Samsung patches 0-click vulnerability impacting all smartphones sold since 2014

[Arlen Holder]

Samsung patches 0-click vulnerability impacting all smartphones sold since 2014
<https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-patches-0-click-vulnerability-impacting-all-smartphones-sold-since-2014/>'
"Samsung patched this month a critical bug discovered by Google security researchers."

"The bug is tracked as SVE-2020-16747 in the Samsung security
bulletin and CVE-2020-8899 in the Mitre CVE database."

"Other smartphones don't appear to be impacted as only Samsung
appears to have modified the Android OS to support the custom
Qmage image format"

"Jurczyk says the Qmage bug can be exploited in a zero-click scenario,
without any user interaction. This happens because Android redirects
all images sent to a device to the Skia library for processing --
such as generating thumbnail previews -- without a user's knowledge"

"I have found ways to get MMS messages fully processed without
triggering a notification sound on Android, so fully stealth
attacks might be possible," the Google researcher says."

"The researcher discovered the vulnerability in February and reported
the issue to Samsung. The South Korean phone maker patched the bug
in its May 2020 security updates."
--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful sharing of solutions for common benefit.

[Alan Baker]

Fact:

You just made a non-fact your subject line.

It doesn't impact "all smartphones sold since 2014". It MIGHT impact all
Samsung smartphones, but you didn't write that.

And you were so dimwitted that you actually quote the part that shows
you (FACT!) don't even pause for a moment to think about whether what
you're claiming is true or not:

"Other smartphones don't appear to be impacted as only Samsung appears
to have modified the Android OS to support the custom Qmage image format"

Logical assertion:

ZDNet posting an article with a subject that is clearly wrong from the
word go doesn't excuse you from not even doing basic, logical...

...adult...

...thinking.

:-)

And you still don't know how a sig delimiter works!

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> And you still don't know how a sig delimiter works!

Hi Alan Baker,

Thanks for letting me know about the inadvertent typo on the sig delimiter.

I don't use a newsreader, as my newsreader is "vim" & "telnet", so I type
the sig delimiter by hand, so typos creep in, which I apologize for if that
typo upset you so.

I hope I fixed it when I made my next post though, so you should be happy.

o *iPhone: a zero-day vulnerability allows spying on your personal data*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/m_Ljx53NmaU>

Check it out - thanks!
--
Those complaining of typos in the sig delimiter bought too many arguments.
:)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-06 8:10 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>> And you still don't know how a sig delimiter works!
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Thanks for letting me know about the inadvertent typo on the sig delimiter.
>
> I don't use a newsreader, as my newsreader is "vim" & "telnet", so I type
> the sig delimiter by hand, so typos creep in, which I apologize for if that
> typo upset you so.

"User agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)"

Weird, huh?

Looks a lot like you're lying...

...again.

Or did you type the User agent string "by hand"?

>
> I hope I fixed it when I made my next post though, so you should be happy.

"User agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)"

>
> o *iPhone: a zero-day vulnerability allows spying on your personal data*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/m_Ljx53NmaU>
>
>
> Check it out - thanks!

Arlen: too stupid to know that the software he's using to post to
newsgroups is included in the headers of every post!

Check it out!

[Arlen Holder]

To spare adults on this ng the indignity of any responses to posters
claiming that everything they simply & clearly don't even understand...
o ...is therefore, a "lie by liars"...

... I will not respond to anyone in this thread who claims, sans even the
slightest display of nary a shred of adult cognitive abilities, that simple
facts they simply can't & certainly don't understand must therefore be...
o ... "lies by liars" ...
--
Apple apologists are like the Dunning-Kruger bank robber in that they
prove, in every post, to not posess even the most basic of the simplest
adult cognitive skills that we would expect any "normal" adult to own.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-07 8:18 a.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> To spare adults on this ng the indignity of any responses to posters
> claiming that everything they simply & clearly don't even understand...
> o ...is therefore, a "lie by liars"...
>
> ... I will not respond to anyone in this thread who claims, sans even the
> slightest display of nary a shred of adult cognitive abilities, that simple
> facts they simply can't & certainly don't understand must therefore be...
> o ... "lies by liars" ...

And yet your post is a response, Liar.

It wasn't a direct reply to my post, but it was most definitely a
response to it.

Or are you ignorant of the definition of "response" as well?

And while I'm asking questions, how is claiming to use vim and telnet to
post "by hand" while actually using NewsTap for iOS not a lie...

...Liar?

[Frank Slootweg]

[Disclaimer: Yes nan, I *know*!]

Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
[...]

