Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350928
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Snit digest 206 / 2016-04-18 |
| Date | 2016-04-20 05:01 +0000 |
| Organization | O.W.L. |
| Message-ID | <nhgjdu30a3r.jie@rooftop.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <D33C0B52.705D8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <fhjgie0.a3@rooftop.invalid> <D33C45E8.70617%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <fhjgie802.qfa03@rooftop.invalid> <D33C5173.7062E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
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.
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