Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #88625 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-01-19 15:42 +0100 |
| Last post | 2023-01-19 16:48 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 92 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 15:42 +0100
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-19 16:18 +0100
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-19 16:32 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-19 19:22 +0100
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 20:00 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-20 15:48 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 13:00 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 14:52 -0500
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 14:13 -0800
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 00:03 +0100
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set ikook <iKook@GMAIL.COM> - 2023-01-25 23:17 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-25 23:37 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 09:19 +0100
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 00:09 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 23:55 -0500
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-19 08:40 -0800
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2023-01-19 08:42 -0800
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 20:10 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-19 20:17 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-20 15:49 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-20 17:21 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-21 15:50 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-20 11:35 -0800
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-21 13:06 +0100
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-21 15:56 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-22 13:33 +0100
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-23 09:34 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-23 14:29 +0100
Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 14:21 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-23 13:03 -0600
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 20:06 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-23 14:46 -0600
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 22:00 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 14:20 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-24 15:36 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 08:06 -0800
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 18:30 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-24 18:50 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 20:36 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2023-01-24 19:50 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities Marc SCHAEFER <schaefer@alphanet.ch> - 2023-01-24 19:56 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-24 20:31 -0600
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 20:07 -0800
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2023-01-25 05:02 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 17:47 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-24 13:30 -0500
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 20:42 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 20:46 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-24 19:56 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-24 22:00 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2023-01-25 00:17 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 09:43 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-25 10:39 -0600
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 14:51 -0500
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 00:00 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 23:49 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 09:23 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) iKook <iKook@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 02:27 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 23:55 -0500
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) iKook <iKook@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 18:22 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 09:44 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-26 01:40 -0800
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 13:14 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) iKook <iKook@gmail.com> - 2023-01-26 18:13 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-27 22:12 -0600
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-28 13:20 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-28 20:20 -0800
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-29 12:00 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-01-29 12:01 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-29 16:23 -0800
[OT] Writing IMHO Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-30 01:14 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2023-01-25 22:58 +0000
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-26 13:10 +0100
Thunderbird Broken Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-28 19:54 -0800
Re: Thunderbird Broken Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-29 12:04 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-24 20:30 -0600
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> - 2023-01-24 20:25 -0600
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2023-01-25 00:10 -0500
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-25 10:56 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-28 19:28 -0800
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-29 12:36 +0100
Pluted Pup is trolling you, you blithering idiot (was: Server glitch vs other possibilities) "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2023-01-29 17:23 +0000
Re: Pluted Pup is trolling you, you blithering idiot (was: Server glitch vs other possibilities) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-30 08:22 +0100
Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2023-01-23 22:18 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2023-01-19 17:08 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-19 17:15 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2023-01-19 16:54 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 13:03 -0800
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Pluted Pup <plutedpup@outlook.com> - 2023-01-21 14:01 -0800
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-19 16:30 +0000
Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-19 16:48 +0000
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-20 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <F3+81V5AfC7Up18Xq@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #88662 |
