User2User - question with no answer given.

[~BD~]

On 14/01/2010 01:31, LovelyLady wrote:

>> "Grybeard" <grybear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>
>> *Reckon he finally figured it out?*
>
>
> From what I have read on the Microsoft newsgroups, I believe that you
> also frequent User2User at Annexcafe.com Mr Foldes.
>
> No doubt you recall 'Grybeard' mentioning this query, but I wonder if
> you know *exactly* what BoaterDave discovered there.
>
> Is it a safe place for others to go to get help with their computers?


So - is it?

[Li]

<SIGH>

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nbGdnbHLUduhZuDRnZ2dnUVZ8hOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 14/01/2010 01:31, LovelyLady wrote:
>
>>> "Grybeard" <grybear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>>
>>> *Reckon he finally figured it out?*

Have you figured it out yet, that you are NOT wanted on AnnexCafe?


>> Is it a safe place for others to go to get help with their computers?

Never for you, Admiral.

[~BD~]

On 01/09/2010 10:02, Li wrote a message *very* early in the morning!

> <SIGH>
>
> "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nbGdnbHLUduhZuDRnZ2dnUVZ8hOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> On 14/01/2010 01:31, LovelyLady wrote:
>>
>>>> "Grybeard" <grybear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>>>
>>>> *Reckon he finally figured it out?*
>
> Have you figured it out yet, that you are NOT wanted on AnnexCafe?

Oh yes - I realise that!

It's not a case of "I want to be allowed to post on Annexcafe" - more a
question of *why* did some folk there not want to answer my searching
questions? (no, I don't mean detailed personal information. In the main,
questions concerning malware!)

The last time I looked the UK U2U group appeared dead and almost unused.
Why is that, Li? Why keep /that/ group yet close Scorched-Earth and
MainStreet?

>>> Is it a safe place for others to go to get help with their computers?
>
> Never for you, Admiral.

Avoidance!

Has anyone from alt.privacy.spyware *ever* gone there for hep/advice?

Maybe they are more wary than me and will not be too happy to connect
their computer to a private server.

Doing so would breach a firewall - wouldn't it?

--
Dave

[Li]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rJmdnZ0aQ9RQt-PRnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 01/09/2010 10:02, Li wrote a message *very* early in the morning!

And your point?

>
>> <SIGH>
>>
>> "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:nbGdnbHLUduhZuDRnZ2dnUVZ8hOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> On 14/01/2010 01:31, LovelyLady wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Grybeard" <grybear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>>>>
>>>>> *Reckon he finally figured it out?*
>>
>> Have you figured it out yet, that you are NOT wanted on AnnexCafe?
>
> Oh yes - I realise that!
>
> It's not a case of "I want to be allowed to post on Annexcafe" - more a
> question of *why* did some folk there not want to answer my searching
> questions? (no, I don't mean detailed personal information. In the main,
> questions concerning malware!)

Wrong. You accused long standing Members of being terrorists and demanded
personal information to prove they were not.

>
> The last time I looked the UK U2U group appeared dead and almost unused.
> Why is that, Li? Why keep /that/ group yet close Scorched-Earth and
> MainStreet?

None of your business. Why did Anne & eventually Andrew abandon you? Did you
post personal information to Usenet from their emails?


>
>>>> Is it a safe place for others to go to get help with their computers?
>>
>> Never for you, Admiral.
>
> Avoidance!
>
> Has anyone from alt.privacy.spyware *ever* gone there for hep/advice?

Maybe. Who knows what nyms folks choose to use? Who cares?

>
> Maybe they are more wary than me and will not be too happy to connect
> their computer to a private server.
>
> Doing so would breach a firewall - wouldn't it?

Would it?

[Peter Foldes]

Li.

