New Variant of Gpcode Found

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

VanguardLH wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
> <news:g2lvnm$6lt$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> NOTE: Inappropriate use of FollowUp-To header was ignored. Original
>>> list of newsgroups was used for this reply.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Rant on inappropriate use of the FollowUp-To header ---
>>>
>>> Don't use the FollowUp-To header. Posting to, say, 3 newsgroups but
>>> moving replies to just 1 of them or to a completely different one
>>> means you disconnect the visitors of those other 2 (or 3) newsgroups
>>> from the rest of the discussion. If a newsgroup is appropriate for
>>> your post then it is also appropriate for the replies. Or,
>>> converserly, if the continued discussion of your post is not
>>> appropriate in all the newsgroups to which you cross-posted then you
>>> should not have posted to those other newsgroups in the first place.
>>> You are using the FollowUp-To header to move replies to YOUR "home"
>>> newsgroup but which the users of the other newsgroups may not visit.
>>> After all, if you cross-post and include your "home" newsgroup then
>>> you'll see all those replies in your home newsgroup and meanwhile
>>> all the other users can still see the replies in their newsgroup
>>> where you decided to also publish your post.
>>>
>>> In http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/, it says, "For a
>>> cross-post, you may want to set the Followup-To: header line to the
>>> most suitable group for the rest of the discussion".
>>
>> Exactly. He did the right thing.
>>
>>> Read another
>>> way, that means you disconnect the discussion from all the visitors
>>> of the other newsgroups to which you decided to publish your post.
>>
>> In your not-humble, ignorant opinion.
>
> You can't even follow the logic, can you? What the hell do you think
> happens when the FollowUp-To header is used (and obeyed)?
>
> Those FAQs regurgitate netiquette that is over 20 years old and were
> based on NNTP clients actually notifying their users that a
> FollowUp-To header had been used or it could be seen in the
> console-mode NNTP client when it displayed the headers. Some NNTP
> clients will show the FollowUp-To header and some even alert that a
> post used it when you reply. Many NNTP clients provide no such
> information.

Which ones?

I'm using OE, and I can see the follow-ups just fine.

Can't get much more crappy a newsreader than that.

If people aren't going to compensate for a newsreader that doesn't meet
the GNKSA standard, that's too bad for them.

> Also, you will notice that those FAQs never qualify why
> they are recommending that behavior. They just regurgitate what they
> read somewhere else.

Well, then, write an RFD.

> If someone told you that you needed their fantastic memory
> defragmentation program without explaining why, would you actually get
> it despite that memory access is random, anyway?

And your point is?

>> You're a control freak.
>
> I didn't realize that I had such a huge virtual gun pointed at his and
> your heads that you considered my replies as anything other than a
> strong suggestion regarding netiquette.

It's your posting style, obviously.

> Obviously you're too lazy to
> figure out the logic in the use of that header and are some lemming
> that follows what someone wrote in a "FAQ". Okay, so continue being a
> lemming and follow my "FAQ". Duh! Like anyone can prevent you from
> making your own anarichal choices in Usenet, uh huh.
>
> Apparently you can't even figure out that you are spewing your own
> opinion regarding the use of this header. Gee, then you must be a
> control freak, too. (rolls eyes)

I didn't come up with what I wrote out of thin air, either.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

[VanguardLH]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
<news:g2mnap$3d5$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:

> I'm using OE, and I can see the follow-ups just fine.

It's been a couple months since I stopped using Outlook Express. I
don't recall that it ever showed the FollowUp-To header, or allowing the
user to configure which headers to show, in the preview pane "header"
section. You have to view the raw source of the message to see the
header. It might show more headers if you open (double-click on) a
message to show in its own window but I never used it in that nuisance
mode. Of course, if you are wary and watch what were the newsgroups to
which the original post was submitted and then to which newsgroups you
end up replying to by default then you'll notice there was a change in
that list of newsgroups.

> Well, then, write an RFD.

And which RFD did you quote to substantiate your stance?

