SUCCESS! - news.admin.net-abuse.email

Message from discussion SUCCESS!

Andrew - Supernews

View profile

More options Aug 9 2004, 2:26 am

Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email

From: Andrew - Supernews <andrew+non...@supernews.com>

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 06:26:28 -0000

Local: Mon, Aug 9 2004 2:26 am

Subject: Re: SUCCESS!

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

On 2004-08-08, Sun Tsu <bananana...@2mbit.com> wrote:

> Andrew - Supernews <andrew+non...@supernews.com> wrote in message
> <news:slrnchbo2m.1pnu.andrew+nonews@trinity.supernews.net>...
>> On 2004-08-07, Sun Tsu <bananana...@spamblocked.com> wrote:
>> > You might want to spend your time seeking out Bob's true identity and
>> > not wasting it on a personal vendetta. Start by googling on "303
>> > Second Street"

>> 303 Second Street, San Francisco is a large office building. One of the
>> companies that has offices there is ... Pacbell (SBC).

> Glad to see that you can do research, albeit not thorough. Now please
> explain why you did *no* research before making a personal attack in
> NANAE unprovoked.

> You are suggesting that SBC is part of the problem and not part of the
> solution. Had you been thorough in your research you would have
> noticed that more than one /29 is registered to 303 Second Street

Had you bothered to read the next paragraph, you'd notice that I estimate
that not merely more than one, but in fact _several thousand_ /29s are
registered to that address - at minimum.

I've also taken the step of verifying my conclusions with people who have
more knowledge than I of Pacbell's procedures, and they confirm that Pacbell
will list their office address in place of the end-user's own street address
in WHOIS. This quite neatly accounts for the observed data.

> and
> you completely overlooked the fact that spammy frequently registers
> his IP blocks either in bogus names or in real names that belong to
> someone other than himself.

In this case, false spammer-supplied street addresses don't account for the
known facts. The theory has to fit the facts, not vice versa.

> Did you bother to trace "303 Second Street" to any Sightings or SPEWS
> records? No.

On the contrary, I did. Everything I found was consistent with the
conclusion that large numbers of perfectly legitimate static DSL /29s
are registered, by pacbell, with the street addresses of pacbell offices;
and those that show up as spam sources are (rarely) spammers and (more often)
open proxies or similar.

I could have made my post a lot longer, but I chose not to go overboard
with facts that were essentially redundant.

> What you did was perfornm only enough research to
> justify *your* point of view and to satisfy yourself which is why the
> rest of your post was snipped unread.

Well, that explains why you missed the important bits then. You've obviously
assumed that because the direction of my research didn't match yours, that I
was automatically wrong and that you could disregard whatever I found. That's
not a very smart way to go, is it?

Your lack of reality-checking and concentration on specific data sources is
leading you to draw false conclusions and thereby waste much of your effort
that could be better directed at real targets rather than erroneous ones.

> You haven't sufficiently
> demonstrated why anyone should take you serious in your misguided and
> immature continuation of a personal vendetta.

"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he"

> Your inability to understand reality is clouded by your emotional need
> to be right and to have it domonstrated in NANAE. This was never
> about you, Andrew, but you seem to want it to be, or need it to be.

You keep saying that, but I don't see any evidence that you're actually
looking at the facts and criticism I've posted rather than just treating
it as "a personal vendetta".

> No amount of words and FUD can make up for what you did. Either admit
> your mistake in NANAE or take it to email. You are *still* on your
> personal crusade and you *still* don't understand how to investigate
> properly. You don't have enough experience to know what you are
> talking about.

Someone who tries to draw conclusions from the presence in a traceroute
of a backbone router 10 hops upstream of the target has no basis to
accuse _me_ of lack of experience :-)

My criticism of you may be harsh but it's entirely in proportion with the
magnitude of your errors - and if you think that you can post in public
_without_ criticism then you are sadly mistaken. I have no reason to take
this to email since there is nothing involved that I could discuss in
private but not in public.

--
Andrew, Supernews
http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services

Reply to author Forward