The Official Sigmond FAQ
Sandman
This is a FAQ created with the sole intention to gather the actual facts surrounding a specific poster on the group comp.sys.mac.advocacy (csma). It is posted without linewrapping in an attempt to preserve URLs at the bottom of the post. Any additions or correction to the FAQ are appreciated. Remember to provide factual substantiation for any alterations you want to make. If you are replying to this FAQ, please snip the URLS at the bottom and reference the FAQ for them instead.
1. Who is sigmond?
2. Who is Michael (Snit)?
3. What's this about an IP?
4. Is 24.117.214.4 Michaels IP?
5. Is Michael lying?
6. Has Michael countered any of these facts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Who is sigmond?
A. sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number of other posters. sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael. sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another poster in csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts from Google in what appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This means that no references to his actual posts can be made, only to replies to them. [1] is a reply to the poor taste post from sigmond.
Q. Who is Michael (Snit) ?
A. Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been since 2003-10-07 when he posted his first csma post [2]. Since then he has been deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been engaged in argument with, including but not limited to, the general group of people that usually are found arguing with the trolls in the group.
Q. What's this about an IP?
A. Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host header to posts posted through their service, making the posters anonymous, hence the IP of Michael isn't shown
in posts he has made through SuperNews. sigmond posted through Google, which does include the NNTP-Posting-Host header and sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4.
Q. Is 24.117.214.4 Michaels IP?
A. Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP [3] and sent an email to Steve Mackay [4] which was verified by Sandman (who was given the password to Steves mail account) [5]. There is no doubt that this is Michaels IP.
Q. Is Michael lying?
A. Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that he created sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
Q. Has Michael countered any of this proof?
A. In short, no he hasn't. He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond which can be found in [6] where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is pointing to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve Sigmond" and implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even though that this "Steve Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never to csma, and never used the IP in question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ebdd0e2e.0403221305.1963ec1%40posting.google.com
[2] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BBA835A9.29784%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
[3] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC172FBE.37F1C%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC1706B3.37DCC%25snit-nospam%40cableone.net
[4] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=pan.2004.04.03.01.50.03.297000%40hotmail.com
[5] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mr-9A4617.19380305042004%40news.fu-berlin.de
[6] http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=BC9D9CA5.4839F%25snit%40nospam-cableone.net
--
Sandman[.net]
--
Sandman[.net]
zurg
surrounding Snit was about. I don't have any reason to disagree with
what this FAQ says, but there are some things that should be
considered.
IPs are not the be-all, end-all of indentifying people online. It *is*
pretty damning, but can be abused or misread so it's not definitive.
I had an account with a local ISP back in 1996 and was engaged in a
heated argument with someone on a music newsgroup, and someone started
posting flames and really abhorrently awful stuff that appeared to be
coming from my IP but under a different name. That is, someone was
faking it to make it look like it was me pretending to be someone else.
Of course, the people arguing with me "noticed" it right away and
started making a big deal out of it. I never did fully resolve what
happened, but it had the desired effect of pushing me out of the
argument (probably for the better although it didn't feel like it at
the time.) How do you argue against something like that without
sounding comletely paranoid? It just makes it look like you're
desperate and lying.
One thing the FAQ doesn't address: does this "Sigmond" person only
appear to take Snit's side in arguments and/or attack people with whom
Snit argues? Did Sigmond disappear completely once someone caught on?
Are there other personalities out there doing the same whose posts are
also missing from Google? To me, that would be more telling than
anything else.
Elizabot
> Interesting read. I was sort of curious what all the arguing
> surrounding Snit was about. I don't have any reason to disagree with
> what this FAQ says, but there are some things that should be
> considered.
>
> IPs are not the be-all, end-all of indentifying people online. It *is*
> pretty damning, but can be abused or misread so it's not definitive.
I'd say it's pretty damning in this case.
> I had an account with a local ISP back in 1996 and was engaged in a
> heated argument with someone on a music newsgroup, and someone started
> posting flames and really abhorrently awful stuff that appeared to be
> coming from my IP but under a different name. That is, someone was
> faking it to make it look like it was me pretending to be someone else.
