Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.php > #15716 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-20 18:57 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-11-01 08:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 128 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.php
Check for military time Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> - 2015-10-20 18:57 +0000
Re: Check for military time Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> - 2015-10-20 19:00 +0000
Re: Check for military time Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2015-10-20 21:35 -0700
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-21 16:12 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-21 22:38 -0400
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 10:43 -0400
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 10:48 -0400
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 17:20 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 12:19 -0400
Re: Check for military time "Peter H. Coffin" <hellsop@ninehells.com> - 2015-10-22 15:32 -0500
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 23:08 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:19 -0400
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-10-22 22:07 -0400
Re: Check for military time "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> - 2015-10-23 02:26 +0000
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 17:13 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-22 22:57 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:22 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-23 09:19 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-23 09:32 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-23 15:43 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-23 11:11 -0400
Re: Check for military time gordonb.nwjln@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-23 12:36 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-23 13:40 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-23 18:54 +0100
Re: Check for military time Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2015-10-23 22:44 -0400
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-24 10:32 +0100
Re: Check for military time Derek Turner <frderek@suremail.je> - 2015-10-24 11:41 +0000
Re: Check for military time Norman Peelman <npeelman@cfl.rr.com> - 2015-10-24 15:15 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:21 -0400
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 20:38 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:47 -0400
Re: Check for military time gordonb.90ylr@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-22 18:21 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 20:23 -0400
Re: Check for military time gordonb.c5zx1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-10-22 17:40 -0500
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 11:12 +0200
Re: Check for military time Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-10-22 11:06 -0400
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 17:18 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 13:17 -0400
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Check for military time "M. Strobel" <strobel@example.com> - 2015-10-21 20:56 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-21 16:48 -0400
Re: Check for military time Stephan Elinghaus <221015.6.seli@spamgourmet.com> - 2015-10-22 13:16 +0200
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-22 15:11 +0200
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-22 10:23 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-10-27 14:10 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 09:25 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jørn Andersen <jorn@jorna.dk> - 2015-10-27 15:19 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 10:41 -0400
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-10-27 23:03 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-27 23:29 -0400
Re: Check for military time Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-10-29 10:08 +0100
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-10-29 21:44 -0400
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-29 22:35 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-10-30 20:08 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 16:22 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 11:58 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 08:27 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 14:36 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 09:05 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 16:51 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 11:09 -0500
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-30 22:33 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 20:01 -0400
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-03 19:51 +0100
Re: Check for military time Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-02 13:51 +0100
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-02 18:57 +0100
Re: Check for military time Erwin Moller <erwinmollerusenet@xs4all.nl> - 2015-11-04 15:18 +0100
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-11-04 21:18 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-05 07:51 +0100
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-10-30 20:04 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 16:24 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 12:06 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 08:30 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 14:39 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 09:07 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 16:58 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 11:05 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-02 08:14 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 10:01 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-02 17:54 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 12:50 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-02 19:05 +0100
Re: Check for military time Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-11-02 18:23 +0000
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 15:23 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-02 15:16 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-03 05:47 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 08:47 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-04 03:55 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-03 22:09 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-04 08:49 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-04 08:29 -0500
Re: Check for military time Paul Herber <paul@pherber.com> - 2015-11-04 14:14 +0000
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-04 10:00 -0500
Re: Check for military time Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-06 13:11 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-06 09:45 -0500
Re: Check for military time Matthew Carter <m@ahungry.com> - 2015-11-07 21:50 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-07 22:05 -0500
Re: Check for military time gordonb.2zzss@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-11-08 20:50 -0600
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-09 10:29 +0100
Re: Check for military time gordonb.00syf@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2015-11-10 23:42 -0600
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 07:46 +0100
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 07:50 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 08:06 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 15:15 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 09:21 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 17:46 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 15:12 -0500
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 22:23 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 17:17 -0500
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 08:05 -0500
OT: Munging addresses (was: Re: Check for military time) Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 19:18 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 15:16 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-11 22:29 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-11 17:20 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-12 07:47 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-12 10:15 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-12 17:17 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-12 11:59 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-12 18:51 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-12 14:20 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-12 20:59 +0100
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-12 16:54 -0500
Re: OT: Munging addresses Jim Higgins <ILikeMy@Privacy.invalid> - 2015-11-18 16:24 +0000
PHP code section end marker (was: Check for military time) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-27 22:58 +0100
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-10-30 20:01 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-30 16:27 -0400
Re: Check for military time Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2015-11-01 12:12 +0100
Re: Check for military time Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-11-01 08:31 -0500
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 07:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5642E442.8040103@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15862 |
Gordon Burditt schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 06:42: >>>> You take yourself way too seriously. You really believe spammers will >>>> scan the body of usenet postings to find working e-mail-addresses? >>> >>> I do, and I think I've proved it. I put an email address like this: >>> >>> spamsucks.f1d2d2f924e986ac86fdf7b36c94bcdf32beec15@burditt.org >>> >>> into the body of a USENET post, and scan the server logs for that >>> address after a few days. I don't ALWAYS get email at an address >>> lik that, but it happens sometimes. I've seen spams with such an >>> address show up even after a few years from the one time I put that >>> address in a post. The chance of a spammer guessing that long mess >>> of hex digits is a lot less than spammers extracting email addresses >>> from USENET posts (and, for that matter, from HTML on web sites). >> >> I stand corrected. But I believe this is fetched from websites who >> provide usenet archives (Google groups etc.) and of not via NNTP. > > It doesn't matter where it's fetched from or what protocol is used. > It's rude to expose someone else's email address unmunged with > intent to get them spammed, or even with reckless disregard for > whether they get spammed or not. It's even more rude to use munged addresses. See: <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> <https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> Spam is something we all have to deal with and address munging instead of a working spam filter just dumps the problem to others who will then get the NDRs caused by the invalid address etc.. BTW: usenet@arnowelzel.de is valid and will be read. And spam to this address is way less than to other addresses I don't use for usenet postings. > To make this remotely relevant to PHP, I do recall someone clever > wrote a cute PHP page that would serve up web pages with random > text, random links, and random mailto: links that pointed at a > honeypot mail server specified by the person installing the software. > > If you expected this to follow a normal filesystem hierarchy, well, > you soon discovered that it actually had infinite depth. A web > crawler doing depth-first descent ended up with a URL like > http://my.example.com/honeypot/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x/page.php > . Actually it just responded to *ANY* URL under a specific directory > and used relative links 1 directory level lower. The code came > with instructions to exclude that directory in robots.txt so Google's > and other legitimate web crawlers wouldn't get stuck in an infinite > loop. Those obey robots.txt; spammers, at least most of them, > don't. Nice idea. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 07:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5642E551.2010205@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15863 |
Arno Welzel schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 07:46: > Gordon Burditt schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 06:42: > >>>>> You take yourself way too seriously. You really believe spammers will >>>>> scan the body of usenet postings to find working e-mail-addresses? >>>> >>>> I do, and I think I've proved it. I put an email address like this: >>>> >>>> spamsucks.f1d2d2f924e986ac86fdf7b36c94bcdf32beec15@burditt.org >>>> >>>> into the body of a USENET post, and scan the server logs for that >>>> address after a few days. I don't ALWAYS get email at an address >>>> lik that, but it happens sometimes. I've seen spams with such an >>>> address show up even after a few years from the one time I put that >>>> address in a post. The chance of a spammer guessing that long mess >>>> of hex digits is a lot less than spammers extracting email addresses >>>> from USENET posts (and, for that matter, from HTML on web sites). >>> >>> I stand corrected. But I believe this is fetched from websites who >>> provide usenet archives (Google groups etc.) and of not via NNTP. >> >> It doesn't matter where it's fetched from or what protocol is used. >> It's rude to expose someone else's email address unmunged with >> intent to get them spammed, or even with reckless disregard for >> whether they get spammed or not. > > It's even more rude to use munged addresses. > > See: > > <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> > <https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> > > Spam is something we all have to deal with and address munging instead > of a working spam filter just dumps the problem to others who will then > get the NDRs caused by the invalid address etc.. > > BTW: usenet@arnowelzel.de is valid and will be read. And spam to this > address is way less than to other addresses I don't use for usenet postings. [...] Oh - and especially Mr. S. address is also visible at the Debian mailing list: <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00347.html> So it *is* already public (look at the source of the archive page - the address is there without any munging at all). -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 08:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1vebp$e6b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15864 |
On 11/11/2015 1:50 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Arno Welzel schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 07:46: > >> Gordon Burditt schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 06:42: >> >>>>>> You take yourself way too seriously. You really believe spammers will >>>>>> scan the body of usenet postings to find working e-mail-addresses? >>>>> >>>>> I do, and I think I've proved it. I put an email address like this: >>>>> >>>>> spamsucks.f1d2d2f924e986ac86fdf7b36c94bcdf32beec15@burditt.org >>>>> >>>>> into the body of a USENET post, and scan the server logs for that >>>>> address after a few days. I don't ALWAYS get email at an address >>>>> lik that, but it happens sometimes. I've seen spams with such an >>>>> address show up even after a few years from the one time I put that >>>>> address in a post. The chance of a spammer guessing that long mess >>>>> of hex digits is a lot less than spammers extracting email addresses >>>>> from USENET posts (and, for that matter, from HTML on web sites). >>>> >>>> I stand corrected. But I believe this is fetched from websites who >>>> provide usenet archives (Google groups etc.) and of not via NNTP. >>> >>> It doesn't matter where it's fetched from or what protocol is used. >>> It's rude to expose someone else's email address unmunged with >>> intent to get them spammed, or even with reckless disregard for >>> whether they get spammed or not. >> >> It's even more rude to use munged addresses. >> >> See: >> >> <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> >> <https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> >> >> Spam is something we all have to deal with and address munging instead >> of a working spam filter just dumps the problem to others who will then >> get the NDRs caused by the invalid address etc.. >> >> BTW: usenet@arnowelzel.de is valid and will be read. And spam to this >> address is way less than to other addresses I don't use for usenet postings. > [...] > > Oh - and especially Mr. S. address is also visible at the Debian mailing > list: > > <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00347.html> > > So it *is* already public (look at the source of the archive page - the > address is there without any munging at all). > Which does not make it OK for you to post it in usenet. But you're a troll, as you have repeatedly proven. And the worst kind. You can't lie your way out of it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 15:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <56434D85.4000402@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15866 |
Am 2015-11-11 um 14:06 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: > On 11/11/2015 1:50 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: [...] >> Oh - and especially Mr. S. address is also visible at the Debian mailing >> list: >> >> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00347.html> >> >> So it *is* already public (look at the source of the archive page - the >> address is there without any munging at all). >> > > Which does not make it OK for you to post it in usenet. It makes no difference, as the address is already public and well known to spammers. Your own fault - not mine. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 09:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1vipa$v9k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15867 |
On 11/11/2015 9:15 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Am 2015-11-11 um 14:06 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: > >> On 11/11/2015 1:50 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > [...] >>> Oh - and especially Mr. S. address is also visible at the Debian mailing >>> list: >>> >>> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00347.html> >>> >>> So it *is* already public (look at the source of the archive page - the >>> address is there without any munging at all). >>> >> >> Which does not make it OK for you to post it in usenet. > > It makes no difference, as the address is already public and well known > to spammers. Your own fault - not mine. > > > You can't escape your lies, troll. And you can't blame someone else for your actions. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 17:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <564370D2.4050607@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15868 |
