Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350929
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Date | 2016-04-19 22:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33C5E2A.70638%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <fhjgie0.a3@rooftop.invalid> <D33C45E8.70617%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <fhjgie802.qfa03@rooftop.invalid> <D33C5173.7062E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid> |
On 4/19/16, 10:01 PM, in article nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> 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. >> > > Miles and miles of blah blah blah and not one Message-ID. > Must have been fretwizzen posts. > Miles and miles of Carroll crying about how he was hacked... but you say he only claimed he was hacked because "he glanced at a post by fretwizzen and mistook the address for his own." All of that... what you call "miles and miles" - because he made a mistake. LOL! Face it: your story is beyond idiotic. -- * 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