> Of course, the people arguing with me "noticed" it right away and
> started making a big deal out of it. I never did fully resolve what
> happened, but it had the desired effect of pushing me out of the
> argument (probably for the better although it didn't feel like it at
> the time.) How do you argue against something like that without
> sounding comletely paranoid? It just makes it look like you're
> desperate and lying.
>
> One thing the FAQ doesn't address: does this "Sigmond" person only
> appear to take Snit's side in arguments and/or attack people with whom
> Snit argues? Did Sigmond disappear completely once someone caught on?
> Are there other personalities out there doing the same whose posts are
> also missing from Google? To me, that would be more telling than
> anything else.
sigmond would jump in on occasion and mainly attack Steve Carroll, and,
less often, myself, and a few other posters with whom Snit was arguing.
sigmond posted through Google, which gives the NNTP address, then
canceled the posts afterwards. Many of sigmond's posts are still on the
server where I get my newsgroups.
Here is some data I gathered about sigmond in the past, but never posted:
date #posts NNTP address
---- ------ -----------
2/9 1 24.117.41.8
2/18 1 24.117.41.8
2/23 1 24.117.41.8
3/10 2 24.117.41.8
3/15 10 24.117.43.83
3/19 14 24.119.230.189
3/21 2 24.117.214.36
3/22 2 24.117.214.36
3/25 Snit sends Steve M. the email with the 24.117.214.36 address.
3/31 4 24.117.41.8
4/2 5 24.117.214.36
4/2 Mackay posts "Snit's 'Sockpuppet' exposed," showing Snit's address
as 24.117.214.36.
Suddenly, a half hour later, sigmond's posting address changes (sure
sign of guilt)...
4/2 1 24.116.66.89
I would supply Google links or message id's, except that sigmond removes
his posts from Google.
sig...@mad.scientist.com has not posted since.
Sandman
zurg <zu...@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
> Interesting read. I was sort of curious what all the arguing
> surrounding Snit was about. I don't have any reason to disagree with
> what this FAQ says, but there are some things that should be
> considered.
>
> IPs are not the be-all, end-all of indentifying people online. It *is*
> pretty damning, but can be abused or misread so it's not definitive.
Of course, IPs can be spoofed, for instance. I don't know how it's done and I
doubt anyone here does. But logically, it's not a working scenario. IP spoofing
would be something to consider if someone wanted to "frame" Michael in an
argument. But that requires that you know his IP so you can pin this person to
him, which no one knew. It was later found what Michaels IP was and that it
correlated to sigmonds - and it was also found that Snit had earlier posted
with the same IP, but in an unrelated newsgroup.
> One thing the FAQ doesn't address: does this "Sigmond" person only
> appear to take Snit's side in arguments and/or attack people with whom
> Snit argues?
Basically, but a good sock puppeteer makes sure the posting "style" is
different between him and the sock puppet, plus makes sure that the sock puppet
isn't blindly agreeing with every word he says. For an amateur troll, Michael
did this pretty good.
> Did Sigmond disappear completely once someone caught on?
Yes.
> Are there other personalities out there doing the same whose posts are
> also missing from Google? To me, that would be more telling than
> anything else.
I don't think expunging posts from google is a tell-tale sign of sock puppetry,
but nonetheless a logical step for a puppeteer whose puppet has been exposed
(since the posts may contain further proof in the headers of their origin).
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 5/16/04 10:09 AM:
It is also a reasonable question to look into how many other "sock puppets"
have the accusers blamed the accused for. I have been blamed for being
Josh, SuperGoober, and several others. It seems that the accusers were
using the pasta test of attack - keep throwing attacks at me and see what
sticks.
As far as the "evidence" against me, I can not say I can explain it all or
even care to... I have made guesses, and if my guess has been shown to not
be 100% correct the mere fact that I have guessed has been held against me.
All I need to know is my own actions. What silliness the Steve's have done
is for them to worry about.
My guess, however, is that Steve Carroll is the one behind this... as I have
posted in another thread, he has the most unanswered questions. This whole
debate started when I he tried to attack a position of mine ... and based
his argument on illogical and bizarre things. He started getting more and
more outrageous, and then Sigmond suddenly showed up... posting in
essentially incoherent ways - as if to make Steve's opposition look bad.
There were a couple times that Sigmond suddenly "slipped" and attacked me...
and in those cases Sigmond suddenly became slightly more coherent.
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
Snit
on 5/16/04 3:07 AM:
> The Official Sigmond FAQ
Seems the whole purpose of your "FAQ" is to troll.
Why is that, Sandman? Why do you continually deny your trolling?
Here are some of *your* criteria
- Starts threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster.
Seems your sole intention is to antagonize me.
- Quote-scavenging for negative remarks about a poster.
You are doing that as well...
- Disrupting the group by creating numerous off-topic threads.
This thread is off topic... it has nothing to do with anything
related to advocacy.
- Desperately trying to claim that the numerous people that all point at you
calling you a troll are in fact themselves trolls and you are not.
I have called you on your trolling. Seems we are each pushing that
title onto each other
Not in this thread, but very recently you have also:
- Making accusation based on made up nonsense instead of actual facts.
There is no doubt you are doing this
- Intercepting threads with the sole intention to antagonize another poster
You copied the content of this thread into another...
You are, by your own criteria, trolling.
Will you admit to it now?
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> > The Official Sigmond FAQ
>
> Seems the whole purpose of your "FAQ" is to troll.
Incorrect, since the FAQ only contains facts that are substantiated. And as your only supported, Nashton said, failure to admit to the evidence is proof of your guilt. Here is the FAQ again:
The Official sigmond FAQ
This is a FAQ created with the sole intention to gather the actual facts surrounding a specific poster on the group comp.sys.mac.advocacy (csma). It is posted without linewrapping in an attempt to preserve URLs at the bottom of the post.
1. Who is sigmond?
2. Who is Michael (Snit)?
3. What's this about an IP?
4. Is 24.117.214.4 Michaels IP?
5. Is Michael lying?
6. Has Michael countered any of these facts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Who is sigmond?
A. sigmond was a poster that appeared in csma for a brief period of time in January of 2004. sigmond appeared in a debate between Michael and a number of other posters. sigmond had no earlier posting history to usenet prior to that and disappeared quickly when it was claimed he was a sock puppet of Michael. sigmond also posted a specifically poor taste post about another poster in csma, Elizabot. sigmond has since then removed his posts from Google in what appears as an attempt to hide his origin. This means that no references to his actual posts can be made, only to replies to them. [1] is a reply to the poor taste post from sigmond.
Q. Who is Michael (Snit) ?
A. Michael is an Mac advocate and a frequent poster to csma and has been since 2003-10-07 when he posted his first csma post [2]. Since then he has been deemed a troll by the majority of the people he has been engaged in argument with, including but not limited to, the general group of people that usually are found arguing with the trolls in the group.
Q. What's this about an IP?
A. Michael posts via SuperNews, which doesn't append a NNTP-Posting-Host header to posts posted through their service, making the posters anonymous, hence the IP of Michael isn't shown
in posts he has made through SuperNews. sigmond posted through Google, which does include the NNTP-Posting-Host header and sigmonds IP was 24.117.214.4.
Q. Is 24.117.214.4 Michaels IP?
A. Yes, it is. He has posted to usenet with this very IP [3] and sent an email to Steve Mackay [4] which was verified by Sandman (who was given the password to Steves mail account) [5]. There is no doubt that this is Michaels IP.
Q. Is Michael lying?
A. Yes, he is. Given the actual proof found above, he stills deny that he created sigmond as a sock puppet, which means he is a liar.