>> If someone told you that you needed their fantastic memory
>> defragmentation program without explaining why, would you actually get
>> it despite that memory access is random, anyway?
>
> And your point is?

That you simply follows someone else's unsubstantiated and unexplained
viewpoint and adopt it as your own which means your viewpoint is just as
unsubstantiated and unexplained. So far, you have bothered to explain
why YOU think using the FollowUp-To is valid and polite to those in the
newsgroups from which the discussion is getting yanked.

>>> You're a control freak.
>>
>> I didn't realize that I had such a huge virtual gun pointed at his and
>> your heads that you considered my replies as anything other than a
>> strong suggestion regarding netiquette.
>
> It's your posting style, obviously.

Based after analyzing what effects the uneducated use of the FollowUp-To
has havoced upon the threads that have used it.

> I didn't come up with what I wrote out of thin air, either.

You didn't bother to walk through any logic or analysis on WHY that
viewpoint was proffered, either. Someone said it, put "FAQ" on their
web page, and you adopted it without investigating whether or not it
should be adopted. So far, you have not disqualified my claim that the
use of the FollowUp-To is deliterious to a discussion by yanking it away
from the groups to which it was posted and also being rude to those
visitors of the other groups from which the discussion is being yanked
away.

Of course, being rude has become prevalent on their anarchy known as
Usenet; however, it really shouldn't be promoted, especially by "FAQs"
which are, after all and by your own submission, their proselytization
of what is proper netiquette. Yes, it is MY opinion that the use of
FollowUp-To is degenerative to the purpose of cross-posting (so why
cross-post at all?) and rude. At least I have some reasons to back up
my opinion versus just spitting it out unsubstantiated.

Do you disagree that the FollowUp-To results in disconnecting the users
of the other cross-posted groups to which the message was originally
posted? If not, just what do you think is the action of the
FollowUp-Too header?

Do you think it is polite to submit your post in a group but then yank
away the discussion to another group that those respondents may not
visit?

Do you think it is polite to use the FollowUp-To header or alter the
list of newsgroups (to which respondents will reply) without providing
notification of such in the body of your post?

In YOUR opinion, what is the purpose of cross-posting to multiple groups
but attempt to force the discussion to continue in only one of them or
perhaps in a totally different group? That is, why cross-post to the
other groups if you don't want to actually elicit a discussion over
there?

Yes, I'm spouting MY opinion regarding the *lazy* use of this header,
lazy in that users aren't considering the effect of using it. The point
is to make users actually engage another brain cell and take some
initiative to cogitate whether or not they comply with what someone
regurgitated in a FAQ but failed to substantiate why. Without an
impetus, people don't bother to learn, analysis, agree or disagree,
debate, or substantiate their viewpoint(s).

You've seen my arguments why the vast majority of use of the FollowUp-To
header is inappropriate. Other than quoting someone else's FAQ, create
your own WITH substantiation to your viewpoint. Let's hear your
arguments for why its use is beneficial to the discussion, why yanking
it out of the other groups is good, and why abandoning respondents in
the other groups is considered polite.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

VanguardLH wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
> <news:g2mnap$3d5$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:
>
>> I'm using OE, and I can see the follow-ups just fine.
>
> It's been a couple months since I stopped using Outlook Express. I
> don't recall that it ever showed the FollowUp-To header, or allowing
> the user to configure which headers to show, in the preview pane
> "header" section. You have to view the raw source of the message to
> see the header. It might show more headers if you open (double-click
> on) a message to show in its own window but I never used it in that
> nuisance mode. Of course, if you are wary and watch what were the
> newsgroups to which the original post was submitted and then to which
> newsgroups you end up replying to by default then you'll notice there
> was a change in that list of newsgroups.
>
>> Well, then, write an RFD.
>
> And which RFD did you quote to substantiate your stance?

There's no such thing. It was a typo. RFC is the correct acronym.

And I don't recall quoting an RFC. I do recall posting two links about
netiquette.

Please to cite some support for your position.

