Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350927
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Date | 2016-04-19 21:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33C5173.7062E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <hgjjfu830a.j3ifa@rooftop.invalid> <D33C0B52.705D8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <fhjgie0.a3@rooftop.invalid> <D33C45E8.70617%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <fhjgie802.qfa03@rooftop.invalid> |
On 4/19/16, 8:58 PM, in article fhjgie802.qfa03@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
...
>>>>>> But in case you care about evidence:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM:
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being,
>>>>>> don't trust anything from it.
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM:
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>> Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account
>>>>>> so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
>>>>>> anything that's coming from it was written by me.
>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would he repeatedly specify WHICH of his accounts if he only had one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have message-ids for thoses posts by "Carroll"? No doubt they were
>>>>> made from your fretwizzen account.
>>>>
>>>> We can look them up. But if one or both are from the fretwizzer account
>>>> will
>>>> you admit he has been busted?
>>>
>>> No, because he could have been momentarily fooled by the similarity
>>> of email addresses.
>>
>> He could have been fooled into thinking he had to specify which of his
>> accounts he was referencing if he was being forged? WTF?
>>
>> Really, how does this make ANY sense to you?
>
> Easy, moron. If I saw a post by ow1@rooftop.invalid, and did not read
> it carefully to see the l/1 swap, I might be forgiven for posting a
> warning that my owl account had been hacked. Now if someone posting
> as ow1@rooftop invalid claimed "my owl account has been hacked," then
> you have the same situation that we have here if the post claiming
> "fretwizzer has been hacked" were made by fretwizzen. fretwizzer could
> be forgiven for thinking that his own fretwizzer account had been hacked
> if he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own.
So he merely made a mistake when he went on and on and on about how his
account was hacked. Let us show just some of the posts from his "mistake":
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carroll, 4/10/2015 4:04 PM:
-----
Cute trick... To the guy who hacked my Google account.
-----
No details. Seems to treat it as a joke.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:02 PM:
-----
Email Hacking Is A Serious Crime
-----
No longer "cute"... now it is a serious crime. OK.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 5:07 PM:
By now he is posting more links to how serious this crime against him is.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 7:25 PM:
-----
I didn't write that.
-----
Now he is denying the posts from his own account. OK, he was "hacked".
Someone else posted this. Hard to hack a gmail account given how they use
two-step authentication and someone would need access to his phone or the
like... but at least POSSIBLE.
Even then, though, if someone tries to guess your password Google alerts you
and lets you know what IP address and other info. I know because someone in
a Denver internet cafe has tried mine on several occasions.
Google even forces you to change your password when this happens. Very hard
to hack these days.
So already Carroll's story is unlikely.
But let us accept it... someone somehow hacked his account bypassing the two
step verification. This person did not, however, change his password and
Carroll posted within an hour of the "hacker". Before that, unless he is an
idiot, he changed his password and the "hacker" was locked out. The "hacker"
got one post in.
But Carroll could not leave his story there.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:36 PM:
-----
Someone hacked my fretwizzer gmail acct so, for the time being,
don't trust anything from it.
-----
Wait. What? Even after Carroll figured out this "hacker" who was too stupid
to change his password had broken into his account and Carroll *surely* must
have changed his own password, he is saying the "hacker" might still have
access. Might be able to break Google's two-step verification process
*again*.
This is *very* unlikely... to the point of being unbelievable.
Even worse for him: he notes which of his accounts he is claiming was hacked
- but in the past he has denied even using the other accounts! LOL! He
screwed up and made it very clear he has multiple accounts and felt the need
to note which one. He made the same mistake in the next quote where he
speaks of WHICH of his gmail accounts he is claiming was hacked. Oops! If he
only posts with one there would be no need to specify which one!
He has completely screwed up in his game to pretend he posts with only one
gmail account. Completely idiotic of him, too!
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:38 PM:
-----
Some mentally deficient child hacked my 'fretwizzer' gmail account
so I may have to kill it. For the time being, don't assume
anything that's coming from it was written by me.
-----
He is still saying that he may have to kill the account instead of just
changing the password which anyone with half a brain would have already done
(and Google *forces* you to do when someone even tries to hack your
account... I know because someone in the Denver area has tried to hack mine
multiple times... likely Carroll but I have no proof of this). And he
specifies WHICH of his accounts! He is directly admitting he uses more than
one account! His claim of being "forged" with his second account is a lie.
