And when you click on his link (or answer his post) he gets another.

Then you get the spam..

John

Really................you being scammed by someone that has a hard on
for folks that post in rec.ponds that is dead set on trashing any
group that these folks post in. Everyone hjere that has been here
awhile knows mne bteer than that.......so just go recondiser your
"assumptions" before jumping to conclusions!

The real Roy.............

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:52:22 -0400, JohnM wrote:

===And when you click on his link (or answer his post) he gets another.
===
===Then you get the spam..
===
===John


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!

~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:52:22 -0400, JohnM wrote:
And when you click on his link (or answer his post) he gets another.
Then you get the spam..

How do you propose he harvests your email address from a hit on a
webserver, exactly? I've seen an awful lot of webserver logs, and never
seen an email address of the person hitting the site in there.

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:52:22 -0400, JohnM wrote:
And when you click on his link (or answer his post) he gets another.
Then you get the spam..

How do you propose he harvests your email address from a hit on a
webserver, exactly? I've seen an awful lot of webserver logs, and never
seen an email address of the person hitting the site in there.

If your web browser has never been set up for e-mail. it
shouldn't even *know* your e-mail address.

But -- if it has, and if your browser has JavaScript enabled,
the web server (or a JavaScript served by it) can ask for the
information, and write it to a file. Probably the same could be done
with Java or Active-X if you have those enabled.

Since I use my web browser only for web browsing, *never* for
e-mail, I've never set up the e-mail part, so I don't worry about that.

But -- I haven't seen the start of this thread. It is either
too old and has expired already (over 30 days on *my* server), or it was
posted on or through news servers which I block.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:52:22 -0400, JohnM wrote:

===And when you click on his link (or answer his post) he gets another.
===
===Then you get the spam..
===
===John


You really need to look before you jump to conclusions dude! My
website does not have any links that gather info. I do have a counter
but it gathers no info. I have to assume your a newbie to usenet and
the internet with your comments.

==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!

~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

On 9 Jun 2005 20:46:57 -0400, DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:52:22 -0400, JohnM wrote:
And when you click on his link (or answer his post) he gets another.
Then you get the spam..

How do you propose he harvests your email address from a hit on a
webserver, exactly? I've seen an awful lot of webserver logs, and never
seen an email address of the person hitting the site in there.

If your web browser has never been set up for e-mail. it
shouldn't even *know* your e-mail address.

A web browser is not an email client is not a newsreader. Any app which
pretends to be all 3 will do all 3 poorly.

But -- if it has, and if your browser has JavaScript enabled,
the web server (or a JavaScript served by it) can ask for the
information, and write it to a file. Probably the same could be done
with Java or Active-X if you have those enabled.

So, this would be a cookie fetch type thing? Someone drops a "this
guy's email address is (blah)" cookie, that others can fetch? Devious.

Since I use my web browser only for web browsing, *never* for
e-mail, I've never set up the e-mail part, so I don't worry about that.

I'm no longer surprised by the things people do to their computers out
of ignorance/trust/laziness. So while I'd never think of doing it
either, I can see your point.

But -- I haven't seen the start of this thread. It is either
too old and has expired already (over 30 days on *my* server), or it was
posted on or through news servers which I block.

Ah, you block by newsserver as well? Would you be so kind as to mail me
a list to use as a starting point? I'm blocking all crossposts to 3 or
more groups, which helps immensely, but killfiling by newsserver of
origin makes a lot of sense too.

Dave

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On 9 Jun 2005 20:46:57 -0400, DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

[ ... ]

If your web browser has never been set up for e-mail. it
shouldn't even *know* your e-mail address.

A web browser is not an email client is not a newsreader. Any app which
pretends to be all 3 will do all 3 poorly.

I agree fully -- though they tend to be better at being browsers
than anything else, as that is what they started from. I use separate
programs for each function.

But -- if it has, and if your browser has JavaScript enabled,
the web server (or a JavaScript served by it) can ask for the
information, and write it to a file. Probably the same could be done
with Java or Active-X if you have those enabled.

So, this would be a cookie fetch type thing? Someone drops a "this
guy's email address is (blah)" cookie, that others can fetch? Devious.