> And while I'm asking questions, how is claiming to use vim and telnet to
> post "by hand" while actually using NewsTap for iOS not a lie...

Well, in the past he has faked all kinds of headers [1] [2], so it
could well be he indeed *is* faking this one (the 'User-Agent:' header)
now.

IMO, it's actually quite believable that it's faked, because why would
an Apple 'hater' like him, post with an iOS app?

If we have one or more real NewsTap posts, we could investigate if
any other fingerprints match, but - given Arlen's history in this
respect - I really can't be bothered.

N.B. Just for kicks, I'll try if my newsreader allows me to override
its 'User Agent:' header.

[1] There even were some debates about wich headers could be faked/
forged and which not.

[2] (He said) He faked headers so people/organizations could not tie his
threads - posted with different nyms - to one and the same person, but
the way he faked headers, made that actually possible/easier.

[Frank Slootweg]

A little earlier, I wrote:

> N.B. Just for kicks, I'll try if my newsreader allows me to override
> its 'User Agent:' header.

Nope, it doesn't. It just adds it:

> User-Agent: NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch) Hamster/2.0.2.2
> User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-6.3-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686))

I wouldn't expect otherwise, given my newsreader's maintainers are
very strict in adhering to - formal and informal - NetNews/Usenet
standards.

Of course I could point 'you' to other tools, but then I'd to kill
'you' :-)

[Alan Baker]

The delightful thing is that it doesn't matter.

Either way:

He's lying about using vim and telnet...

...or he's lying with a fake header...

...but it's vim and telnet he's lying about.

He's not nearly competent enough to do it.

;-)

[Alan Baker]

:-D

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote :

> Nope, it doesn't. It just adds it:

Hi Frank Slootweg,

I think some news servers won't allow _duplicate_ User-Agent header lines.
o Dunno, I had never tried duplicate headers like yours, before today...

An adult is aware what's of _value_ in a Usenet article is _not_ the header
o The _value_ is in the BODY of the message (and partially the SUBJECT)...

The value of a Usenet article isn't in the date stamp, or the from line...
o Nor is the value of an article in the Usenet Newsreader for Christs sake!

Sadly, there are people, like Alan Baker, who can't figure that out.
o But what I love about Alan Baker is he _always_ proves me right.

The Apple apologists are unfathomably ignorant of even very basic concepts.

At least you aren't unfathomably clueless about trivially simple headers:
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

What's petrifying is that people like Alan Baker apparently actually exist...
o They prove in every post they don't own basic adult facultative cognition.

Anyway, you may not have the memory that I do, but we've discussed headers
multiple times, where, again, headers aren't where the _value_ of a Usenet
post lies.

I do think it's sadly instructive though Alan Baker _still_ is flummoxed
o By something that we knew, oh, I don't know, two decades ago.

*The horrifying thought is that people like Alan Baker actually do exist.*
--
They simply don't own even the very most basic of adult facultative skills.

[Arlen Holder]

Any adult is aware the _value_ in a Usenet article is _not_ the header
o The _value_ is in the BODY of the message (& perhaps, the subject line).

The value of a Usenet article isn't in the time zone, or the email addy...

o Nor is the value of an article in the Usenet Newsreader for Christs sake!

Sadly, there are people, like Alan Baker, who can't figure that out.
o But what I love about Alan Baker is he _always_ proves me right.

*Apple apologists are unfathomably ignorant of even very basic concepts.*

It's rather scary that people like Alan Baker are even allowed to vote!

o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics*
*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

What's petrifying is that people like Alan Baker apparently actually exist...
o They prove in every post they don't own basic adult facultative cognition.

Anyway, as always, headers aren't where the _value_ of a Usenet post lies.
o Headers allow others to _track_ you perhaps - but not the value therein.

I do think it's sadly instructive though Alan Baker _still_ is flummoxed

o By something so trivial that it literally scares me he's _that_ stupid.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-07 1:19 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote :
>
>>   Nope, it doesn't. It just adds it:
>
> Hi Frank Slootweg,
>
> I think some news servers won't allow _duplicate_ User-Agent header lines.
> o Dunno, I had never tried duplicate headers like yours, before today...
> An adult is aware what's of _value_ in a Usenet article is _not_ the header
> o The _value_ is in the BODY of the message (and partially the SUBJECT)...
>
> The value of a Usenet article isn't in the date stamp, or the from line...
> o Nor is the value of an article in the Usenet Newsreader for Christs sake!
>
> Sadly, there are people, like Alan Baker, who can't figure that out.
> o But what I love about Alan Baker is he _always_ proves me right.
>
> The Apple apologists are unfathomably ignorant of even very basic concepts.
>
> At least you aren't unfathomably clueless about trivially simple headers:
> o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics*
>  *skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

You mean the reply you made...

