Why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ~BD~
  • Start date Start date
Andrew Taylor said:
But there is, you just don't know it or acknowledge it. The rules for
Usenet are under the 'rules' of RFCs.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

This is just one of the RFCs governing signatures.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2646.html

Here are the rules
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/
Click to expand...


Thank you. I have made a note of the references.

My aim is not to be confrontational, but to educate.
Click to expand...


You must concentrate more on 'education', Andrew. In all the time you
and I have been in correspondence, you have *never* mentioned these
'rules' before - I have NEVER seen them as far as I can remember.
Perhaps you should post this information on U2U (both sites) too.

These guidelines (they aren't enforceable, are they?) were laid down
some 30 years ago. Even 10 years ago, the Internet was a very different
place to what one sees today. It's the Wild West all over again
.......... and there are far too many Outlaws!

Cheers

Dave
 
From: "Dick D." <[email protected]>


| Nobody - N O B O D Y - pays attention to those any more. They went out
| when people stopped using Lynx.

Yeah, Google Groupers. Otherwise Usenet users DO follow nettiqutte to a varying degree.
 
Andrew said:
But there is, you just don't know it or acknowledge it. The rules for Usenet
are under the 'rules' of RFCs.
Click to expand...

I wrote, and I quote, "law".
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/

This is just one of the RFCs governing signatures.
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2646.html My aim is not to be confrontational,
but to educate.

Here are the rules http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/

which quote

If you have a standard signature you like to append to your articles,
and you are running a form of news software that supports automatic
inclusion of a signature file, it is usually enabled by putting it in
a file called .signature in your home directory. The posting software
you use should automatically append it to your article. Please keep
your signatures concise, as people do not appreciate seeing lengthy
signatures, nor paying the phone bills to repeatedly transmit them. 2
or 3 lines are usually plenty. Sometimes it is also appropriate to
add another line or two for addresses on other major networks where
you can be reached (e.g., CompuServ, Bitnet). Long signatures are
definitely frowned upon. DO NOT include drawings, pictures, maps, or
other graphics in your signature -- it is not the appropriate place
for such material and is viewed as rude by other readers.
Click to expand...

It's views as rude by some readers not "other" readers.
Great, let's all go down to the mall tomorrow and shoot people. If we all do
it, it won't be illegal.
Click to expand...

That's not a law that the public wants repealed, moron.

Alias
 
In line:-

Alias said:
I stopped worrying about what people said about me on Usenet way
before the turn of the century.
Click to expand...


You and me, both!

I assume it's moderated.
Click to expand...


It is *highly* policed, but I got a hinky feeling about the place. They
certainly didn't like me asking questions .......... and eventually
banned me and removed all my posts. Fortunately Google has retained many
of them. For some reason I felt that one might go there for help and
That said, PABear can come up with some useful copy and pastes every
once in a while and is well informed regarding Windows Updates.
Click to expand...


You are quite right, he does .... and is! He also tells lies - I have
NEVER been banned by *any* ISP.


Thanks for listening,

Dave
 
There are a number of reasons IP Address' are untracable or unknown to Whois.
The IANA reserves a variety of IP Ranges for Benchmarking, Special Uses and
the Autonomous System Numbers used for routing Internet traffic.

For a more detailed overview go to: http://www.iana.org/numbers/
 
Thank you, Passiveson. FYI, I was just about to post this to Amostbob!

I don't like to see words like 'fraudulent' and 'bogus', but have no
idea if something is really amiss. I'm hoping others *will* know!

Dave

12/18/08 11:35:17 Spade Log
12/18/08 13:29:41 Fast traceroute 24.150.226.156
Trace 24.150.226.156 ...
1 No Response * * *
2 92.16.32.1 26ms 29ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
3 92.31.250.64 28ms 26ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
4 78.144.2.133 95ms 28ms 27ms TTL: 0
(xe-9-3-0-scr001.log.as13285.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
5 78.144.1.0 29ms 27ms 27ms TTL: 0
(xe-11-0-0-scr010.thn.as13285.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
6 195.66.224.213 99ms 97ms 99ms TTL: 0 (rd1ny.ny.shawcable.net
fraudulent rDNS)
7 66.163.74.1 99ms 98ms 98ms TTL: 0
(rc2hu-pos6-0.ny.shawcable.net ok)
8 66.163.74.13 99ms 98ms 98ms TTL: 0
(rc1hu-ge0-0-0.ny.shawcable.net ok)
9 66.163.77.153 111ms 110ms 111ms TTL: 0
(rc1sh-pos14-0-0.mt.shawcable.net ok)
10 66.163.66.70 111ms 110ms 110ms TTL: 0
(rc2sh-ge5-0-0.mt.shawcable.net ok)
11 66.163.77.118 123ms 124ms 123ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
12 66.163.65.22 123ms 122ms 123ms TTL: 0
(ra1ec-tge3-1.il.shawcable.net ok)
13 64.141.24.10 136ms 137ms 136ms TTL: 0
(h64-141-24-10.bigpipeinc.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
14 24.226.8.238 137ms 138ms 136ms TTL: 0
(d226-8-238.home.cgocable.net ok)
15 No Response * * *
16 No Response * * *
17 No Response * * *
18 No Response * * *
19 No Response * * *
20 No Response * * *
21 No Response * * *
22 No Response * * *
23 No Response * * *
24 No Response * * *
25 No Response * * *
26 No Response * * *
27 No Response * * *
28 No Response * * *
29 No Response * * *
 
I don't like to see words like 'fraudulent' and 'bogus', but have no
idea if something is really amiss. I'm hoping others *will* know!
Click to expand...

I've now used Sam Spade as suggested, with this result. I'm still
puzzled. Any help?


12/20/08 09:01:09 Fast traceroute 202.177.16.121
Trace 202.177.16.121 ...
1 No Response * * *
2 92.21.32.1 25ms 26ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
3 92.31.253.102 25ms 26ms 26ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
4 78.144.2.3 27ms 26ms 24ms TTL: 0 (xe-11-2-0-
scr001.log.as13285.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
5 213.161.78.213 28ms 26ms 26ms TTL: 0 (Opal-
ge-2.2.0.mpr1.lhr3.above.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
6 64.125.27.165 99ms 102ms 99ms TTL: 0
(so-0-1-0.mpr2.dca2.us.above.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
7 64.125.28.50 * 126ms 126ms TTL: 0
(so-1-0-0.mpr4.iah1.us.above.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
8 64.125.25.18 157ms 155ms 156ms TTL: 0
(so-1-1-0.mpr4.lax9.us.above.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
9 124.215.192.129 160ms 156ms 174ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
10 59.128.2.73 157ms 156ms 156ms TTL: 0
(lacbb002.kddnet.ad.jp fraudulent rDNS)
11 203.181.100.165 279ms 276ms 276ms TTL: 0
(otecbb104.kddnet.ad.jp fraudulent rDNS)
12 124.211.33.14 279ms 278ms 282ms TTL: 0 (tr-
ote116.kddnet.ad.jp fraudulent rDNS)
13 210.132.92.150 352ms 364ms 354ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS)
14 202.177.21.250 333ms 332ms 331ms TTL: 0
(202-177-21-250.kdd.net.hk probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
15 202.177.16.121 315ms 313ms 314ms TTL: 53
(202-177-16-121.kdd.net.hk probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
 
Back
Top