (which is why I guess you wouldn't do it.)
And reveal my carefully-compiled SORBS customer list? Never. It's a trade secret.
> At the time I could not change DNS responses for an individual without a > lot of work, anyone with the slightest knowledge about DNS will know > that.
Only if they don't also know what 'views' are, and anyone with the slightest knowledge ab out DNS probably should.
> I have a method now of blocking an individuals usage of SORBS (by > global "firewalling" and using the access control lists built into > rbldnsd) however as Iverson (and 2 others) proved later, when an > individual cares not about licenses or license agreements it is > trivial for them to circumvent said controls and they will continue to > breach licensing of data regardless of anyones wishes (mine, SORBS, > even Spamhaus's firewalling.)
> I revoked Iverson's license to use the data (privately first, then > publicly,) he continued regardless stating that because the data was > available on public nameservers it was therefore public domain. > Reality is by continuing to use the data he was stealing.. he was > using resources provided by/for SORBS in direct contravention of > licensing (just like spammers and software pirates.) That is easily > seen in the archives of USENET, and is yet another example of a > so-called whitehat exhibiting purely blackhat behavior. Of course > there are people like you that consider that perfectly acceptable > behavior for a "whitehat".
So this whole pissing match is because his statistics made your list look bad? Dude, it's not the statistics that are the problem; it's the bad list that's the problem.
> That's only true if Al Iverson is the only person who was looking > at SORBS nameservers. Since I'm pretty sure that he isn't, the > corroboration of the zones being emptied is an observable fact by any of > those people.
Then surely by your own logic if the zones were emptied the results were not "faked" as Iverson and others here claims/ed.
>> At the time I could not change DNS responses for an individual without a >> lot of work, anyone with the slightest knowledge about DNS will know >> that.
> Only if they don't also know what 'views' are, and anyone with the > slightest knowledge ab out DNS probably should.
LOL! You idiot.. SORBS uses rbldnsd which doesn't have "views", that's a publicly verifiable fact.
> So this whole pissing match is because his statistics made your list > look bad? Dude, it's not the statistics that are the problem; it's the > bad list that's the problem.
No, he breached licensing and continued to pirate. He accused me publicly of being dishonest, when the only dishonesty was on his part (which he continues to propagate even to this day.) You (and others) love to ignore the fact that he is quite happy to do as he pleases regardless of rights of others, whilst accusing those of exact what he does. Oddly enough that is *exactly* what most people here complain about with spammers.
Me I find it amusing now as the point is well proven to all bar a few in here, who will continue to support Iverson regardless of what he does.
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: > > That's only true if Al Iverson is the only person who was looking at > > SORBS nameservers. Since I'm pretty sure that he isn't, the > > corroboration of the zones being emptied is an observable fact by > > any of those people. > Then surely by your own logic if the zones were emptied the results > were not "faked" as Iverson and others here claims/ed.
It does suggest that you emptied out the zones of all of the problem listings, yeah. Which I suppose counts as a win, if it cut down on SORBS false positives, even if you continue to lie about it now.
> >> At the time I could not change DNS responses for an individual > >> without a lot of work, anyone with the slightest knowledge about > >> DNS will know that. > > Only if they don't also know what 'views' are, and anyone with the > > slightest knowledge about DNS probably should. > LOL! You idiot..
Congratulations! You've just sunk to the level of Mark Ferguson. I didn't know you had it in you.
> SORBS uses rbldnsd which doesn't have "views", that's a publicly > verifiable fact.
Your design problems aren't really my concern.
> > So this whole pissing match is because his statistics made your list > > look bad? Dude, it's not the statistics that are the problem; it's > > the bad list that's the problem. > No, he breached licensing and continued to pirate.
He 'pirated' a publicly-available DNSBL to use it for its intended purpose, and reported on the results, and in doing so he violated your 'license', which, near as I can tell is on http://www.au.sorbs.net/faq/ and reads: -----------------cut------------ 18: Can I use SORBS..? Yes. Anyone can use SORBS. -----------------cut------------ ...at least, that's the only relevant hit that appears on http://www.google.com/#q=license+site%3Asorbs.net
...y'know, if you're going to accuse someone of violating your license, you might consider, er, actually having one. Otherwise, it sounds a lot like "wah wah, he did something I don't like, make him stop".
> He accused me publicly of being dishonest, when the only dishonesty > was on his part (which he continues to propagate even to this day.)
Right. You maintain that his data is faked, he maintains that it is not....