...while also going on about how you weren't going to "respond" to me...

...where you clipped every fact about your lies?

>
>
> What's petrifying is that people like Alan Baker apparently actually
> exist...
> o They prove in every post they don't own basic adult facultative
> cognition.
>
> Anyway, you may not have the memory that I do, but we've discussed headers
> multiple times, where, again, headers aren't where the _value_ of a Usenet
> post lies.

But they do show a liar when he's lying about how he posts to Usenet?

>
> I do think it's sadly instructive though Alan Baker _still_ is flummoxed
> o By something that we knew, oh, I don't know, two decades ago.
>
> *The horrifying thought is that people like Alan Baker actually do exist.*

Sorry, how does any of that add up to you not lying, Liar?

And while I'm asking questions, how is claiming to use vim and telnet to
post "by hand" while actually using NewsTap for iOS not a lie...

...Liar?


:-)

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-07 1:25 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> Any adult is aware the _value_ in a Usenet article is _not_ the header
> o The _value_ is in the BODY of the message (& perhaps, the subject line).

Suddenly you don't value facts quite so much, Liar?

Why did you lie, Liar?

Or are you denying you lied when you said you use vim and telnet to post
"by hand"...

...while actually using NewsTap for iOS?

>
> The value of a Usenet article isn't in the time zone, or the email addy...
> o Nor is the value of an article in the Usenet Newsreader for Christs sake!

But the credibility of someone who has claim he never posts anything but
facts is at issue...

...right, Liar?

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> And while I'm asking questions, how is claiming to use vim and telnet to
> post "by hand" while actually using NewsTap for iOS not a lie...

Much like the lemon-juice bank robber Dunning & Kruger initially studied,
you apologists easily prove to be completely unlike normal adults...

So much faith and misinterpretation in a meaningless header you place.

Sure, we'd expect a mere child to be unaware the headers are meaningless...
o But an actual adult?

Like flat earthers on the Internet...
o *I never thought it was possible such unfathomably ignorant people actually existed*.

Yet, people like Alan Baker seem to appear to actually exist!
o That's petrifying.

It's petrifying people actually exist whose brains are of the apologist.
--
Apologists almost always prove to be unfathamably immune to basic facts.

[Alan Baker]

Do you think that suddenly adding a bunch of custom headers proves
anything but the fact that you ran out, learned out to do it in order to
cover your earlier lie...

...Liar?

:-)

[Arlen Holder]

People like Alan Baker literally scare me that they actually exist.

Much like Dunning & Kruger found out when studying such people...
o It's petrifyingly scary that people like Alan Baker actually exist!

The apologist is much like the flat earther we joke about
o Where nobody has ever met anyone that horrifically stupid in their life.

And yet... people as fantastically immune to fact as Alan Baker...
o Appear to actually exist!

How is that even possible?

1. In this case, Alan Baker put _all_ his faith in a meaningless header.
2. When shown facts, he _clings_ for dear life on that meaningless header.
3. Where he makes up myriad conspiracy theories to support his belief.

When it's clear his belief system was based on exactly _zero_ (0) facts!
o He _still_ desperately clings to the belief system he holds so dear.

Even as his belief system always was, & always will be purely imaginary.
o Supported by exactly zero (0) actual facts.
--
Apologists often easily prove to own completely imaginary belief systems.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> He's not nearly competent enough to do it.

Notice, much like the Dunning Kruger bank robber wasn't competent enough
mentally to assess his own bank-robbing skills....

This Alan Baker assesses me as incapable of modifying something as
trivially simple as a single line of ASCII text in a dictionary lookup
header file.

What's shocking is that Alan Baker actually _believes_ what he writes!

I never thought people like the Dunning Kruger bank robber actually existed
in real life - but here he is in the form of Alan Baker.

Alan has assessed that I'm not capable of modifying a header!

Apparently Alan thinks it's difficult.
--
Shockingly, this is what I have to deal with on the Apple newsgroups.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Do you think that suddenly adding a bunch of custom headers proves
> anything but the fact that you ran out, learned out to do it in order to
> cover your earlier lie...

What shocks me is how dearly you apologists cling to your completely
imaginary belief systems.

You _cling_ to your imaginary beliefs like a child to Santa Claus.
--
Android users should pity that I have to deal with such people who abound
on the Apple newsgroups; their entire belief system is shockingly, purely
imaginary (crafted by Apple MARKETING, who sells them the mere _illusion_
of functionality).