He is just going to go on and on. Leave this idiot alone from this Annex subject. I
am taking care of this idiot Troll who deserves everything that comes his way
shortly. Thanks Li

BTW:Watch his croosposting. Remove and if needed post to the SE group on Eternal
September .
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Li" <li@invalid.spam.com> wrote in message
news:4uCdnY4k1Jmp1ePRnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@ohio.net...
>
>
> "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:rJmdnZ0aQ9RQt-PRnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@bt.com...
>> On 01/09/2010 10:02, Li wrote a message *very* early in the morning!
>
> And your point?
>
>>
>>> <SIGH>
>>>
>>> "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:nbGdnbHLUduhZuDRnZ2dnUVZ8hOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>> On 14/01/2010 01:31, LovelyLady wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Grybeard" <grybear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> *Reckon he finally figured it out?*
>>>
>>> Have you figured it out yet, that you are NOT wanted on AnnexCafe?
>>
>> Oh yes - I realise that!
>>
>> It's not a case of "I want to be allowed to post on Annexcafe" - more a question
>> of *why* did some folk there not want to answer my searching questions? (no, I
>> don't mean detailed personal information. In the main, questions concerning
>> malware!)
>
> Wrong. You accused long standing Members of being terrorists and demanded personal
> information to prove they were not.
>
>>
>> The last time I looked the UK U2U group appeared dead and almost unused. Why is
>> that, Li? Why keep /that/ group yet close Scorched-Earth and MainStreet?
>
> None of your business. Why did Anne & eventually Andrew abandon you? Did you post
> personal information to Usenet from their emails?
>
>
>>
>>>>> Is it a safe place for others to go to get help with their computers?
>>>
>>> Never for you, Admiral.
>>
>> Avoidance!
>>
>> Has anyone from alt.privacy.spyware *ever* gone there for hep/advice?
>
> Maybe. Who knows what nyms folks choose to use? Who cares?
>
>>
>> Maybe they are more wary than me and will not be too happy to connect their
>> computer to a private server.
>>
>> Doing so would breach a firewall - wouldn't it?
>
> Would it?
>
>
>

[~BD~]

On 01/09/2010 16:26, Peter Foldes wrote:
> Li.
>
> I am taking care of this idiot Troll who deserves everything
> that comes his way shortly.

Ah! Yet *another* message to be printed and held on your 'threat' file.

You really shouldn't put such things in writing! ;-)

[FromTheRafters]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rJmdnZ0aQ9RQt-PRnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 01/09/2010 10:02, Li wrote a message *very* early in the morning!
>
>> <SIGH>
>>
>> "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:nbGdnbHLUduhZuDRnZ2dnUVZ8hOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> On 14/01/2010 01:31, LovelyLady wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Grybeard" <grybear...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:jde5l0GTGHA.4276@GAMERA.annex.com...
>>>>
>>>>> *Reckon he finally figured it out?*
>>
>> Have you figured it out yet, that you are NOT wanted on AnnexCafe?
>
> Oh yes - I realise that!
>
> It's not a case of "I want to be allowed to post on Annexcafe" - more
> a question of *why* did some folk there not want to answer my
> searching questions? (no, I don't mean detailed personal information.
> In the main, questions concerning malware!)
>
> The last time I looked the UK U2U group appeared dead and almost
> unused. Why is that, Li? Why keep /that/ group yet close
> Scorched-Earth and MainStreet?
>
>>>> Is it a safe place for others to go to get help with their
>>>> computers?
>>
>> Never for you, Admiral.
>
> Avoidance!
>
> Has anyone from alt.privacy.spyware *ever* gone there for hep/advice?
>
> Maybe they are more wary than me and will not be too happy to connect
> their computer to a private server.
>
> Doing so would breach a firewall - wouldn't it?

Define "breach".

....one of my pet peeves since Katrina caused levees to "fail" *after*
having been breached. The terminology was causing real problems (as was
the term "refugees" which doesn't mean what those afflicted thought it
meant)

I tend to think of 'breach of purpose' - and the purpose of a firewall
is *not* to protect you from things that you invite in. In a dam for
instance - if the purpose is to regulate a certain amount of water
(flood control dam), and the water exceeds that amount and goes down the
spillway, it is breached (no longer able to regulate) but has not failed
because the water is now out-of specs. The spillways are there so that a
breach does not result in failure and the release of the water it was
storing.