>>> If someone told you that you needed their fantastic memory
>>> defragmentation program without explaining why, would you actually
>>> get it despite that memory access is random, anyway?
>>
>> And your point is?
>
> That you simply follows someone else's unsubstantiated and unexplained
> viewpoint and adopt it as your own which means your viewpoint is just
> as unsubstantiated and unexplained. So far, you have bothered to
> explain why YOU think using the FollowUp-To is valid and polite to
> those in the newsgroups from which the discussion is getting yanked.

Your viewpoint is an opinion. That's not how you presented it.

>>>> You're a control freak.
>>>
>>> I didn't realize that I had such a huge virtual gun pointed at his
>>> and your heads that you considered my replies as anything other
>>> than a strong suggestion regarding netiquette.
>>
>> It's your posting style, obviously.
>
> Based after analyzing what effects the uneducated use of the
> FollowUp-To has havoced upon the threads that have used it.

I didn't say "post," I said "posting style."

>> I didn't come up with what I wrote out of thin air, either.
>
> You didn't bother to walk through any logic or analysis on WHY that
> viewpoint was proffered, either. Someone said it, put "FAQ" on their
> web page, and you adopted it without investigating whether or not it
> should be adopted. So far, you have not disqualified my claim that
> the use of the FollowUp-To is deliterious to a discussion by yanking
> it away from the groups to which it was posted and also being rude to
> those visitors of the other groups from which the discussion is being
> yanked away.
>
> Of course, being rude has become prevalent on their anarchy known as
> Usenet; however, it really shouldn't be promoted, especially by "FAQs"
> which are, after all and by your own submission, their proselytization
> of what is proper netiquette. Yes, it is MY opinion that the use of
> FollowUp-To is degenerative to the purpose of cross-posting (so why
> cross-post at all?) and rude. At least I have some reasons to back up
> my opinion versus just spitting it out unsubstantiated.
>
> Do you disagree that the FollowUp-To results in disconnecting the
> users of the other cross-posted groups to which the message was
> originally posted? If not, just what do you think is the action of
> the FollowUp-Too header?
>
> Do you think it is polite to submit your post in a group but then yank
> away the discussion to another group that those respondents may not
> visit?
>
> Do you think it is polite to use the FollowUp-To header or alter the
> list of newsgroups (to which respondents will reply) without providing
> notification of such in the body of your post?
>
> In YOUR opinion, what is the purpose of cross-posting to multiple
> groups but attempt to force the discussion to continue in only one of
> them or perhaps in a totally different group? That is, why
> cross-post to the other groups if you don't want to actually elicit a
> discussion over there?
>
> Yes, I'm spouting MY opinion regarding the *lazy* use of this header,
> lazy in that users aren't considering the effect of using it. The
> point is to make users actually engage another brain cell and take
> some initiative to cogitate whether or not they comply with what
> someone regurgitated in a FAQ but failed to substantiate why.
> Without an impetus, people don't bother to learn, analysis, agree or
> disagree, debate, or substantiate their viewpoint(s).
>
> You've seen my arguments why the vast majority of use of the
> FollowUp-To header is inappropriate. Other than quoting someone
> else's FAQ, create your own WITH substantiation to your viewpoint.
> Let's hear your arguments for why its use is beneficial to the
> discussion, why yanking it out of the other groups is good, and why
> abandoning respondents in the other groups is considered polite.

Y'know, it's not just you're a control freak. It's that you're a a
control freak with way too much time on your hands.

Sheesh.

(I quit reading after my last response. It's not worth it.)

P.S. The only thing Max could have done better was to make note of the
fact that he had set follow-ups. That is the convention. You could've
made a better argument if you'd focused on that aspect rather than
trying to be a net-nanny.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

[VanguardLH]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
<news:g2msju$fqr$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:

> Y'know, it's not just you're a control freak. It's that you're a a
> control freak with way too much time on your hands.
>
> Sheesh.

Reminds me of the old joke:

Fat lady is in the bakery. Another fat lady walks in. First fat lady
berates the first by saying, "Everytime I'm in here I see you here."
Well, the first fat lady just berated herself, too.