Proved.
Carroll, 4/10/2015 8:40 PM:
-----
Looks like it's still being hacked despite me taking precautions,
I may have to kill the account.
-----
What makes it look like its still being hacked? And what precautions other
than changing the two-step verification options does he need? And how would
someone bypass this... is he really on the NSA watch list? Seems you would
need someone at that level to be doing this. He watches too much TV where
they computer hackers spend thirty seconds and bypass all security.
Just nonsense.
Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:05 PM:
-----
Apparently Google is having issues with their accounts to the
point where they're ready to undertake some additional measures.
-----
But, of course, no evidence of this... and what measures? They already alert
users if someone else tries to guess your password and use two-step
authentication and even force you to make a new password if it seems someone
is trying to hack you.
-----
They're now involving several federal agencies in things they
didn't bother with previously in an effort to deal with people who
hack into accounts. They've asked me to leave the account open.
-----
So now Google is letting Carroll know how they are handling these things -
and asking him to leave a *hacked* account open... one someone can be using
to steal his identity. No. This does not pass the sniff test in any way.
Even if they were doing this for some bizarre sting operation, which is in
itself far fetched, they would have told Carroll to not make it public
information so the hacker would not know.
Just insanity. His own story is so idiotic and full of idiotic claims it
simply cannot be true. Carroll uses his secondary Google account - the one
he accesses via Tor and is referred to as his Tor account - to have
plausible deniability for things he says there. Now he is working to do the
same thing with his main account. Maybe Carroll read a report like this:
<http://cnnmon.ie/111QeT8> [money.com]. If so he missed the part where they
note if you are *really* hacked, which is rare, the hackers change your
password and lock you out. Why would they not?
-----
There's some new legislation that will help them deal with this
issue... which probably means more BS for us ;)
-----
Yes, new legislation to make sure Carroll does not have to deal with
"hackers" and "forgers" which do not even exist.
The funny part is, this happened shortly after someone in the Denver area,
likely Carroll, tried to guess *my* passwords and they did it from an
Internet café (Google tells you the IP and that can be used to trace back).
My guess: Carroll is the one who was working to guess my password and
figured this new lie of his was a good way to deny his own words even more
than he does with his Tor account *and* a way to make it so if I had talked
about him trying to hack my account he could say I was just copying his
comments. "Proving" I read his posts... which for now I am to see how absurd
his lies are. :)
Carroll, 4/11/2015 12:25 PM:
-----
The person who hacked into my Gmail acct. changed the wording on
this post. I've removed the others but Google asked me to leave
one standing for some odd reason.
-----
Here Carroll claims the hacker changed the wording on a post of his from
*before* he had even claimed he was hacked. So this hacker not only can
*post* for him but edit his old Usenet posts.
I call utter bullshit on this. Out and out lie from Carroll. And then
Carroll says Google asked him to not delete these "hacked" posts... this is
nonsense. Why would Google want him to leave forged posts in the public and
why would Google not just keep their own copy? Even Carroll notes it is for
"some odd reason" - yeah, because Carroll is telling stories that make *no*
sense at all.
Carroll is lying. Maybe there is some kernel of truth to his stories? Even
if so - and frankly it is unlikely he will ever show any evidence to back
his claims - the details he is posting are absurd.
Carroll, 4/11/2015 2:10 PM:
-----
And he's so high he thinks people still have to manually enter all
their passwords in whenever they want to use anything that's been
password protected ;)
-----
Nobody had suggested, hinted, implied, or said anything like what Carroll
says they did.
Maybe his story will be someone stole his laptop (or mobile device) and he
had his passwords saved? If so why not have the device deactivated remotely?
Why has he not said anything about this?
My guess: he realizes he screwed up when trying to guess my passwords and is
now building a story so he can say his computer was stolen and it was not
him. Or, LOL, maybe someone broke into his house and did it.
This unknown hacker knew he was obsessed with me and carried on acting like
him. Makes complete sense, eh?
Carroll, 4/12/2015 8:45 AM:
-----
The first one, that has since been deleted. My bad for having such
a feeble password on this account.
-----
Now he suggests it was merely from someone guessing his password - which
contradicts his above insinuations that it could have been from a saved
password on a device he had.
His story changes with the telling.