Q. Has Michael countered any of this proof?
A. In short, no he hasn't. He has constructed some far fetched conspiracy theories about sigmond which can be found in [6] where the only point that tries to counter these facts is that he is pointing to the fact that there has been a poster by the name "Steve Sigmond" and implied that that means Steve Carroll is sigmond, even though that this "Steve Sigmond" hasn't posted since 1993 and never to csma, and never used the IP in question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
[1] http://www.google.com/groups?selm=4072eff2%240%24195%2475868355%40news.frii.net
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> > I don't think expunging posts from google is a tell-tale sign of sock
> > puppetry, but nonetheless a logical step for a puppeteer whose puppet has
> > been exposed (since the posts may contain further proof in the headers of
> > their origin).
>
> As far as the "evidence" against me, I can not say I can explain it all or
> even care to... I have made guesses, and if my guess has been shown to not
> be 100% correct the mere fact that I have guessed has been held against me.
> All I need to know is my own actions.
Your own actions have been proved, and you have lied about them.
> My guess, however, is that Steve Carroll is the one behind this...
No, that isn't your guess at all, since you are fully aware of your own actions.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 5/16/04 11:22 AM:
> In article <BCCCF363.50232%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>> I don't think expunging posts from google is a tell-tale sign of sock
>>> puppetry, but nonetheless a logical step for a puppeteer whose puppet has
>>> been exposed (since the posts may contain further proof in the headers of
>>> their origin).
>>
>> As far as the "evidence" against me, I can not say I can explain it all or
>> even care to... I have made guesses, and if my guess has been shown to not
>> be 100% correct the mere fact that I have guessed has been held against me.
>> All I need to know is my own actions.
>
> Your own actions have been proved, and you have lied about them.
Your claim to not be trolling has been proved... and yet you deny it.
>
>> My guess, however, is that Steve Carroll is the one behind this...
>
> No, that isn't your guess at all, since you are fully aware of your own
> actions.
Am I also the one making you troll and lie about it?
Snit
on 5/16/04 11:21 AM:
> In article <BCCCFD3B.50247%sn...@nospam.cableone.net>,
> Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
>
>>> The Official Sigmond FAQ
>>
>> Seems the whole purpose of your "FAQ" is to troll.
Again, based on your own criteria, you are trolling.
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>> The Official Sigmond FAQ
> >>
> >> Seems the whole purpose of your "FAQ" is to troll.
>
> <trolling snipped>
Sandman
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
> >>>>> The Official Sigmond FAQ
> >>>>
> >>>> Seems the whole purpose of your "FAQ" is to troll.
> >>
> >> <trolling snipped>
> >
> > Here is the FAQ again:
>
> <trolling snipped>
Here is the FAQ again, which contains substantiated facts, and no opinions. All facts. Substantiated. Proven:
Tim Smith
> The Official Sigmond FAQ
>
> This is a FAQ created with the sole intention to gather the actual facts
> surrounding a specific poster on the group comp.sys.mac.advocacy (csma).
> It is posted without linewrapping in an attempt to preserve URLs at the
> bottom of the post. Any additions or correction to the FAQ are
Uhm...any reason you couldn't line-wrap everything but the URLs?
Better is to write URLs like this:
<URL:the_url_goes_here>
and go ahead and line wrap them. Things that accept URLs are supposed to
recognize "<URL:some_url>" and remove any whitespace in the URL part. If
everybody started doing this, and submitting bug reports if their particular
browser did not accept these, then maybe the browsers would get fixed.
For things that do have trouble with wrapped URLs, it usually seems to be
the spaces that cause problems, not the end of lines. E.g.,
http://www.somesite.com/long-url
-that-wraps
is often fine like that (just select both lines and paste) but fails if you
wrap it like this:
http://www.somesite.com/long-url
-that-wraps
--
--Tim Smith
Steve Carroll
Your 'questions' were, and still are, irrelevant bullshit created by you
trying to do what you are doing here, evading reality. It's a nice
conspiracy theory from a paranoid delusional but do you care to offer
some evidence that I posted as sigmond? The facts, as they stand now,
point to you being sigmond more than to any other person. You have
claimed it is me, then Steve M, then me, then Steve M etc., now it's
back to me again. The evidence has been presented showing why people
feel you are sigmond. Where is the evidence of your claim that I or
anyone else is? And I mean real evidence, not your delusional theories.