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:49:08 -0000 (UTC) Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:17:33 -0000 (UTC) > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:10:09 -0000 (UTC) > >Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:42:51 -0800 > >> red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: > >> > It showed up in my feed as well. The frickin' HEADER said > >> > rec.arts.books, and it showed as from someone else, even though > >> > it came as from Muttley. > >> > >> "It" being <36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com> ? > >> Using news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de or > >> paganini.bofh.team I see it as coming from Ilya Shambat. What do you > >> mean "it came as from Muttley" ? > > > >And I see the same using news.aioe.org . > > You think I'm the only person who uses that server?? Idiot. This is a non sequitur response for several reasons. Either someone is impersonating you (Muttley@dastardlyhq.com) with the intention of making you look irrational or you completely misinterpreted my posts you are quoting and I can't even imagine what interpretation would make your reply make sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 15:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tqh1kr$18mm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88666 |
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:21:57 -0000 (UTC) Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 15:49:08 -0000 (UTC) >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:17:33 -0000 (UTC) >> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:10:09 -0000 (UTC) >> >Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:42:51 -0800 >> >> red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> wrote: >> >> > It showed up in my feed as well. The frickin' HEADER said >> >> > rec.arts.books, and it showed as from someone else, even though >> >> > it came as from Muttley. >> >> >> >> "It" being <36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com> ? >> >> Using news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de or >> >> paganini.bofh.team I see it as coming from Ilya Shambat. What do you >> >> mean "it came as from Muttley" ? >> > >> >And I see the same using news.aioe.org . >> >> You think I'm the only person who uses that server?? Idiot. > >This is a non sequitur response for several reasons. Either someone is >impersonating you (Muttley@dastardlyhq.com) with the intention of making you >look irrational or you completely misinterpreted my posts you are quoting and >I can't even imagine what interpretation would make your reply make sense. Sorry, I obviously misread. I thought you were implying that because the post on rec.... came from the same server as the one I used then it must have been me who posted it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-20 11:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7f79edd3-1735-4d01-9760-bd24db578e41n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #88662 |
Background: A message was posted to rec.arts.books titled "Change and Choice" with the following headers: From: Ilya Shambat <ibshambat@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 01:42:00 -0800 (PST) Bonita Moreno posted a reply to that message to comp.lang.c++ titled "Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set" saying: Am 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: followed by a quotation of the entire "Change and Choice" message. Regardless of what time zone Bonita was using, that attribution line can't refer to the same time as the message she was quoting. You said you never wrote such a thing. David Brown responded by suggesting that a Usenet server mixup was responsible for posting something to the wrong newsgroup. But that doesn't explain Bonita's change of the Subject: header, nor her citation of the wrong time and wrong author when quoting that message. On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 10:49:24 AM UTC-5, Mut...@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:17:33 -0000 (UTC) > Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:10:09 -0000 (UTC) > >Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:42:51 -0800 > >> red floyd <no.spa...@its.invalid> wrote: > >> > It showed up in my feed as well. The frickin' HEADER said > >> > rec.arts.books, and it showed as from someone else, even though > >> > it came as from Muttley. > >> > >> "It" being <36403165-3cf1-4b73...@googlegroups.com> ? > >> Using news2.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de or > >> paganini.bofh.team I see it as coming from Ilya Shambat. What do you > >> mean "it came as from Muttley" ? Text written by Spiros was snipped, which confirmed that he saw the same message, with Ilya Shambat as the author, on several different usenet servers, then he listed one more: > >And I see the same using news.aioe.org . > You think I'm the only person who uses that server?? Idiot. I don't see how your response makes any sense in that context. Bonita and Red Floyd are the only ones who've suggested that you were responsible for that original message. David and Spiros believe it was posted by Ilya Shambat. The fact that it was visible on many different servers, including news.aioe.org, always with Ilya Shambat given as the author, was cited as evidence against a server error being the cause of Bonita's mis-attribution of the quoted text. That fact was not being used to argue that you must have been the author, so the fact that other people use that server is not relevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 13:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tqgkfh$2j5t0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88667 |
On 20/01/2023 20:35, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote: > Background: A message was posted to rec.arts.books titled "Change and > Choice" with the following headers: From: Ilya Shambat > <ibshambat@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 01:42:00 -0800 (PST) > > Bonita Moreno posted a reply to that message to comp.lang.c++ titled > "Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set" saying: > > Am 19.01.2023 um 10:31 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com: > > followed by a quotation of the entire "Change and Choice" message. > Regardless of what time zone Bonita was using, that attribution line > can't refer to the same time as the message she was quoting. > > You said you never wrote such a thing. David Brown responded by > suggesting that a Usenet server mixup was responsible for posting > something to the wrong newsgroup. But that doesn't explain Bonita's > change of the Subject: header, nor her citation of the wrong time and > wrong author when quoting that message. > I saw the same post in c.l.c++ /before/ Bonita quoted it. It had ended up in part of a different thread (that Muttley had been involved in), and appeared to have been posted by Muttley to recs.art.books, and somehow had appeared in c.l.c++ as well and had a jumbled subject. I assume Bonita thought Muttley posted it, because that's how it looked. (I assumed Muttley had written it and posted it to recs.art.books, and merely the newsgroup was mixed up by a server fault.) I think that a server fault jumbled several header lines - the author, the subject, and the newsgroups, at the very least. I can't see any reason for suspecting Bonita is somehow intentionally behind this - it would be completely bizarre behaviour. So AFAICS this is just "undefined behaviour" in a server somewhere that resulted in jumbled cross-posts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-21 15:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tqh1vj$1dnb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88674 |