> You (and others) love to ignore the fact that he is quite happy to do > as he pleases regardless of rights of others, whilst accusing those of > exact what he does. Oddly enough that is *exactly* what most people > here complain about with spammers.
> Me I find it amusing now as the point is well proven to all bar a few > in here, who will continue to support Iverson regardless of what he > does.
...and the people seem to have made up their minds. The 'rights of others' is a red herring. You didn't want him to publish statistics that made your DNSBL look like a turd. ...oh well.
The solution is not to complain, the solution is to run a DNSBL that doesn't look like a turd.
> Congratulations! You've just sunk to the level of Mark Ferguson. I > didn't know you had it in you.
Haha, attempts a insults.. the last resort of a desperate man.
>> SORBS uses rbldnsd which doesn't have "views", that's a publicly >> verifiable fact.
> Your design problems aren't really my concern.
So "my design" is a "problem" because I can't fake answers... LOL!
> He 'pirated' a publicly-available DNSBL to use it for its intended
Wrong. He was told to cease and desist, which he acknowledged receipt of, and continued to use the data - which constitutes a clear violation of license.
Seems to me that your argument is if it works and it's available you have the right to use it... Guess you should talk to the RIAA about radio broadcasts and discos etc...
> > That's only true if Al Iverson is the only person who was looking > > at SORBS nameservers. Since I'm pretty sure that he isn't, the > > corroboration of the zones being emptied is an observable fact by any of > > those people.
> Then surely by your own logic if the zones were emptied the results were > not "faked" as Iverson and others here claims/ed.
> >> At the time I could not change DNS responses for an individual without a > >> lot of work, anyone with the slightest knowledge about DNS will know > >> that.
> > Only if they don't also know what 'views' are, and anyone with the > > slightest knowledge ab out DNS probably should.
> LOL! You idiot.. SORBS uses rbldnsd which doesn't have "views", that's > a publicly verifiable fact.
According to corpit.ru some time ago Spamhaus had rbldnsd modified to support ACLs, at a guess I'd say SORBS is proably using the Spamhaus- modified version of rbldnsd and was therefore able to apply an ACL to Iverson's queries.
> According to corpit.ru some time ago Spamhaus had rbldnsd modified to > support ACLs, at a guess I'd say SORBS is proably using the Spamhaus- > modified version of rbldnsd and was therefore able to apply an ACL to > Iverson's queries.
Correct, but ACLs are not Views. Views can be used for ACLs. Not that it is very verifiable now, SORBS was not running the patched version on the majority of it's servers at the time. In fact despite patching and making the request there are a number of SORBS rbldnsd hosters that are not using the ACL file that we produce. It is of course partly their choice as they are providing the hosting and bandwidth, so if they wish to allow unauthorised lookups there is not a lot I can do to discourage them. That said, whether they (banned parties) have access or not is a data licensing issue, and the ACLs are only to enforce policy in regard to unauthorised use of resources.
We all know some people will pirate regardless of who, what and how much it costs, as well as how some people will pay for/abide by licensing even when they do not need to (eg: companies pay Microsoft for additional licenses to ensure they are not "under".)
Oh... and just because a license is zero cost to the user, doesn't mean the licensee has any right to ignore the licensing requirement.
I'm sure it's not new, but whilst sniffing the pants of a retard yank with an insecure server I had to laugh at the offer to spamvertise for $1 a month in the whois data;
whois securedataimaging.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
{snipped shit}
Domain Name: SECUREDATAIMAGING.COM
Registrant: Secure Data Imaging 15 Spinning Wheel Road Suite 324 Hinsdale, IL 60521 US
Domain Name: SECUREDATAIMAGING.COM
{and now a word from our sponsors.....} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Promote your business to millions of viewers for only $1 a month Learn how you can get an Enhanced Business Listing here for your domain name. Learn more at http://www.NetworkSolutions.com/
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Secure Data Imaging tsm...@precisionfinancialservice.com 15 Spinning Wheel Road Suite 324 Hinsdale, IL 60521 US 630-920-6700
Record expires on 06-Dec-2014. Record created on 11-Apr-2007. Database last updated on 10-Nov-2009 06:34:10 EST.
In article <hdb3en$n7...@nemesis.sorbs.net>, Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote:
>> He 'pirated' a publicly-available DNSBL to use it for its intended
>Wrong. He was told to cease and desist, which he acknowledged receipt >of, and continued to use the data - which constitutes a clear violation >of license.
|
