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

Message from discussion SUCCESS!

Andrew - Supernews

View profile

More options Aug 8 2004, 4:12 am

Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email

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

Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 08:12:06 -0000

Local: Sun, Aug 8 2004 4:12 am

Subject: Re: SUCCESS!

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

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).

A quick check of whois data for a variety of Pacbell end-user DSL blocks
seems to show that Pacbell are not listing the user's address in most of
their WHOIS entries for DSL /29s, but instead are listing the address of a
nearby Pacbell office. Random sampling suggests that in the surrounding /16,
at least a quarter of all assigned netblocks show the 303 second street
address, and some other pacbell /16s show similar results. (Someone with
bulk WHOIS access could do the analysis better than I can.)

So once again, you're drawing conclusions from inadequate (or indeed
nonexistent) data.

> and see if you can dertemine on your own how Bob's
> address used to register his /29 is related to one of the *most*
> egregious spammers ever discussed in NANAE.

If you draw enough unsupported conclusions, you can probably link that /29
to anyone on the planet. The question is not whether you can play
"six degrees" with any given spammer but whether the relationships actually
_mean_ anything more significant than "has a Pacbell DSL line with static IPs
in the SF area".

I can't reproduce your logic because I can't reliably guess exactly _which_
unsupported leaps you've made at any given step.

> Your inability to do such research and make the connection is no
> reason or excuse for such an emotional outburst and unwarranted attack
> on another poster. There is *nothing* you can post to justify what
> you have done, Andrew, but you are welcome to try if that is your
> pleasure.

I don't need to justify myself to you, fortunately.

You are clearly so certain that you are right that you refuse to re-examine
your evidence - and this obviously has a bearing on how seriously you can
be taken when you make assertions that are not independently supported.

> The choice is yours to either help prove the accusations about Bob or
> disprove them.

False dichotomy - I don't have to do either. Rebutting a proof isn't the
same thing as a disproof - but it may be equally helpful, in showing you
errors in your assumptions.

> At least you understand Book 13 even if you refuse to believe that
> spammy does indeed gather intel from posting in NANAE via trolls and
> k00ks

I don't ever recall saying anything either way on this topic.

I'm sure some spammers have tried this approach (I'm not sure whether by
using the singular "spammy" you are referring to a specific spammer or just
using a sloppy rhetorical shorthand - if the latter, it's a dangerous habit
to get into).

> and you should have noticed in reading NANAE how many people
> respond to such posts without thinking.

What matters in such cases is _what is said_, not _who is responded to_.

> It is the gullibility of well
> meaning people that spammy capitalises upon. This is also how spammy
> steals accounts and credit card information from newbies. No one is
> expected to see and identify such Book 13 techniques in posts if not
> properly trained. Just because you don't have such traning and
> experience does not mean someone else does not.

Unfortunately "training" can also lead you to see things which simply
aren't there. Critical thinking and reality checks are important too, and
you seem to be missing out on that.

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

Reply to author Forward