On 15 Nov 2006 05:50:42 -0800, 9ust4v0 wrote:
> Three things:
> 1. I read Usenet using a Web browser (through Google)
> 2. I'm no noob.
> 3. I got no dangerous cookies and nothing is sent to doubleclick on my
> pc
>
> Gustavo
Well, if your ISP dosn't provide you with Usenet acess then you have a
point. If it does and you still use Google then you are a noob.
On 14 Nov 2006 18:56:38 -0800, mykeymykey01@yahoo.com wrote:
> its absolutely true and has been
> repeatedly verified. where do you think
> all the spam mail comes from?
> its being generated by cookies files
> that are in millions of computers.
8>< a load of drivel
Don't talk wet!!!
I've never heard such a load of adolescent bunkum!!
The spam is caused by harvester bots *not* by cookies. A newsgroup
can't and doesn't generate cookies as any 5 year old knows. Why do
you think I use a spam trap address????
Spam is generated by dictionary attacks.
Erasing cookies won't stop the harvest bots because they don't go for
cookies. They go for any email address anywhere on any site.
I don't allow cookies on my PC without specific permission and they
are erased immediately I leave a site.
ok non believers, run this scan on your
system:
http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/activescan.htm
when prompted, click "scan my computer"
this takes about 15 minutes, depending on
the speed of your system, or it may take
longer depending on how much crap has
infected your system.
then read the report and weep.
On 14 Nov 2006 19:09:06 -0800, mykeymykey01@yahoo.com wrote:
> ok non believers, run this scan on your
> system:
> http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/activescan.htm
> when prompted, click "scan my computer"
> this takes about 15 minutes, depending on
> the speed of your system, or it may take
> longer depending on how much crap has
> infected your system.
> then read the report and weep.
It came up clean on my system.
> when prompted, click "scan my computer"
> this takes about 15 minutes,
I can do better things in this time, and as I already stated, I don't
read Usenet via a "Mirror" (ie a *web* site), but the original groups
on the news server of my ISP; and do this with a specific *news*reader,
*not* with a browser.
There is *no* way by which a cookie could be transferred, so why should
I scan for "usenet cookies"? If you are so dumb and read the usenet via
a spyware-infested *web* page with an extremely *dumb* wen browser,
you've well earned your cookies.
Why shovel the rubbish away, when you can keep it outside, *before* it
enters your room?
Gabriele Neukam
Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de
--
Antenagenes, average skellimancer, lvl91 SP Patriarch, wearing a SOJ!
we don't know who is implanting it yet but it certainly is being
implanted, and it certainly does cause hoards of spam mail to be sent,
and it certainly is stealing personal information, including pay pal
transaction information. so for now i will rant about it, and complain
to the FTC about it. I don't think the FTC is going to do jack ****
about it.
the fact that you remain in denial is of no consequence, it is there.
those of you who tried the panda software scan found it, and are now
aware of it:
after installing panda internet security, over 1500 spyware
installations have been
blocked on this computer alone in the last 10 days, and this computer
is only used lightly.
im going to recommend this panda product to you who wish to block this
crap out
of your system. it puts norton and mcafee to shame.
and no i am not a dealer for panda software, just an average internet
user.
mykeymykey01@yahoo.com wrote:
> we don't know who is implanting it yet ...
I have a good guess.
> ... over 1500 spyware installations have been blocked on this computer
> alone in the last 10 days, and this computer is only used lightly.
You're on charter.net. A broadband account? Do you have a router and a
firewall? I'll bet not, and what you see is probes from all your
infected network neighbors, trying to hook you as well. You didn't see
1500 "installations" ...
> im going to recommend this panda product to you who wish to block this
> crap out of your system. it puts norton and mcafee to shame.
Other people say Panda spams its users. Maybe this is where all your
spam is coming from, eh?
> and no i am not a dealer for panda software, just an average internet
> user.
Yep, pretty much average.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
It's pretty obvious to most people here that he doesn't know or even
begin to understand what he is talking about. Even better, he is
convinced he does. I think it's pointless to keep replying to him
since he's so smart already that he's figure out that the FTC is his
next step.
I think I was that young and stupid once myself, fortunately for me it
was before computers and I didn't embarrasses myself in front of the
whole world. Wait a minute, I did get into a Cold Fusion argument when
it was all the rage one time, some maybe I did embarrasses myself in
front of the whole world. I'll have to take solace knowing that the
physicists didn't know much about it either.
cmsix
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in
message
news:x_Q6h.64296$Fi1.14837@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> mykeymykey01@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> we don't know who is implanting it yet ...
>
> I have a good guess.
>
>> ... over 1500 spyware installations have been blocked on this
>> computer
>> alone in the last 10 days, and this computer is only used lightly.
>
> You're on charter.net. A broadband account? Do you have a router and
> a
> firewall? I'll bet not, and what you see is probes from all your
> infected network neighbors, trying to hook you as well. You didn't
> see
> 1500 "installations" ...
>
>> im going to recommend this panda product to you who wish to block
>> this
>> crap out of your system. it puts norton and mcafee to shame.
>
> Other people say Panda spams its users. Maybe this is where all your
> spam is coming from, eh?
>
>> and no i am not a dealer for panda software, just an average
>> internet
>> user.
>
> Yep, pretty much average.
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:57:23 GMT, cmsix wrote:
> It's pretty obvious to most people here that he doesn't know or even
> begin to understand what he is talking about. Even better, he is
> convinced he does. I think it's pointless to keep replying to him
> since he's so smart already that he's figure out that the FTC is his
> next step.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote