On 2004-08-07, Sun Tsu <bananana...@spamblocked.com> wrote:

My lack of tolerance for fools is legendary.

For those not familiar with Art of War, Book 13 discusses the art of
espionage, which Sun Tzu considers vital to warfare.

I don't see anything there about traceroutes, but I did notice this:

  " Only the wisest ruler can use spies; only the most benevolent and upright
    general can use spies, and only the most alert and observant person can
    get the truth using spies. "  [trans: sonshi.com]

Giles, additionally, quotes certain Chinese commentators on the required
characteristics of the spies themselves.

It should go without saying that observing the dispositions of the enemy
requires accurate observational skills. Then, as Sun Tzu points out in the
passage quoted above, actually _interpreting_ those observations in order
to draw useful conclusions and formulate strategy requires skill in itself.
So if you're going to look at a traceroute and draw conclusions from it, then
you'd better understand exactly what it is that you're looking at.

You said:

Firstly, the term "resolves to" isn't meaningful in that context. An IP
address can be said to resolve to a domain name or vice versa, but saying
that an IP resolves to another IP makes no sense. If what you actually
meant was "the last IP I see on a traceroute to the posting IP is ...",
then the statement makes sense but is not useful, since that IP is a
router in Herndon VA while the poster's IP is clearly in San Francisco
(easily confirmed from multiple sources).

To go on and suggest that a trace passing through a major backbone router
then implies some sort of connection with other people simply based on
traces that happen to pass through the same router is serious folly,
certainly not in accordance with the quoted passage.

I think it was about 10 years ago that I first read Art of War.

I'm sure there are or have been spammers who are users of ours either via
personal accounts or via ISPs who outsource to us. We go to considerable
lengths to ensure that we are not used for spamming or spam support, and we
do a better job of that than, say, Google.

However, we will not comment on the identity of our users under any
circumstances.

You've posted no facts worthy of contradiction. All I see from you is
unsupported assumptions.

You've apparently assumed that this newsgroup is the only place where
spammer-tracking is discussed or knowledge of network tools is available
(it's quite possible for someone to be competent with the tools despite
being new to the group).

You've apparently assumed that everyone engaged in fighting spam must
automatically know all about SPEWS. I've got news for you: many of them
don't even know about _Spamhaus_, despite it's much higher media profile
and wider usage. This newsgroup isn't the center of the spam-fighting world
(though used properly it is still one of the better resources).

You've assumed that you can identify someone from their posting style.
There's a tendency that I see all the time in this group and elsewhere for
people to assume that everything is the fault of their own particular pet
enemy; this is most visible every time Hipcrime makes a visit, when that
happens there is _always_ someone who assumes that it's an attack on _them_
by their own personal nemesis. After seeing this happen enough times, and
seeing enough laughable mistaken accusations of sock-puppetry, one learns
to ignore (or at best, defer judgement) on all such claims in the absence of
real evidence.

Your claims are inconsistent anyway since you've stated both that one poster
is a sock of another, and that one of those posters is quoting the other to
make an x-no-archive post visible on Google. I'm sure you can see the problem
with that.

Fortunately, I don't need to believe anything that anyone says in this group.

You've certainly done a good job of showing why I shouldn't believe anything
_you_ claim, though.

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