Am 2015-11-11 um 15:21 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: > On 11/11/2015 9:15 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Am 2015-11-11 um 14:06 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >> >>> On 11/11/2015 1:50 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> [...] >>>> Oh - and especially Mr. S. address is also visible at the Debian mailing >>>> list: >>>> >>>> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00347.html> >>>> >>>> So it *is* already public (look at the source of the archive page - the >>>> address is there without any munging at all). >>>> >>> >>> Which does not make it OK for you to post it in usenet. >> >> It makes no difference, as the address is already public and well known >> to spammers. Your own fault - not mine. > > You can't escape your lies, troll. And you can't blame someone else for > your actions. I don't blame anyone for my actions. But you did ALSO make your address public. Or do you deny that the Debian mailing list shows your address? -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n207bn$n1k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15869 |
On 11/11/2015 11:46 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Am 2015-11-11 um 15:21 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: > >> On 11/11/2015 9:15 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Am 2015-11-11 um 14:06 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >>> >>>> On 11/11/2015 1:50 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> Oh - and especially Mr. S. address is also visible at the Debian mailing >>>>> list: >>>>> >>>>> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00347.html> >>>>> >>>>> So it *is* already public (look at the source of the archive page - the >>>>> address is there without any munging at all). >>>>> >>>> >>>> Which does not make it OK for you to post it in usenet. >>> >>> It makes no difference, as the address is already public and well known >>> to spammers. Your own fault - not mine. >> >> You can't escape your lies, troll. And you can't blame someone else for >> your actions. > > I don't blame anyone for my actions. But you did ALSO make your address > public. Or do you deny that the Debian mailing list shows your address? > > That is no excuse for your actions. You are a troll, and nothing will ever change that - despite your attempts to justify your actions. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 22:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5643B1EA.3070003@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15871 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 21:12: > On 11/11/2015 11:46 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Am 2015-11-11 um 15:21 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >> >>> On 11/11/2015 9:15 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> Am 2015-11-11 um 14:06 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >>>> >>>>> On 11/11/2015 1:50 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> Oh - and especially Mr. S. address is also visible at the Debian mailing >>>>>> list: >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00347.html> >>>>>> >>>>>> So it *is* already public (look at the source of the archive page - the >>>>>> address is there without any munging at all). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which does not make it OK for you to post it in usenet. >>>> >>>> It makes no difference, as the address is already public and well known >>>> to spammers. Your own fault - not mine. >>> >>> You can't escape your lies, troll. And you can't blame someone else for >>> your actions. >> >> I don't blame anyone for my actions. But you did ALSO make your address >> public. Or do you deny that the Debian mailing list shows your address? >> >> > > That is no excuse for your actions. You are a troll, and nothing will > ever change that - despite your attempts to justify your actions. I don't care what you think of me. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 17:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n20el7$mmo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15873 |
On 11/11/2015 4:23 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 21:12: > >> On 11/11/2015 11:46 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Am 2015-11-11 um 15:21 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >>> >>>> On 11/11/2015 9:15 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>> Am 2015-11-11 um 14:06 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/11/2015 1:50 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>>> Oh - and especially Mr. S. address is also visible at the Debian mailing >>>>>>> list: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/04/msg00347.html> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So it *is* already public (look at the source of the archive page - the >>>>>>> address is there without any munging at all). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which does not make it OK for you to post it in usenet. >>>>> >>>>> It makes no difference, as the address is already public and well known >>>>> to spammers. Your own fault - not mine. >>>> >>>> You can't escape your lies, troll. And you can't blame someone else for >>>> your actions. >>> >>> I don't blame anyone for my actions. But you did ALSO make your address >>> public. Or do you deny that the Debian mailing list shows your address? >>> >>> >> >> That is no excuse for your actions. You are a troll, and nothing will >> ever change that - despite your attempts to justify your actions. > > I don't care what you think of me. > Then why do you deny it so hard? Just remember - it's not just me who knows you're a troll. Most readers of this newsgroups have seen your behavior. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 08:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1vead$e6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15863 |