On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 13:06:09 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 20/01/2023 20:35, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote: >> something to the wrong newsgroup. But that doesn't explain Bonita's >> change of the Subject: header, nor her citation of the wrong time and >> wrong author when quoting that message. >> > >I saw the same post in c.l.c++ /before/ Bonita quoted it. It had ended >up in part of a different thread (that Muttley had been involved in), >and appeared to have been posted by Muttley to recs.art.books, and >somehow had appeared in c.l.c++ as well and had a jumbled subject. I never saw it in this group, only Bonitas copy of it. I really can't see how Bonita could reply to a post that clearly wasn't from me in a totally unrelated group which somehow ends up quoting me and being coincidentally crossposted to comp.lang.c++. >I assume Bonita thought Muttley posted it, because that's how it looked. I'm afraid I don't. I think he/she/it/whatever either did it on purpose or someone hacked her account. The fact that she's vanished from this group for a few days when she normally never stays away is rather telling. >reason for suspecting Bonita is somehow intentionally behind this - it >would be completely bizarre behaviour. Well, I wouldn't say she's entirely rational sometimes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-22 13:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tqjaf1$33opo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88681 |
On 21/01/2023 16:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 13:06:09 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 20/01/2023 20:35, james...@alumni.caltech.edu wrote: >>> something to the wrong newsgroup. But that doesn't explain Bonita's >>> change of the Subject: header, nor her citation of the wrong time and >>> wrong author when quoting that message. >>> >> >> I saw the same post in c.l.c++ /before/ Bonita quoted it. It had ended >> up in part of a different thread (that Muttley had been involved in), >> and appeared to have been posted by Muttley to recs.art.books, and >> somehow had appeared in c.l.c++ as well and had a jumbled subject. > > I never saw it in this group, only Bonitas copy of it. I really can't see > how Bonita could reply to a post that clearly wasn't from me in a totally > unrelated group which somehow ends up quoting me and being coincidentally > crossposted to comp.lang.c++. > I will say it again - it appears to be the result of a server glitch. It may only have been visible in one server, it may have been passed on to some other servers but not all servers. Some people (such as myself, and Bonita) saw the original broken and header-jumbled cross post. Others did not. Bonita replied to this mistaken cross-post, thinking it was real. It is not actually that hard to understand, and does not need paranoia or conspiracy theories as an explanation. >> I assume Bonita thought Muttley posted it, because that's how it looked. > > I'm afraid I don't. I think he/she/it/whatever either did it on purpose or > someone hacked her account. The fact that she's vanished from this group for > a few days when she normally never stays away is rather telling. > Please stop. Look, I know that both you and Bonita rub people the wrong way sometimes, and you seem to have a particular dislike for each other. But trust me on this, you are not that important. No one - not Bonita, not anyone else - is going to hack a Usenet server to make a fake cross-post to somehow pretend to be /you/. Hacking servers is a lot of effort, as is writing a post like that one - even if Bonita doesn't like you, you are not worth that much effort. >> reason for suspecting Bonita is somehow intentionally behind this - it >> would be completely bizarre behaviour. > > Well, I wouldn't say she's entirely rational sometimes. > She's not an idiot either. It's unpleasant when people assume you have written something that you did not write - whether it is due to a technical fault or intentional behaviour. But do not fall for paranoia. Anyone here who doesn't like you or doesn't like your posts will either ignore you, or say directly what they dislike. And do not make matters worse by accusing Bonita of doing things she clearly did not do - it is not any better for her to be accused of writing the weird post than it is for /you/ to be accused of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 09:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tqlkc2$148e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88710 |
On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:33:37 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 21/01/2023 16:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> I saw the same post in c.l.c++ /before/ Bonita quoted it. It had ended >>> up in part of a different thread (that Muttley had been involved in), >>> and appeared to have been posted by Muttley to recs.art.books, and >>> somehow had appeared in c.l.c++ as well and had a jumbled subject. >> >> I never saw it in this group, only Bonitas copy of it. I really can't see >> how Bonita could reply to a post that clearly wasn't from me in a totally >> unrelated group which somehow ends up quoting me and being coincidentally >> crossposted to comp.lang.c++. >> > >I will say it again - it appears to be the result of a server glitch. I will say it again - it is the CLIENT that does the quoting of the "From:" field NOT the server. The original post I saw DID NOT have my name in that field. >It may only have been visible in one server, it may have been passed on >to some other servers but not all servers. Some people (such as myself, >and Bonita) saw the original broken and header-jumbled cross post. And my id was in this jumbled header was it? >Others did not. Bonita replied to this mistaken cross-post, thinking it >was real. It is not actually that hard to understand, and does not need >paranoia or conspiracy theories as an explanation. She didn't reply, she effectivlty reposted it with no comments. Why would she do that? >>> I assume Bonita thought Muttley posted it, because that's how it looked. >> >> I'm afraid I don't. I think he/she/it/whatever either did it on purpose or >> someone hacked her account. The fact that she's vanished from this group for >> a few days when she normally never stays away is rather telling. >> > >Please stop. Not until she explains herself. Little sign of that so far. >But trust me on this, you are not that important. No one - not Bonita, >not anyone else - is going to hack a Usenet server to make a fake Why would she need to hack it? Do even you understand how usenet works?