But as noted, when someone tries to guess your password Google has ways to
deal with it. I know - Carroll or someone in his neck of the woods recently
tried it with me.
Carroll, 4/12/2015 9:29 AM:
-----
The account in question here is a gmail account. Contrary to
Snit's delusions, I have no idea what a TOR account looks like but
it's a good bet it doesn't bear much of a resemblance to a gmail
account.
-----
Here Carroll plays stupid and pretends that if when he or anyone uses the
Tor browser *Carroll* pointed to this somehow changes the way the gmail
interface looks. Um, no. Worse it might do is make Google think you are in
another country and you would have to set it back to English. But the basic
look stays the same.
He is playing stupid and pretending to not know how the Tor browser he
pointed to works. Just idiotic of him.
-----
That idiocy aside, I love how Snit has repeatedly, for years,
feigned ignorance about gmail accounts, yet, he keeps disclosing
info that proves he knows about them. Some fools do stuff like
this when they believe people are as stupid as the fool needs them
to be ;)
-----
I do not think Google would allow you to edit your Usenet / groups posts but
I do not use it much and do not know for sure. Seems absurd that they
would... and others have now said they do not. But given how I do not use
Google Groups for posting why would I know the details of their system for
certain?
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:47 PM:
-----
Your obsession with me is insane. Working with Google I now have
proof you and ebot worked together to hack me. Clever. If I press
charges against you I have to also include her so you remain safe
for now.
Do not think this is over.
-----
No evidence of working with Google on this (and all out and out lies).
Carroll is making public threats based on lies.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:50 PM:
-----
I promised COLA your trolling days were over so you contacted ebot
and worked with her to hack my account. I might not be able to get
your ass handed to you in court over this but wait until your boss
at Yavapai College contacts you.
Maybe you should make that call first. Ask about your comments on
incest.
See if those can not be quoted.
-----
Direct lies and threats by Carroll.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:51 PM:
-----
You went too far this time Snit. We have trolled each other for
years but to contact ebot and get her to help you hack my account
was over a line.
-----
A complete and utter lie from Carroll.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:52 PM:
-----
The above post is Snit hacking my account.
-----
A complete and utter lie... more false accusations from him.
Carroll, 6/16/2015 8:53 PM:
-----
You edited those posts when you hacked my account. Do not trust
anything from my fretwizzer account now that Snit and ebot have
access to it.
-----
More unsupported claims and attacks by Carroll.
Carroll, 4/16/2015 8:56 PM:
-----
Working with Google I now have proof Snit and ebot hacked the
account. Many of the older posts were edited. You can see evidence
of this by Snit pointing to "old" posts which have been modifid to
say I claimed I was his "personal newsgroup rapist", a phrase I
have never used.
-----
No evidence of Carroll working with Google. No evidence of any older posts
being edited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And all of that is excused that Carroll just made a little mistake! LOL!
Really... that is insane.
>> And why did you ask for a link to the originals if you will not accept them
>> as proof he was referencing which of his accounts he uses? How can you even
>> pretend that makes any sense.
>>
>> Comes down to you now know he uses both accounts. Fine.
>>
>>>> If so I will see if I can find them. If not, what is the value of looking
>>>> them up for you? Remember: you are asking me to do you a favor to help you
>>>> get educated about his dishonesty... I already know he is lying... and it
>>>> would be shocking to find you did not already know as well (I suspect you
>>>> are just trolling).
>>>
>>> The value is that if they are indeed from the fretwizzen account, then
>>> they are your posts.
>>
>> This is a direct lie from you.
>
> Fuck off.
Ah, you tell direct lies about me, or at best make accusations you cannot
support, and I call you out on them and you cry. Boo hoo for you.
I mean, really, why don't you grow up a little?
>>> And if you don't wish to find them for the benefit of our inspection, then
>>> the quotes have no value whatsoever. I don't care one way or another. This
>>> is your "evidence." Defending it is on you.
>>>
>> You already said that even on being shown absolute proof that Carroll, even
>> from his non-TOR account, references which of his accounts he is using is not
>> going to get you to admit to the truth.
>
> This is a direct lie from you.
Ah, so if you see that one of both of those posts where Carroll speaks of
which of his accounts he means you *will* accept he uses both. Cool!
If you can verify that I will do what I can to dig them up for you.