[~BD~]

On 01/09/2010 14:28, FromTheRafters wrote:

> Define "breach".
>
> ...one of my pet peeves since Katrina caused levees to "fail" *after*
> having been breached. The terminology was causing real problems (as was
> the term "refugees" which doesn't mean what those afflicted thought it
> meant)

Best choose your own FTR http://www.thefreedictionary.com/breach

> I tend to think of 'breach of purpose'

I think along the lines of:- a. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.

> and the purpose of a firewall is *not* to protect you from things that you invite in.

So if I 'invite' a connection from a private server you feel there is no
'breach' per se? I'm sure that's correct and I do not disagree.

However, is one's PC then more vulnerable to an attack from that private
server as compared to simply visiting any URL with a browser?

I've been wondering about that for a very long time!

Your thoughts welcomed.

[FromTheRafters]

"~BD~" <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1Lqdnb8ATMwnwOPRnZ2dnUVZ8gCdnZ2d@bt.com...
> On 01/09/2010 14:28, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Define "breach".
>>
>> ...one of my pet peeves since Katrina caused levees to "fail" *after*
>> having been breached. The terminology was causing real problems (as
>> was
>> the term "refugees" which doesn't mean what those afflicted thought
>> it
>> meant)
>
> Best choose your own FTR http://www.thefreedictionary.com/breach

Not really, There are many meanings (but they're all irrelevent). What
*is* relevent is what *you* mean by breach (since it was you that said
it). I've read many technical papers, and they often start out with
definitions like "For the purposes of this paper we define breach as
blah blah blah..." - so my question was what *you* meant as opposed to
what I might infer from your statement given my own perhaps unique
definition.

>> I tend to think of 'breach of purpose'
>
> I think along the lines of:- a. An opening, a tear, or a rupture.

So, in a levee, is overtopping a breach? A failure? To me, a 27 foot
tall levee is designed to 'hold back' a maximum of 27 feet of water.
Overtopping does not tear a hole, rupture or cause a gap and the levee
is still performing up to specs. The purpose of the levee (maybe to keep
your feet dry) has indeed been breached - but the purpose of the levee
(hold back 27 feet of water) has not. One purpose may have been breached
while another has not.

>> and the purpose of a firewall is *not* to protect you from things
>> that you invite in.
>
> So if I 'invite' a connection from a private server you feel there is
> no 'breach' per se? I'm sure that's correct and I do not disagree.

Do you remember what SPI means? Initial packets are dropped if incoming.
Outgoing initial packets aren't affected. Subsequent packets are allowed
in both directions. Connecting with a server involves your outgoing
intitial packets and all subsequent packets. The only time you might
have to be concerned with incoming initial packets is when *you* are
running a server. In that case you'll want to allow incoming initial
packets destined to *your* server so that you can serve something to
your client.

*None* of these are breaches (my definition, because its "purpose" is
still being served) although some firewall guru's refer to "holes" in
the firewall whenever someting is "allowed". I don't like the use of
"holes" for this because people often infer a failure of some kind even
though nothing was broken.

> However, is one's PC then more vulnerable to an attack from that
> private server as compared to simply visiting any URL with a browser?

No, *any* additional communication channel gives you greater threat
exposure. IMO an evil web server is far more dangerous than an evil NNTP
server. Even if it is true that there are serious bugs in NNTP
implementations (as Dustin alluded to) you have to realize that evil web
servers would be a far more lucrative endeavor (everybody uses the web).

> I've been wondering about that for a very long time!

I would say no to *more* vulnerable, in fact if you gave up web servers
and used only NNTP servers you would be *much* safer online.

Especially if you forego HTML and extensions.

[Anne Onime]

In article <rJmdnZ0aQ9RQt-PRnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d@bt.com>
~BD~ <BoaterDave@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe they are more wary than me and will not be too happy to connect
> their computer to a private server.

God, you're an idiot. *All* servers are private servers. The only one
you can absolutely trust is one you run yourself. Some mid-level web
admin at google or Cnet is just as likely to be one of those internet
"bad guys" you rave about as Joe Schmoe who runs a server out of his
home, probably moreso because he might have the training and expertise to
do things well on the sly.

> Doing so would breach a firewall - wouldn't it?

</me rolls eyes>