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 14:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tqm247$3kqcf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88740 |
On 23/01/2023 10:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:33:37 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >> On 21/01/2023 16:56, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> I saw the same post in c.l.c++ /before/ Bonita quoted it. It had ended >>>> up in part of a different thread (that Muttley had been involved in), >>>> and appeared to have been posted by Muttley to recs.art.books, and >>>> somehow had appeared in c.l.c++ as well and had a jumbled subject. >>> >>> I never saw it in this group, only Bonitas copy of it. I really can't see >>> how Bonita could reply to a post that clearly wasn't from me in a totally >>> unrelated group which somehow ends up quoting me and being coincidentally >>> crossposted to comp.lang.c++. >>> >> >> I will say it again - it appears to be the result of a server glitch. > > I will say it again - it is the CLIENT that does the quoting of the "From:" > field NOT the server. The original post I saw DID NOT have my name in that > field. > You can say it as many times as you want - you are merely describing how things are /supposed/ to work. This was the result of a server fault that scrambled a post. We /know/ you did not write the post. We /know/ that many people saw a post in this newsgroup with /your/ name in the "From" field. Somewhere, a Usenet server screwed up - the "From" field, along with the newsgroup(s), threading, and perhaps other fields, from one real post in a real c.l.c++ thread was mixed with the message content from a completely unrelated post in an unrelated group. The fact that the post /you/ saw did not appear to come from you, merely re-enforces the server glitch theory - different people saw different things on different Usenet servers. >> It may only have been visible in one server, it may have been passed on >> to some other servers but not all servers. Some people (such as myself, >> and Bonita) saw the original broken and header-jumbled cross post. > > And my id was in this jumbled header was it? > Yes. >> Others did not. Bonita replied to this mistaken cross-post, thinking it >> was real. It is not actually that hard to understand, and does not need >> paranoia or conspiracy theories as an explanation. > > She didn't reply, she effectivlty reposted it with no comments. Why would she > do that? > In Usenet terms, she replied to the post. In stereotypical google poster fashion, she did so by top-posting a single comment and quoting the entire original message (as she saw it on her newsserver). Why do some people repost entire messages just to tell others that it is spam or make other single-line comments? I don't know. I can try to explain what she saw on her server, but I won't attempt to explain her thought processes! >>>> I assume Bonita thought Muttley posted it, because that's how it looked. >>> >>> I'm afraid I don't. I think he/she/it/whatever either did it on purpose or >>> someone hacked her account. The fact that she's vanished from this group for >>> a few days when she normally never stays away is rather telling. >>> >> >> Please stop. > > Not until she explains herself. Little sign of that so far. I can't answer for her. For all I know, she's off on holiday somewhere. But I can certainly understand why she might not want to respond to someone who is making wild paranoid accusations without justification, and contrary to the evidence and explanations received. I can appreciate that you were confused initially - we all were, since the post was not a normal Usenet post and was not visible on all servers, giving different people a very different view. But you should know better now. > >> But trust me on this, you are not that important. No one - not Bonita, >> not anyone else - is going to hack a Usenet server to make a fake > > Why would she need to hack it? Do even you understand how usenet works? > Yes, I do. I know how to make fake posts, and how they work - and I know this was /not/ a fake post. Making a post whose headers contain only one group, but which appear in another group, is not a simple fake. Basically, the header download from one or more newsservers (at least news.eternal-september.org) differed completely from the headers in the content of the message. You can't fake that, since it is (obviously) not supported by the NNTP protocols. Either it is a sophisticated hack - and that is not realistic - or it was the result of a server glitch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 14:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <JaMukkKxSBcM7VPWN@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #88751 |
I have altered the Subject: to reflect the discussion. This is something which someone (including myself) should have done several exchanges ago. I'm also crossposting to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet since some administrators of usenet servers hang out there and perhaps they can offer more insight. On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:29:43 +0100 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 23/01/2023 10:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:33:37 +0100 > > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: [...] > >> I will say it again - it appears to be the result of a server glitch. > > > > I will say it again - it is the CLIENT that does the quoting of the "From:" > > field NOT the server. The original post I saw DID NOT have my name in that > > field. > > > > You can say it as many times as you want - you are merely describing how > things are /supposed/ to work. This was the result of a server fault > that scrambled a post. We /know/ you did not write the post. We /know/ > that many people saw a post in this newsgroup with /your/ name in the > "From" field. Somewhere, a Usenet server screwed up - the "From" field, > along with the newsgroup(s), threading, and perhaps other fields, from > one real post in a real c.l.c++ thread was mixed with the message > content from a completely unrelated post in an unrelated group. > > The fact that the post /you/ saw did not appear to come from you, merely > re-enforces the server glitch theory - different people saw different > things on different Usenet servers. > > > >> It may only have been visible in one server, it may have been passed on > >> to some other servers but not all servers. Some people (such as myself, > >> and Bonita) saw the original broken and header-jumbled cross post. > > > > And my id was in this jumbled header was it? > > > > Yes. [...] > > Why would she need to hack it? Do even you understand how usenet works? > > > > Yes, I do. I know how to make fake posts, and how they work - and I > know this was /not/ a fake post. Making a post whose headers contain > only one group, but which appear in another group, is not a simple fake. > Basically, the header download from one or more newsservers (at least > news.eternal-september.org) differed completely from the headers in the > content of the message. Such an unusual glitch cannot happen independently on several newsservers so it can only have happened on one and then propagated. If it propagated then it should still be visible on other newsservers too since there's no automatic mechanism to fix this nor would news admins have any reason to assume there was an error to fix manually unless they happened to be reading the discussion. > You can't fake that, since it is (obviously) > not supported by the NNTP protocols. Either it is a sophisticated hack > - and that is not realistic - or it was the result of a server glitch. I assume "that" means that the Newsgroups: field in the header shows one set of groups G but some server shows the message when you ask for messages of a group P not contained in G. Yes , this would be hard to fake. The From: line is trivial to fake since severs will only check for correct syntax. -- vlaho.ninja/prog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 13:03 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <02q63458-1orq-4135-9358-994371poq6o8@zvaqfcevat.pbz> |
| In reply to | #88754 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 23 January 2023 14:21 -0000, in article <JaMukkKxSBcM7VPWN@bongo-ra.co>, Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: > I have altered the Subject: to reflect the discussion. This is something > which someone (including myself) should have done several exchanges ago. I'm > also crossposting to news.admin.net-abuse.usenet since some administrators > of usenet servers hang out there and perhaps they can offer more insight. I'd like to buy a vowel^W Message-ID of the mystery message. Beyond that, the name appearing in the From header of a Usenet post is an optional descriptor. It can be nearly anything. It cannot be forged. (Email addresses are unique; names, not so much.) Based on the References header of <JaMukkKxSBcM7VPWN@bongo-ra.co> (<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167449837100>): <36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com> (<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167449810000>) posted to rec.arts.books, only: strictly limited to a single newsgroup by G2's http2nntp interface. The article was posted using the GG posting account associated with the valid ibshambat@gmail.com email address. First followup (troll), from "Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>": <tqbkrr$1ja1c$1@dont-email.me> (<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167449819800>) added comp.lang.c++. The troll includes the full quote of the original post. The information included in the From header, of this message, may or may not accurately reflect its origin. X-post continued in <tqbn12$1jgmh$1@dont-email.me> (<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167449840700>, from =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?= <ootiib@hot.ee>). It is in this post that the erroneous claim, "I can find no server with 'quoted' post," appears. (The quoted original text appeared only in rec.arts.books, not in comp.lang.c++.) <ea2f3bb3-532d-4014-9acd-24fe10a1feecn@googlegroups.com> (<http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167449849500>) posted only to comp.lang.c++. etc. > On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:29:43 +0100 > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > On 23/01/2023 10:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:33:37 +0100 > > > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > [...] > >>>> I will say it again - it appears to be the result of a server >>>> glitch. There is nothing here to support this claim. If supporting evidence exists, please refer to it. This matter appears to be more the result of a trolled user glitch. [ snip of conjecture based bickering ] I hope this clears up some of the confusion. - -- David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> You will never find an article posted only to rec.arts.books, in comp.lang.c++. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQSc0FU3XAVGYDjSGUhSvCmZGhLe6wUCY87aGAAKCRBSvCmZGhLe 647lAJ9AZ9OEMM2EwI0mQxldXUQoIRHz9QCeMUZel7Dge9HbiPPNfFEEkk8iOqo= =5UeX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 20:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <z8dmrhuM9xNk7FY=M@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #88780 |
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:52 -0600 David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > I'd like to buy a vowel^W Message-ID of the mystery message. > > Beyond that, the name appearing in the From header of a Usenet post is > an optional descriptor. It can be nearly anything. It cannot be > forged. (Email addresses are unique; names, not so much.) Both the name and email address can trivially be forged. The email address doesn't have to be a real email (or even domain) , just syntactically valid. [...] > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:29:43 +0100 > > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > > On 23/01/2023 10:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:33:37 +0100 > > > > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>>> I will say it again - it appears to be the result of a server > >>>> glitch. > > There is nothing here to support this claim. If supporting evidence > exists, please refer to it. This matter appears to be more the result > of a trolled user glitch. > > [ snip of conjecture based bickering ] > > I hope this clears up some of the confusion. > > - -- > David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> > You will never find an article posted only to rec.arts.books, in > comp.lang.c++. Not under normal circumstances but the claim is that a temporary glitch on eternal-september caused it to happen and that David Brown saw it with his own eyes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 14:46 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <730105qr-2qrs-oo6q-30r7-p3o6r8p793p4@zvaqfcevat.pbz> |