But I bet you will NOT stick to that, either. You will act like Trump or
Clinton when they are asked questions. You will dodge, change, move goal
posts, and just whine.
...
>> Now if you want to re-think your comment and admit that if one or both of
>> those quotes comes from Carroll's fretwizzer account this proves he uses
>> both I am happy to do you the favor of digging them up if I can.
>
> Dig them up, bitch. I already explained it.
For someone begging me to do him a favor you sure do not have good people
skills!
>> If not, well, then do your own work. Not worth spending time doing you a
>> favor when you have already admitted you will just continue to lie.
>
> So you can't back your lies.
You are making accusations of lying... but you have no support.
Meanwhile I have posted proof of my claims about Carroll using multiple
accounts. It is not like you really doubt it - you are just trolling and
begging for attention.
I am giving you that attention - you should be thanking me.
--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-15 19:25 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-15 19:37 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-15 16:17 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 13:33 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-15 16:59 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 08:11 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 11:54 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 00:19 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-15 21:02 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 08:05 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:56 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 11:28 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 19:13 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 21:12 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 08:51 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 14:43 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 15:16 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 16:10 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:38 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 22:04 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:38 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 13:08 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:57 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 18:15 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:43 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 10:49 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 15:08 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 08:18 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 11:46 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 09:16 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 12:39 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 17:43 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 17:50 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 12:18 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 12:27 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 13:13 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 13:46 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 13:51 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:09 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:13 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 14:19 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:23 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 14:26 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:35 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 21:36 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:38 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 14:48 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:56 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 15:00 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 15:05 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:34 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-18 22:34 +0100
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:11 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:13 -0700
Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 21:38 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:42 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 05:51 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 08:24 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 16:37 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:49 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 16:53 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-19 12:04 -0500
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:15 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 13:08 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 21:14 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 21:39 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 22:03 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 16:21 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-19 17:07 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 20:36 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:19 -0400
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 12:44 -0400
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-19 18:27 -0400
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 16:15 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Richard King <kingsley651@webby.org> - 2016-04-19 19:32 -0400
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 03:39 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 04:01 +0000
Snit digest 211 / 2016-04-20 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 05:24 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 15:01 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 22:11 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 16:20 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-19 23:36 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 20:30 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 03:58 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 21:19 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 05:01 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 22:14 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 05:29 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 22:33 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 05:52 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 16:02 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 09:11 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-20 10:40 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-20 10:43 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 11:36 -0700
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 06:01 +0000
Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:30 -0700
Snit digest 207 / 2016-04-19 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 05:52 +0000
Re: Snit digest 207 / 2016-04-19 Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 23:25 -0700
Snit digest 208 / 2016-04-19 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-19 07:49 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 20:49 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 13:52 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 21:33 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 05:48 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-18 13:55 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 21:35 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-19 05:41 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 15:52 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 20:47 +0000
Re: Microsoft is the standard; Apple extends it; Ubuntu falls short. Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-18 22:59 +0000
Re: Microsoft is the standard; Apple extends it; Ubuntu falls short. DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:19 -0400
Re: Microsoft is the standard; Apple extends it; Ubuntu falls short. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-19 00:03 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 13:19 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 16:25 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 15:08 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:15 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 15:26 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:35 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 15:51 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:10 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 08:13 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 12:10 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 09:12 -0700
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 09:02 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 13:31 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:59 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 20:06 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:24 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:46 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-18 05:41 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 11:01 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 17:04 +0200
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 11:08 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 15:23 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:16 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-20 18:22 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 14:03 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 08:38 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 07:27 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 13:03 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:55 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:26 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 08:59 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 09:40 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 14:14 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 15:07 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 15:51 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 21:39 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 22:09 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 07:40 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Silver Slimer <linux@shit.is> - 2016-04-15 17:18 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-15 19:12 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:57 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 11:29 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:28 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-15 23:03 +0200
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:57 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Silver Slimer <linux@shit.is> - 2016-04-15 17:17 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-15 21:39 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:58 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-15 18:24 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 08:59 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-16 06:34 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 11:32 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Omar <omarsayeed@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-16 09:01 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 14:02 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-16 11:16 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 14:02 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-16 19:12 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 14:05 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-17 08:40 +0000
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-18 10:48 -0400
Re: Fabian: 10,000 addresses processed in 0.53 seconds with VBScript Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2016-04-18 15:06 +0000
csiph-web