I *think* that the JavaScript fills in a hidden form, and posts
the information back to the page owner. I do know that when examining
the HTML in spams, I have found variables which will access whatever has
been filled in as the e-mail address.

Since I use my web browser only for web browsing, *never* for
e-mail, I've never set up the e-mail part, so I don't worry about that.

I'm no longer surprised by the things people do to their computers out
of ignorance/trust/laziness. So while I'd never think of doing it
either, I can see your point.

And some ISPs supply a browser as the default e-mail client
among other things. I think that AOL is a major offender in this
matter.

But -- I haven't seen the start of this thread. It is either
too old and has expired already (over 30 days on *my* server), or it was
posted on or through news servers which I block.

Ah, you block by newsserver as well? Would you be so kind as to mail me
a list to use as a starting point? I'm blocking all crossposts to 3 or
more groups, which helps immensely, but killfiling by newsserver of
origin makes a lot of sense too.

I've sent it.

FWIW, the one which matters to this newsgroup is news.alt.net,
which blocks Cass in all of his various names (since he has been forced
to go to a news server which *never* kicks anyone off -- they are
Libertarians). As it turns out, it also now zaps Ignoramus?? (what are
his two digits?), so I only see him as quoted by others. But he *moved*
to that news system by choice, and I'm not going to turn off the
blocking just because he did that. I can easily live without him. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 10 Jun 2005 14:45:37 -0400, DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article ,

FWIW, the one which matters to this newsgroup is news.alt.net,
which blocks Cass in all of his various names (since he has been forced
to go to a news server which *never* kicks anyone off -- they are
Libertarians). As it turns out, it also now zaps Ignoramus?? (what are
his two digits?), so I only see him as quoted by others. But he *moved*
to that news system by choice, and I'm not going to turn off the
blocking just because he did that. I can easily live without him. :-)

Thanks for that, Don. I'm pretty sure that with a bit of effort I can
put some logic in there & say "block (server) unless (iggy).

Have a good weekend,
Dave Hinz

In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:
On 10 Jun 2005 14:45:37 -0400, DoN. Nichols wrote:
In article ,

FWIW, the one which matters to this newsgroup is news.alt.net,
which blocks Cass in all of his various names (since he has been forced
to go to a news server which *never* kicks anyone off -- they are
Libertarians). As it turns out, it also now zaps Ignoramus?? (what are
his two digits?), so I only see him as quoted by others. But he *moved*
to that news system by choice, and I'm not going to turn off the
blocking just because he did that. I can easily live without him. :-)

Thanks for that, Don. I'm pretty sure that with a bit of effort I can
put some logic in there & say "block (server) unless (iggy).

You probably can, as you are working with things already
received by the news server. I am working at the level where I tell the
news server to refuse anything from these particular news servers, so I
never get a chance to tell it to examine the "From: " headers

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

~Roy~ wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:52:22 -0400, JohnM wrote:


===And when you click on his link (or answer his post) he gets another.
===
===Then you get the spam..
===
===John



You really need to look before you jump to conclusions dude! My
website does not have any links that gather info. I do have a counter
but it gathers no info. I have to assume your a newbie to usenet and
the internet with your comments.

Arright, you haven't lost your sense.. but it appeared you had, there's
been several posts attributed to you that were less than sensible. I
don't know at what point appearance becomes reality, but you haven't
been here, as you say..

And I wasn't talking about *your* website, I was talking about the
picture of the three nasty old fags that was linked to in the original
post of this thread. Perhaps I committed some sort of sin but I was
trying to discourage folks from looking at it. I don't know if I have
the right or not, the right to manipulate others for what I perceive to
be good, but I felt that it was acceptable at the moment.

If I have offended you, I am perfectly willing to apologize. Any offense
you may feel was unintentional, or, at least, offense you feel from me.

DoN has cleared up the email address issue; I had believed that a
browser would offer up one's email address under more circumstances than
he states, apparently this is not the case. I don't know where I got the
idea..

John

==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!

~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

In article ,
JohnM wrote:

[ ... ]

And I wasn't talking about *your* website, I was talking about the
picture of the three nasty old fags that was linked to in the original
post of this thread. Perhaps I committed some sort of sin but I was
trying to discourage folks from looking at it. I don't know if I have
the right or not, the right to manipulate others for what I perceive to
be good, but I felt that it was acceptable at the moment.