| In reply to | #88785 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, 23 January 2023 20:06 -0000, in article <z8dmrhuM9xNk7FY=M@bongo-ra.co>, Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:52 -0600 > David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: >> I'd like to buy a vowel^W Message-ID of the mystery message. >> Beyond that, the name appearing in the From header of a Usenet post >> is an optional descriptor. It can be nearly anything. It cannot >> be forged. (Email addresses are unique; names, not so much.) > Both the name and email address can trivially be forged. The email address > doesn't have to be a real email (or even domain) , just syntactically valid. This assume facts not in evidence. While you may be able to put whatever you want in the From header of your articles, posted via AIOE (or using a wide variety of NNTP clients and NNTP servers), Google is another ball of wax. The original article, at the beginning of this thread, was posted via the Google Groups web2news interface. This means that the posting account, with MUST appear in the From header of article originated in this manner. Additionally, we know that Google verified the address and account information, at the time the posting account, was originated. <36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com> <http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=167449810000> ] Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:8004:1160:28ef:d5ae:f4e8:3aac:6009; ] posting-account=90ZYxQoAAAARzFPaCqTWUKRTGA9K_b9_ I will leave it to your propensity for spinning wheels, to verify that each and every article posted via Google Groups and matching From headers containing ibshambat@gmail.com, also include the identical posting account information. > [...] > > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:29:43 +0100 > > > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > > > On 23/01/2023 10:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:33:37 +0100 > > > > > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > >>>> I will say it again - it appears to be the result of a server > > >>>> glitch. > > > > There is nothing here to support this claim. If supporting evidence > > exists, please refer to it. This matter appears to be more the result > > of a trolled user glitch. > > > > [ snip of conjecture based bickering ] > > > > I hope this clears up some of the confusion. > > > > - -- > > David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> > > You will never find an article posted only to rec.arts.books, in > > comp.lang.c++. > Not under normal circumstances but the claim is that a temporary > glitch on eternal-september caused it to happen and that David Brown > saw it with his own eyes. I'm of the "Show Me" school. I do not care about spurious, unsupported claims. The only glitch was human error. I recommend a visit to an optician. - -- David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> "With usenet gone, we just don't teach our kids entertainment-level hyperbole any more." - Paul Vixie -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQSc0FU3XAVGYDjSGUhSvCmZGhLe6wUCY87yNwAKCRBSvCmZGhLe 6yvaAJ46N4g5UyBKfyCF/gguIdoK9Jh/9wCdFmts46yfzazFmd6SdhXufISFgic= =jDYR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-23 22:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <j1bws7i0XFWpABO58@bongo-ra.co> |
| In reply to | #88787 |
On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 14:46:47 -0600 David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > On Monday, 23 January 2023 20:06 -0000, > in article <z8dmrhuM9xNk7FY=M@bongo-ra.co>, > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:52 -0600 > > David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > > >> I'd like to buy a vowel^W Message-ID of the mystery message. > > >> Beyond that, the name appearing in the From header of a Usenet post > >> is an optional descriptor. It can be nearly anything. It cannot > >> be forged. (Email addresses are unique; names, not so much.) > > > Both the name and email address can trivially be forged. The email address > > doesn't have to be a real email (or even domain) , just syntactically valid. > > This assume facts not in evidence. While you may be able to put > whatever you want in the From header of your articles, posted via AIOE > (or using a wide variety of NNTP clients and NNTP servers), Google is > another ball of wax. So when you said "in the From header of a Usenet post" you meant specifically a post made through googlegroups. Ok , I agree then. > The original article, at the beginning of this thread, was posted via the > Google Groups web2news interface. This means that the posting account, with > MUST appear in the From header of article originated in this manner. > Additionally, we know that Google verified the address and account > information, at the time the posting account, was originated. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 14:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <tqoluk$5cht$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88787 |
On 23/01/2023 21:46, David Ritz wrote: > On Monday, 23 January 2023 20:06 -0000, > in article <z8dmrhuM9xNk7FY=M@bongo-ra.co>, > Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:52 -0600 >> David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: > >>> You will never find an article posted only to rec.arts.books, in >>> comp.lang.c++. > >> Not under normal circumstances but the claim is that a temporary >> glitch on eternal-september caused it to happen and that David Brown >> saw it with his own eyes. > > I'm of the "Show Me" school. I do not care about spurious, > unsupported claims. The only glitch was human error. > I'm sorry, but you are wrong. If you think servers - hardware and/or software - can never fail, you are naïve beyond comprehension. If you think it is appropriate to accuse one person you have never met of lying, and another of trolling, based solely on your belief in the perfection of all Usenet servers, then you should not be involving yourself in any kind of abuse resolution or advice. You should be asking questions first - not passing arbitrary judgement. Someone of the "Show me" school would ask for more information. You appear to be in the "Jump to conclusions" school. There are limits to how much I can "show you" what happened. But I can describe things in as much detail as practical. I use news.eternal-september.org as a Usenet server, with Thunderbird as the client. I am currently looking at the thread with subject "Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set" started (via a cross-post from comp.lang.c) on 08.01.2023. On one branch, posters "Bonita Montero" and "Muttley@dastardlyhq.com" had been arguing back and forth, here in comp.lang.c++. The penultimate post in the branch was made by Bonita 18.01.2023, 18:23, message id "tq99tp$vtqp$1@dont-email.me". Everything looks normal. When downloading message headers, the next message on the thread appears to be the expected reply from Muttley. It has the same subject, and the timestamp 19.01.2023, 10:31. The message body here is, however, completely unexpected. It's headers do not match the previously downloaded headers. In the message body, the subject is "Change and Choice", the poster is "Ilya Shambat", the newsgroup is "rec.arts.books", the id is "36403165-3cf1-4b73-8ad1-da339b960339n@googlegroups.com", there are no reference links to the other messages in the thread. The message contains a rambling essay. If I attempt to follow-up the message in Thunderbird, the Thunderbird client sets the newsgroup to "rec.arts.books", the subject to "Re: Compute Unique Numbers in a Set" (i.e., from the pre-downloaded headers, not the body), and the quotation is given as "Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:". The body of the quotation is the rambling essay. This is entirely consistent with Bonita's post - she replied to what she believed to be a message from Muttley. It is quite clear that there has been a glitch on the news.eternal-september.org server. Somehow, a message body from rec.arts.books has been crosslinked, was delivered as though it matched the normal-looking pre-downloaded header in the thread. (I'm guessing Muttley actually made a post in the original thread, but I am unable to see the real message body.) The glitch appears to be limited to news.eternal-september.org - other users of that server have said they saw it, while it did not appear on other servers. People have reported the existence of the rambling essay post in rec.arts.books, made by Ilya Shambat - it was a real post, but on news.eternal-september.org the message body was accidentally attached to the wrong header summaries for comp.lang.c++. Usenet server glitches are rare - client glitches are more likely. The same glitch occurring for at least three different people is, however, highly unlikely. And the idea that Bonita would jumped through hoops to repost some random post from another group but made to look like it came from Muttley so that she could comment on it - it's ridiculous. > I recommend a visit to an optician. > I recommend you either listen to what happened, or bow out of this conversation. It is possible that you have experiences or knowledge that could help explain things - but if you think you know all the answers before you've heard the question, there's no point in commenting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 15:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <HVSzL.349461$MVg8.63805@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #88804 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 23/01/2023 21:46, David Ritz wrote: >> On Monday, 23 January 2023 20:06 -0000, >> in article <z8dmrhuM9xNk7FY=M@bongo-ra.co>, >> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:52 -0600 >>> David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: >> > >>>> You will never find an article posted only to rec.arts.books, in >>>> comp.lang.c++. >> >>> Not under normal circumstances but the claim is that a temporary >>> glitch on eternal-september caused it to happen and that David Brown >>> saw it with his own eyes. >> >> I'm of the "Show Me" school. I do not care about spurious, >> unsupported claims. The only glitch was human error. >> > >I'm sorry, but you are wrong. > >If you think servers - hardware and/or software - can never fail, you >are naïve beyond comprehension. I'm not sure that is really relevent. In this case, an unsupported assumption has been made that news server software (e.g. Cnews, INN and successors) "glitched" by changing the headers of a post and reposting it. My exposure to both Cnews and INN would lead me to assert that such a glitch is extremely unlikely. It's far more likely that someone, perhaps Christoph/Bonita, was playing games.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 08:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <a7adfb23-c917-42fb-8b1a-f5256a94aacan@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #88805 |
On Tuesday, 24 January 2023 at 15:36:23 UTC, Scott Lurndal wrote: > > My exposure to both Cnews and INN would lead me to assert > that such a glitch is extremely unlikely. It's far more > likely that someone, perhaps Christoph/Bonita, was playing > games. > As a general rule you don't accuse someone of lying unless you're absolutely certain that this is the case, and it's about an important matter. Maybe Bonita pressed a few buttons on her web client and somehow inadvertently generated a spurious crosspost. But it seems to me neither here nor there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 18:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <tqp4jd$7ik0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88805 |
On 24/01/2023 16:36, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 23/01/2023 21:46, David Ritz wrote: >>> On Monday, 23 January 2023 20:06 -0000, >>> in article <z8dmrhuM9xNk7FY=M@bongo-ra.co>, >>> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:52 -0600 >>>> David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>>> You will never find an article posted only to rec.arts.books, in >>>>> comp.lang.c++. >>> >>>> Not under normal circumstances but the claim is that a temporary >>>> glitch on eternal-september caused it to happen and that David Brown >>>> saw it with his own eyes. >>> >>> I'm of the "Show Me" school. I do not care about spurious, >>> unsupported claims. The only glitch was human error. >>> >> >> I'm sorry, but you are wrong. >> >> If you think servers - hardware and/or software - can never fail, you >> are naïve beyond comprehension. > > I'm not sure that is really relevent. > > In this case, an unsupported assumption has been made that news > server software (e.g. Cnews, INN and successors) "glitched" > by changing the headers of a post and reposting it. > > My exposure to both Cnews and INN would lead me to assert > that such a glitch is extremely unlikely. It's far more > likely that someone, perhaps Christoph/Bonita, was playing > games. > The assertion of a server glitch is /not/ unsupported. I have explained, in detail, exactly how things appeared. Both I and another news.eternal-september.org user (red floyd) have said they saw the original spurious post - the one Bonita replied to. I am not talking about Bonita's reply that everyone saw, but the original spurious post that she replied