("fat lady" can be replaced with "fat man" implying the consumption of
too many bakery goods ["fat person" just doesn't make the joke sing], or
even replace with "cop" due to the stereotyping)

You insulted yourself by your own logic. Okay.

> P.S. The only thing Max could have done better was to make note of the
> fact that he had set follow-ups. That is the convention. You could've
> made a better argument if you'd focused on that aspect rather than
> trying to be a net-nanny.

Ah, so you cannot defend you stance on using that header.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

VanguardLH wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
> <news:g2msju$fqr$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:
>
>> Y'know, it's not just you're a control freak. It's that you're a a
>> control freak with way too much time on your hands.
>>
>> Sheesh.
>
> Reminds me of the old joke:
>
> Fat lady is in the bakery. Another fat lady walks in. First fat lady
> berates the first by saying, "Everytime I'm in here I see you here."
> Well, the first fat lady just berated herself, too.
>
> ("fat lady" can be replaced with "fat man" implying the consumption of
> too many bakery goods ["fat person" just doesn't make the joke sing],
> or even replace with "cop" due to the stereotyping)
>
> You insulted yourself by your own logic. Okay.

Fallacy. Tu quoque.

>> P.S. The only thing Max could have done better was to make note of
>> the fact that he had set follow-ups. That is the convention. You
>> could've made a better argument if you'd focused on that aspect
>> rather than trying to be a net-nanny.
>
> Ah, so you cannot defend you stance on using that header.

You snipped the rest of what I wrote...for this?

Setting follow-ups is the convention. If you want to go out and campaign
for a new convention, feel free, but *****ing at Max for following the
accepted convention is kinda like defending top-posting.

In other words, you may think there are good reasons for your opinion,
but it's still just your opinion.

P.S. RFC 1855, RFC 1036, RFC 2076. You might also want to see Son of
1036. I'll take Henry Spencer over you, any day of the week.

<plonk>

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will
scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will
refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something
which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he
will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is
explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell

[David H. Lipman]

From: "VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH>

| "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
| <news:g2mnap$3d5$3@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:
|
>> I'm using OE, and I can see the follow-ups just fine.
|
| It's been a couple months since I stopped using Outlook Express. I
| don't recall that it ever showed the FollowUp-To header, or allowing the
| user to configure which headers to show, in the preview pane "header"
| section. You have to view the raw source of the message to see the
| header. It might show more headers if you open (double-click on) a
| message to show in its own window but I never used it in that nuisance
| mode. Of course, if you are wary and watch what were the newsgroups to
| which the original post was submitted and then to which newsgroups you
| end up replying to by default then you'll notice there was a change in
| that list of newsgroups.
|

It does. To set Follow-Ups you have to select; view --> all headers

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[VanguardLH]

"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" wrote in
<news:g2n08l$oc6$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com >:

> (I quit reading after my last response. It's not worth it.)

Yep, that's what I thought. Tested. She failed.
Shades of Alan Connor.

[Dustin Cook]

What's in a Name? <maxwachtel@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:484ddb84$0$3386$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> On 6/9/2008 7:17 PM, Dustin Cook after much thought,came up with this
> jewel:
>> What's in a Name? <maxwachtel@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:484d77aa$0 $3349$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>>
>>> Has everyone heard about this one?
>>>
>>> From ZDNet
>>> "Virus analysts at Kaspersky Lab have intercepted a new variant of
>>> Gpcode, a malicious virus that encrypts important files on an
>>> infected desktop and demands payment for a key to recover the data."
>>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1251&tag=nl.e539
>>>
>>> max
>>
>> I haven't seen this one, but this has been done before.....
>>
>>
> Seems that VXers have been busy the last 18 months. If this one starts
> spreading, only working backups can save you.

Yea, the chances of breaking the encryption are remote; and even if it's
done, they just need to change the encryption key and people are right
back to square one.


--
Regards,
Dustin Cook - http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk
BugHunter v2.2e AntiMalware Removal Utility