Just warn people what it is. That should be sufficient.

DoN has cleared up the email address issue; I had believed that a
browser would offer up one's email address under more circumstances than
he states, apparently this is not the case. I don't know where I got the
idea..

Now -- what all news servers *do* record is the IP address of
the machine visiting it. In your case, that is apparently one of 4080
IP addresses where you work (minus a few reserved ones). Whether
*anyone* could trace it back to your machine depends on whether your
machines are manually assigned staticj IP addresses, or they are
assigned by a DHCP server when the machine boots and connects to the
local net. (And, if DHCP is used, whether the system retains logs of
which machine has which IP address when. And also depends on the
cooperation of you admin staff in digging through the logs. Not too
likely in a case like this.)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

And what posts have I made that were so called less than
sensible.......clue me in I am dying to know?
You are the first person ever to have anything to say about me in a
sense that I post irrational crap.........care to explain? I certainly
do not believe any posts I have EVER made here have been out of
line........none have been attacks or slanderous nor of any
pornagraphic content..........they have all been on line with the
correct content for what wsa being discussed..........

Perhaps it is better for you to differentiate between what YOU
supposed I wsa doing and some off the wall website link with fag's and
not make it sound like "Roy" posted it and its his loink and he is
collecting email addresses........







On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:52:53 -0400, JohnM wrote:

===~Roy~ wrote:
=== On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:52:22 -0400, JohnM wrote:
===
===
======And when you click on his link (or answer his post) he gets another.
======
======Then you get the spam..
======
======John
===
===
===
=== You really need to look before you jump to conclusions dude! My
=== website does not have any links that gather info. I do have a counter
=== but it gathers no info. I have to assume your a newbie to usenet and
=== the internet with your comments.
===
===Arright, you haven't lost your sense.. but it appeared you had, there's
===been several posts attributed to you that were less than sensible. I
===don't know at what point appearance becomes reality, but you haven't
===been here, as you say..
===
===And I wasn't talking about *your* website, I was talking about the
===picture of the three nasty old fags that was linked to in the original
===post of this thread. Perhaps I committed some sort of sin but I was
===trying to discourage folks from looking at it. I don't know if I have
===the right or not, the right to manipulate others for what I perceive to
===be good, but I felt that it was acceptable at the moment.
===
===If I have offended you, I am perfectly willing to apologize. Any offense
===you may feel was unintentional, or, at least, offense you feel from me.
===
===DoN has cleared up the email address issue; I had believed that a
===browser would offer up one's email address under more circumstances than
===he states, apparently this is not the case. I don't know where I got the
===idea..
===
===John
===
=== ==============================================
=== Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
===
=== ~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!

~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

~Roy~ wrote:
And what posts have I made that were so called less than
sensible.......clue me in I am dying to know?
You are the first person ever to have anything to say about me in a
sense that I post irrational crap.........care to explain? I certainly
do not believe any posts I have EVER made here have been out of
line........none have been attacks or slanderous nor of any
pornagraphic content..........they have all been on line with the
correct content for what wsa being discussed..........

Perhaps it is better for you to differentiate between what YOU
supposed I wsa doing and some off the wall website link with fag's and
not make it sound like "Roy" posted it and its his loink and he is
collecting email addresses........


Please reread my post again, there was nothing there intended to instill
anger in you. I did not say "posts made by you", I said "attributed to"..

I was not the first poster on this thread, I changed the subject line of
my response on this subject from "pool party"- are you seeing my first
post as the beginning of a thread? If so, it's not- it was a response to
one with your name and the subject "pool party".

Anyway, as DoN pointed out, I suppose I should have just listed what I
objected to instead of bull****ting it. That might have been worse, at
this point, I dunno..

So.. I have apparently offended, for which I apologize. Please look back
over my posts on this thread (and the original post of the thread) and
try to understand that I was simply trying to make it non-interesting.
If I have a problem with anyone it'd be the poster who signed exactly as
you do, not the original "Roy with the little squiggles", just like if
someone posted something which you disliked under the name "JohnM"- once
I realized that you were speaking of someone else I'd not have a
problem with you. I hope we can get to that point.

John