On 11/11/2015 1:46 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Gordon Burditt schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 06:42: > >>>>> You take yourself way too seriously. You really believe spammers will >>>>> scan the body of usenet postings to find working e-mail-addresses? >>>> >>>> I do, and I think I've proved it. I put an email address like this: >>>> >>>> spamsucks.f1d2d2f924e986ac86fdf7b36c94bcdf32beec15@burditt.org >>>> >>>> into the body of a USENET post, and scan the server logs for that >>>> address after a few days. I don't ALWAYS get email at an address >>>> lik that, but it happens sometimes. I've seen spams with such an >>>> address show up even after a few years from the one time I put that >>>> address in a post. The chance of a spammer guessing that long mess >>>> of hex digits is a lot less than spammers extracting email addresses >>>> from USENET posts (and, for that matter, from HTML on web sites). >>> >>> I stand corrected. But I believe this is fetched from websites who >>> provide usenet archives (Google groups etc.) and of not via NNTP. >> >> It doesn't matter where it's fetched from or what protocol is used. >> It's rude to expose someone else's email address unmunged with >> intent to get them spammed, or even with reckless disregard for >> whether they get spammed or not. > > It's even more rude to use munged addresses. > > See: > > <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> > <https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> > Bullshit. My munging my email address does not harm you or anyone else. And all of those posts are based on the first one - which is the opinion of one person. Millions of people all over usenet have different views. A vast majority of them don't even use munged addresses - they use completely invalid addresses. You are definitely in the minority. > Spam is something we all have to deal with and address munging instead > of a working spam filter just dumps the problem to others who will then > get the NDRs caused by the invalid address etc.. > I have spam filters. But that does not mean I give my email address out publicly on usenet. > BTW: usenet@arnowelzel.de is valid and will be read. And spam to this > address is way less than to other addresses I don't use for usenet postings. > So? Who gives a damn if your email address is valid or not? But you're a troll, and the worst kind, as you have repeatedly shown. Nothing more. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 19:18 +0100 |
| Subject | OT: Munging addresses (was: Re: Check for military time) |
| Message-ID | <5643866B.60300@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15865 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 14:05: > On 11/11/2015 1:46 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: [...] >> It's even more rude to use munged addresses. >> >> See: >> >> <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> >> <https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> >> > > Bullshit. My munging my email address does not harm you or anyone else. It does. And the reasons are explained above. > And all of those posts are based on the first one - which is the They aren't and all are about different aspects about this topic. But you are to ignorant to see this and you also seem to ignore RFC2822: "In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that does not belong to the author(s) of the message." And a "munged" address can never by the mailbox of the message author - it's just an invalid address, nothing else. Even worse - it may be the mailbox by someone *else*. > opinion of one person. Millions of people all over usenet have > different views. A vast majority of them don't even use munged > addresses - they use completely invalid addresses. When they use the TLD ".invalid" it's way better than "munged" ones which may be invalid as well since all decent MTAs won't even try to deliver spam to the TLD ".invalid" which is by definition meant to construct invalid addresses. But munged addresses are invalid as well - but the MTA does not know and will try do deliver the spam. This uses resources and may even cause NDAs to other people whose addresses got used as sender by the spammer. And calling people "troll" just because they don't agree with you is quite childish. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 15:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <n207ik$o9a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15870 |
On 11/11/2015 1:18 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 14:05: > >> On 11/11/2015 1:46 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > [...] >>> It's even more rude to use munged addresses. >>> >>> See: >>> >>> <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> >>> <https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> >>> >> >> Bullshit. My munging my email address does not harm you or anyone else. > > It does. And the reasons are explained above. > You tell me just HOW my munging my email address is hurting you. Don't point at someone else's opinion (which is full of crap, anyway). Tell me why it is harming YOU. >> And all of those posts are based on the first one - which is the > > They aren't and all are about different aspects about this topic. But > you are to ignorant to see this and you also seem to ignore RFC2822: > > "In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that > does not belong to the author(s) of the message." > > And a "munged" address can never by the mailbox of the message author - > it's just an invalid address, nothing else. Even worse - it may be the > mailbox by someone *else*. > Who said the address I'm using belongs to someone else? Not my claim - yours. Now prove it. >> opinion of one person. Millions of people all over usenet have >> different views. A vast majority of them don't even use munged >> addresses - they use completely invalid addresses. > > When they use the TLD ".invalid" it's way better than "munged" ones > which may be invalid as well since all decent MTAs won't even try to > deliver spam to the TLD ".invalid" which is by definition meant to > construct invalid addresses. > > But munged addresses are invalid as well - but the MTA does not know and > will try do deliver the spam. This uses resources and may even cause > NDAs to other people whose addresses got used as sender by the spammer. > > And calling people "troll" just because they don't agree with you is > quite childish. > Just calling you what you are - a troll. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like it, tough crap. You shouldn't troll. Many people knows you're a troll, and it's because of your actions, not my calling you one. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 22:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <5643B338.1010301@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15872 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 21:16: > On 11/11/2015 1:18 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 14:05: >> >>> On 11/11/2015 1:46 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> [...] >>>> It's even more rude to use munged addresses. >>>> >>>> See: >>>> >>>> <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/> >>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> >>>> <https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> >>>> >>> >>> Bullshit. My munging my email address does not harm you or anyone else. >> >> It does. And the reasons are explained above. >> > > You tell me just HOW my munging my email address is hurting you. Don't > point at someone else's opinion (which is full of crap, anyway). Tell > me why it is harming YOU. When I hit "reply", the mail will not be delivered, since you don't put a valid address to the From: header. You may not see this "hurting" anyone - but in fact this is a sabotage of a working system where one can just reply someone using the provided functions in their software. You force people to invest more time as neccessary to fix a broken e-mail-address according to your instructions just because you want to avoid spam. >>> And all of those posts are based on the first one - which is the >> >> They aren't and all are about different aspects about this topic. But >> you are to ignorant to see this and you also seem to ignore RFC2822: >> >> "In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that >> does not belong to the author(s) of the message." >> >> And a "munged" address can never by the mailbox of the message author - >> it's just an invalid address, nothing else. Even worse - it may be the >> mailbox by someone *else*. >> > > Who said the address I'm using belongs to someone else? Not my claim - > yours. Now prove it. As often you don't read, what I wrote. I did NOT claim that your munged address *does* belong to someone else. But as usual - you don't understand the basic problem. [...] > Many people knows you're a troll, and it's because of your actions, not > my calling you one. Except you nobody called me a troll yet in all the decades I'm active on the net now. But if you feel better doing so - I don't care. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-11 17:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <n20eql$nk8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15874 |
On 11/11/2015 4:29 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 21:16: > >> On 11/11/2015 1:18 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 14:05: >>> >>>> On 11/11/2015 1:46 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> It's even more rude to use munged addresses. >>>>> >>>>> See: >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/> >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_munging> >>>>> <https://woozle.org/~neale/papers/reply-to-still-harmful.html> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Bullshit. My munging my email address does not harm you or anyone else. >>> >>> It does. And the reasons are explained above. >>> >> >> You tell me just HOW my munging my email address is hurting you. Don't >> point at someone else's opinion (which is full of crap, anyway). Tell >> me why it is harming YOU. > > When I hit "reply", the mail will not be delivered, since you don't put > a valid address to the From: header. > Gee, if you can't read a simple instruction in my sig, then I don't want an email from you. > You may not see this "hurting" anyone - but in fact this is a sabotage > of a working system where one can just reply someone using the provided > functions in their software. You force people to invest more time as > neccessary to fix a broken e-mail-address according to your instructions > just because you want to avoid spam. > No, it just means I don't have to put up with emails from idiots who can't follow simple instructions. But then I guess removing a single character is just too hard for you. Fine - you're one of the ones I don't care to receive email from. > >>>> And all of those posts are based on the first one - which is the >>> >>> They aren't and all are about different aspects about this topic. But >>> you are to ignorant to see this and you also seem to ignore RFC2822: >>> >>> "In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that >>> does not belong to the author(s) of the message." >>> >>> And a "munged" address can never by the mailbox of the message author - >>> it's just an invalid address, nothing else. Even worse - it may be the >>> mailbox by someone *else*. >>> >> >> Who said the address I'm using belongs to someone else? Not my claim - >> yours. Now prove it. > > As often you don't read, what I wrote. I did NOT claim that your munged > address *does* belong to someone else. > > But as usual - you don't understand the basic problem. > You told me I shouldn't use an email address belonging to someone else. So prove I am doing that. > [...] >> Many people knows you're a troll, and it's because of your actions, not >> my calling you one. > > Except you nobody called me a troll yet in all the decades I'm active on > the net now. But if you feel better doing so - I don't care. > > Anyone who's seen your actions in this newsgroup can tell you're a troll. And if you didn't care, you wouldn't argue that you aren't a troll so hard. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 07:47 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <5644360B.9030109@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15876 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 23:20: > On 11/11/2015 4:29 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 21:16: >> >>> On 11/11/2015 1:18 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: [...] >>>> They aren't and all are about different aspects about this topic. But >>>> you are to ignorant to see this and you also seem to ignore RFC2822: >>>> >>>> "In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that >>>> does not belong to the author(s) of the message." >>>> >>>> And a "munged" address can never by the mailbox of the message author - >>>> it's just an invalid address, nothing else. Even worse - it may be the >>>> mailbox by someone *else*. >>>> >>> >>> Who said the address I'm using belongs to someone else? Not my claim - >>> yours. Now prove it. >> >> As often you don't read, what I wrote. I did NOT claim that your munged >> address *does* belong to someone else. >> >> But as usual - you don't understand the basic problem. >> > > You told me I shouldn't use an email address belonging to someone else. > So prove I am doing that. I don't need to prove that as I did NOT say that you use someone elses address. As usual you seem not to understand the basic problem. And now go back under the stone where you came from and do what ever you want. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 10:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <n22a91$kp5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15877 |
On 11/12/2015 1:47 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 23:20: > >> On 11/11/2015 4:29 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-11 um 21:16: >>> >>>> On 11/11/2015 1:18 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > [...] >>>>> They aren't and all are about different aspects about this topic. But >>>>> you are to ignorant to see this and you also seem to ignore RFC2822: >>>>> >>>>> "In all cases, the "From:" field SHOULD NOT contain any mailbox that >>>>> does not belong to the author(s) of the message." >>>>> >>>>> And a "munged" address can never by the mailbox of the message author - >>>>> it's just an invalid address, nothing else. Even worse - it may be the >>>>> mailbox by someone *else*. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Who said the address I'm using belongs to someone else? Not my claim - >>>> yours. Now prove it. >>> >>> As often you don't read, what I wrote. I did NOT claim that your munged >>> address *does* belong to someone else. >>> >>> But as usual - you don't understand the basic problem. >>> >> >> You told me I shouldn't use an email address belonging to someone else. >> So prove I am doing that. > > I don't need to prove that as I did NOT say that you use someone elses > address. As usual you seem not to understand the basic problem. > > And now go back under the stone where you came from and do what ever you > want. > Oh, I understand it, all right. Like all trolls, you make claims then try to deny ever making them when challenged to back up those claims. It doesn't work; the proof is stored on multiple servers around the world. And it's just more proof of your trolling. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 17:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <5644BB88.3040205@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15878 |
Am 2015-11-12 um 16:15 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: > Oh, I understand it, all right. Like all trolls, you make claims then > try to deny ever making them when challenged to back up those claims. READ (<5643866B.60300@arnowelzel.de>): "Even worse - it may be the mailbox by someone *else*." You understand the part "may be"? Do you? I don't think so. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 11:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <n22gcm$et7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15879 |
On 11/12/2015 11:17 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Am 2015-11-12 um 16:15 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: > >> Oh, I understand it, all right. Like all trolls, you make claims then >> try to deny ever making them when challenged to back up those claims. > > READ (<5643866B.60300@arnowelzel.de>): > > "Even worse - it may be the mailbox by someone *else*." > > You understand the part "may be"? Do you? I don't think so. > > I understand it, all right. And I understand you once again are still trying to weasel out of your words, because you can't back up your claims when challenged. It's what trolls do. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 18:51 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <5644D19E.9020203@arnowelzel.de> |
| In reply to | #15880 |
Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-12 um 17:59: > On 11/12/2015 11:17 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >> Am 2015-11-12 um 16:15 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >> >>> Oh, I understand it, all right. Like all trolls, you make claims then >>> try to deny ever making them when challenged to back up those claims. >> >> READ (<5643866B.60300@arnowelzel.de>): >> >> "Even worse - it may be the mailbox by someone *else*." >> >> You understand the part "may be"? Do you? I don't think so. >> >> > > I understand it, all right. And I understand you once again are still > trying to weasel out of your words, because you can't back up your > claims when challenged. I am not challenged. It seems a challenge for you to understand your own mother language. -- Arno Welzel http://arnowelzel.de http://de-rec-fahrrad.de http://fahrradzukunft.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-12 14:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Munging addresses |
| Message-ID | <n22okk$j48$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #15881 |
On 11/12/2015 12:51 PM, Arno Welzel wrote: > Jerry Stuckle schrieb am 2015-11-12 um 17:59: > >> On 11/12/2015 11:17 AM, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> Am 2015-11-12 um 16:15 schrieb Jerry Stuckle: >>> >>>> Oh, I understand it, all right. Like all trolls, you make claims then >>>> try to deny ever making them when challenged to back up those claims. >>> >>> READ (<5643866B.60300@arnowelzel.de>): >>> >>> "Even worse - it may be the mailbox by someone *else*." >>> >>> You understand the part "may be"? Do you? I don't think so. >>> >>> >> >> I understand it, all right. And I understand you once again are still >> trying to weasel out of your words, because you can't back up your >> claims when challenged. > > I am not challenged. It seems a challenge for you to understand your own > mother language. > > Nope. I understand English perfect. And I understand YOU perfectly. You just continue to prove you are just a troll - and not a very good one at that. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.php
csiph-web