to. If the only evidence was Bonita's post, then I could understand if people thought she was playing games - truly weird, and out of character games though they may be. But do you really believe that I, and red floyd, have been conspiring with Bonita and are making up everything? Unless you think I am deliberately lying, you will have to accept that the spurious post existed. We all know that such a newsgroup-jumping post should not have occurred in normal functioning behaviour. I assert that this could only have come from one of two causes - a server glitch, or the result (or side-effect) of a deliberate hack. I certainly do not believe that Bonita would be behind such a hack, though it is vaguely conceivable that there has been a completely different hack into the news.eternal-september.org machine and this jumbled post was an unexpected side-effect. I can find no explanation that is more feasible than a server glitch. Note that this does not necessarily mean a flaw in the software. news.eternal-september.org is a low budget affair - in the past, they have been pulled completely offline by hardware faults, dead disks, and the like. We don't need to look any further than a single-event upset - a bad memory cell, a bad disk read, a power fluctuation, a cosmic ray in the wrong place - to see a single mistake. Or maybe it /is/ software - an obscure race condition, a bug in the kernel. I am quite happy to accept that such server glitches are extremely unlikely. But extremely unlikely events happen sometimes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 18:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <tLVzL.775660$GNG9.378305@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #88808 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 24/01/2023 16:36, Scott Lurndal wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>> On 23/01/2023 21:46, David Ritz wrote: >>>> On Monday, 23 January 2023 20:06 -0000, >>>> in article <z8dmrhuM9xNk7FY=M@bongo-ra.co>, >>>> Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:03:52 -0600 >>>>> David Ritz <dritz@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>>>> You will never find an article posted only to rec.arts.books, in >>>>>> comp.lang.c++. >>>> >>>>> Not under normal circumstances but the claim is that a temporary >>>>> glitch on eternal-september caused it to happen and that David Brown >>>>> saw it with his own eyes. >>>> >>>> I'm of the "Show Me" school. I do not care about spurious, >>>> unsupported claims. The only glitch was human error. >>>> >>> >>> I'm sorry, but you are wrong. >>> >>> If you think servers - hardware and/or software - can never fail, you >>> are naïve beyond comprehension. >> >> I'm not sure that is really relevent. >> >> In this case, an unsupported assumption has been made that news >> server software (e.g. Cnews, INN and successors) "glitched" >> by changing the headers of a post and reposting it. >> >> My exposure to both Cnews and INN would lead me to assert >> that such a glitch is extremely unlikely. It's far more >> likely that someone, perhaps Christoph/Bonita, was playing >> games. >> > >The assertion of a server glitch is /not/ unsupported. I have >explained, in detail, exactly how things appeared. Both I and another >news.eternal-september.org user (red floyd) have said they saw the >original spurious post - the one Bonita replied to. I am not talking >about Bonita's reply that everyone saw, but the original spurious post >that she replied to. > >If the only evidence was Bonita's post, then I could understand if >people thought she was playing games - truly weird, and out of character >games though they may be. But do you really believe that I, and red >floyd, have been conspiring with Bonita and are making up everything? It was not my intention to cast doubt on observations, but rather to cast doubt that it was due to a "server glitch". >I can find no explanation that is more feasible than a server glitch. Does eternel-september.org honor cancels?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 20:36 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities (Was : Compute Unique Numbers in a Set) |
| Message-ID | <tqpc03$8v5p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88811 |
On 24/01/2023 19:50, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >> If the only evidence was Bonita's post, then I could understand if >> people thought she was playing games - truly weird, and out of character >> games though they may be. But do you really believe that I, and red >> floyd, have been conspiring with Bonita and are making up everything? > > It was not my intention to cast doubt on observations, but rather > to cast doubt that it was due to a "server glitch". > Fair enough. But how would a joke post by Bonita be visible in one server only? How would it break Usenet server setups by having a mismatch between the header and the message body? > >> I can find no explanation that is more feasible than a server glitch. > > Does eternel-september.org honor cancels? > I don't know. I have just tried taking a new newsreader (pan - since I am somewhat familiar with it, and it's a quick apt-get away) and connected to news.eternal-september.org. I downloaded the past 20 days of headers for comp.lang.c++. Sure enough, the bad post is there. In the list of headers, it appears to be a post from Muttley on 19.01.2023 at 10:31, in reply to Bonita. Click on the header and look at the post, and the subject, from field, data, newsgroup, etc., are all wrong. If I look in Google Groups, I see the same header for a post from Muttley at that time, but this time the body is correct - it is clearly a reply from Muttley to Bonita. news.eternal-september.org is giving out the wrong message body for that header. I encourage you and anyone else who doubts this to connect to news.eternal-september.org and try it yourself. You need an account, but it is free and quickly made, and the experiment will only take a few minutes. I give no credit to the idea that Bonita is capable of making a hack on that server to produce this effect. I give no credit to the idea that she would do so, in this way, if she were able to. If there is an alternative explanation to a server glitch (hardware and/or software), I would be happy to hear it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-24 19:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Server glitch vs other possibilities |
| Message-ID | <tqpcqd$94v1$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88811 |
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >>. . . >Does eternel-september.org honor cancels? It does not honor third-party cancels. It will honor first-party cancels using the Cancel-Lock protocol but not a cancel control message without using Cancel-Lock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web