I'll tell you where it is... nowhere! Why hasn't my ISP contacted me
yet? You've shown them what I've done wrong, haven't you? They should be
on my ass, right? You're full of it, Snit.
All along, you have been nothing but a disingenuous liar who twists the
words of others intentionally and there is little reason to believe you
are now telling the truth. Incredibly, you just tried to scam people
with your silly honor rules bullshit. A scam... in the middle of trying
to appear sincere... the f*cking nerve you have is unthinkable! You then
expect people to believe ANYTHING you say? This defies all reason. You
are the most narcissistic person I have ever run across... with a
superiority complex that borders on insanity. You are whacked in the
head, Michael... totally whacked. Perhaps the IP address doesn't prove
beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are sigmond... maybe it is one of
the students you showed csma to, but IMO it doesn't matter because you
are a lowlife piece of shit whether you sockpuppeted sigmond or not. It
would be poetic justice if sigmond WAS one of your students coming to
your defense.
Steve
Sandman
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
I just wanted them to be clickable, which neither of your examples are, plus I
didn't want to use tinyurl.
And no, in MTNW you either linewrap the entire post or nothing, as far as I
know.
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
fretwizz-387725...@netnews.comcast.net on 5/16/04 1:49 PM:
Funny how you hold me to a different standard than you hold others -
including yourself. Can you or can you not answer the questions I posed to
you?
Steve Carroll: Please answer these questions (you have to most to answer
for):
Do you believe my lack of Proof is equal to
(or necessarily leads to) your doubt?
Do you believe your doubt is equal to a refutation?
Do you believe my lack of proof is *not* equal to
(or does not necessarily lead to) a refutation?
Can you differentiate the following:
an argument AND a statement
an argument AND a proof
what an argument is AND what an argument is about
a judgment AND a adjudication
a defendant AND a defender
proof (as in a mathematical proof) AND proof beyond a
reasonable doubt (as in a trial)
an argument AND evidence supporting an argument
a legal system AND a judicial system
an argument that can be categorized as a legal argument
AND an argument that can only be categorized as
a legal argument
defense of an argument AND an argument
evidence someone broke a law AND a trial
Snit AND Josh (AND Sigmond)
an argument that shows guilt of a crime AND a legal conviction
a lack of proof AND a disproof
evidence AND proof
an argument that is based on the law AND an argument based
on a judicial system
guilt shown by actions AND guilt shown in a court of law
order of presentation of an argument AND logical order
of an argument
How can someone be guilty of breaking a law, but not in a legal way?
Why did you act against your own best interests?
Why did you lie about your free flights?
Why did you lie about not trusting Snit?
Why did you want to meet Snit. The only reason ever agreed to was
for Snit to tell you 2+2=4.
Have you ever posted under the name Sigmond
[All questions shown to be relevant at
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/troll/]
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
What standard?
Steve
Snit
The obligation to answer questions. You expect me to answer questions (and
I have, you just deny their truth), and yet you will not answer questions
from me.
Double standards from you... and dishonest on your part.
Steve Carroll
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <mr-E51563.19...@individual.net>, Sandman wrote:
> > Of course, IPs can be spoofed, for instance. I don't know how it's done
> > and I doubt anyone here does.
>
> That's an interesting assumption. There seem to be some fairly knowledgable
> people in this group--why do you assume know one knows how to do it?
Being that Snit is claiming I am the person behind the sockpuppet
sigmond, here's the real question: Have I ever given anyone the
impression that I have enough of a clue about computers to the extent
required to spoof an IP? I'm not exactly sure what spoof even means.
Sounds like it is somehow forging an IP address to make it appear that a
message came from one place when it actually came from another. Snit was
just busted in here for doing this very thing,(or trying, I suppose) but
he obviously didn't know the trick of concealing the fact. He has
consistently maintained that I am 'dumber than my shoe'... all of a
sudden, just when he needs to shine the light off of himself, he wants
everyone to believe I'm some sort of computer guru. This makes no sense
to me.
Steve
Snit
> In article <jlRpc.13093$KE6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <mr-E51563.19...@individual.net>, Sandman wrote:
>>> Of course, IPs can be spoofed, for instance. I don't know how it's done
>>> and I doubt anyone here does.
>>
>> That's an interesting assumption. There seem to be some fairly knowledgable
>> people in this group--why do you assume know one knows how to do it?
>
> Being that Snit is claiming I am the person behind the sockpuppet
> sigmond, here's the real question: Have I ever given anyone the
> impression that I have enough of a clue about computers to the extent
> required to spoof an IP? I'm not exactly sure what spoof even means.
There are many words you do not know the meaning of. I have a list that you
have used... and you will not explain what they mean or differentiate them.
>
> Sounds like it is somehow forging an IP address to make it appear that a
> message came from one place when it actually came from another. Snit was
> just busted in here for doing this very thing,(or trying, I suppose) but
> he obviously didn't know the trick of concealing the fact. He has
> consistently maintained that I am 'dumber than my shoe'... all of a
> sudden, just when he needs to shine the light off of himself, he wants
> everyone to believe I'm some sort of computer guru. This makes no sense
> to me.
Of course it makes no sense to you... you are, after all, dumber than your
shoe.
:)
Ok... back to the point. Can you answer the questions I have asked of you?
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
What questions?
Steve
Snit
Quite dishonest of you to pretend you do not know... but to humor your
lying. *Everyone* knows you will not even attempt to answer these
questions... you never have and you never will. To do so would be to admit
your silly little games. Face it Steve, you have been caught red handed...
not based on my claims or on some IP that may or may not have been forged or
whatever your claims are today, but on your own words. Or do you say I
posted as you when you made all the posts that lead to these questions?
I notice you have no even answered the question as to whether or not you
have ever posted under the name "sigmond". Even Elizabot answered that
one... why won't you? Why won't you answer *any* of the questions?
evidence AND proof
Steve Carroll
Snit <sn...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote:
Rather single minded aren't you:) I meant: What questions am I currently
expecting you to answer? Do you even read what you write before you read
the replies? Geez...
Steve
Sandman
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > Of course, IPs can be spoofed, for instance. I don't know how it's done
> > and I doubt anyone here does.
>
> That's an interesting assumption. There seem to be some fairly knowledgable
> people in this group--why do you assume know one knows how to do it?
IP spoofing is about tricking routers to report your IP as something it's not.
While I agree that some here are quite knowledgable, even with regards to
networking, I doubt anyone knows how. I may be wrong, of course.
Since IP spoofing would only be used for dubious (see: illegal) purposes, there
would be little or no reason why anyone in this group would know how. In a
carpenter group, I wouldn't assume a significant portion of it knowing how to
most efficiently break in to a house.
But again, I may be wrong, perhaps there are many here who knows how to do it?
:)
--
Sandman[.net]
Steve Carroll
Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <jlRpc.13093$KE6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course, IPs can be spoofed, for instance. I don't know how it's done
> > > and I doubt anyone here does.
> >
> > That's an interesting assumption. There seem to be some fairly
> > knowledgable
> > people in this group--why do you assume know one knows how to do it?
>
> IP spoofing is about tricking routers to report your IP as something it's
> not.
> While I agree that some here are quite knowledgable, even with regards to
> networking, I doubt anyone knows how. I may be wrong, of course.
>
> Since IP spoofing would only be used for dubious (see: illegal) purposes,
> there
> would be little or no reason why anyone in this group would know how. In a
> carpenter group, I wouldn't assume a significant portion of it knowing how to
> most efficiently break in to a house.
Like sigmond did? :)
> But again, I may be wrong, perhaps there are many here who knows how to do
> it?
> :)
Steve
Tim Smith
> Since IP spoofing would only be used for dubious (see: illegal) purposes,
> there would be little or no reason why anyone in this group would know
> how. In a
I'd expect anyone who follows research on computer security to know about IP
spoofing.
--
--Tim Smith