They _cling_ to their imaginary beliefs like a child to Santa Claus.

[Alan Baker]

How is "User agent NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)" trackable, Liar?

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-07 4:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:

I know you're lying.

Everyone else knows you're lying.

You know you're lying.

Get over it.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

Weird how you failed to answer this question, isn't it, Liar?

[Frank Slootweg]

Huh? Who's talking about "trackable"? I see no such thing, at least
not in the part you quoted (and can't be bother to re-read the 20+ posts
in this thread).

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Weird how you failed to answer this question, isn't it, Liar?

Alan,

I've studied you apologists for years...
o And can predict almost your every excuse.

You apologists prove to be completely oblivious to patently obvious facts.
o You're _desperate_ to change facts so they fit your imaginary beliefs!

While the aggregators to fear are the ones you do NOT know about...
o Here's just _one_ super obvious tracker that you are utterly immune to:

o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2019
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/ioNWDzKLUVA/uwizkuEfBgAJ>
o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 12/2018
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6RAVZk0KkGM/XZToWWbuFQAJ>
o misc.phone.mobile.iphone newsgroup statistics for 04/2020
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/mV8ahRw2lSc/adaLNnkwAAAJ>
etc.

While I've long understood how fantastically _immune_ to facts you are...
o What's most revealing is how _desperate_ you are to claim all facts lies.

You're like a child who thinks he knows it all who is suddenly told that
Santa Clause is completely imaginary.

For a deeper understanding of these strange apologists, please see:
o *What are the common well-verified psychological traits*
*of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM>

Specifically this recent summary post relevant to this thread:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM/o0SbnvvBAgAJ>
--
Apologists are desperate to cling to their imaginary belief systems; &
Apple MARKETING is brilliant feeding them exactly what they want to hear.

[Alan Baker]

The Liar is trying to claim that he changes his User agent so he can't
be tracked.

[Alan Baker]

Why all that rather than just explaining how you can be tracked by a
"User agent" string that is completely the same has millions of other
people...

...Liar?

You lied.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Now just learn to deal with it.

:-)

[sms]

On 5/8/2020 1:27 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

<snip>

> The Liar is trying to claim that he changes his User agent so he can't
> be tracked.

Clearly he doesn't understand how User Agent strings work. He's
incorrect, but he probably just doesn't understand the technology.

It's been a while since I had to play with User Agent Strings. Many
years ago, a now defunct company called Metro-Fi deployed ad-supported
free Wi-Fi in some cities. However if you changed your User Agent string
to a non-Windows browser there were no ads, their advertising software
only worked on Windows machines and when it saw a non-Windows browser it
didn't try to display ads. Metro-Fi shut down right around the time the
first iPhone was introduced.

If "Arlen" is really concerned about tracking he should use a VPN to
change his IP address and a utility like TMAC to change his MAC address
<https://technitium.com/tmac/>.

I no longer see his posts, but when I did, his posts were correct about
40% of the time and incorrect about 60% of the time. But the percentage
of time he was intentionally incorrect versus the percentage of time he
just didn't understand a subject, is unknown. The real problem with his
posts is the snarky and obnoxious tone of them.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 1:57 p.m., sms wrote:
> On 5/8/2020 1:27 PM, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The Liar is trying to claim that he changes his User agent so he can't
>> be tracked.
>
> Clearly he doesn't understand how User Agent strings work. He's
> incorrect, but he probably just doesn't understand the technology.
>

But he fails to understand so much, so...

> It's been a while since I had to play with User Agent Strings. Many
> years ago, a now defunct company called Metro-Fi deployed ad-supported
> free Wi-Fi in some cities. However if you changed your User Agent string
> to a non-Windows browser there were no ads, their advertising software
> only worked on Windows machines and when it saw a non-Windows browser it
> didn't try to display ads. Metro-Fi shut down right around the time the
> first iPhone was introduced.
>
> If "Arlen" is really concerned about tracking he should use a VPN to
> change his IP address and a utility like TMAC to change his MAC address
> <https://technitium.com/tmac/>.
>
> I no longer see his posts, but when I did, his posts were correct about
> 40% of the time and incorrect about 60% of the time. But the percentage
> of time he was intentionally incorrect versus the percentage of time he
> just didn't understand a subject, is unknown. The real problem with his
> posts is the snarky and obnoxious tone of them.

So you haven't seen his thrashing as he tries to understand contacts
databases on Android.

It's been hilarious.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :

> Clearly he doesn't understand how User Agent strings work. He's
> incorrect, but he probably just doesn't understand the technology.

WTF?

A user agent string is a string.
o There's nothing more or less to it.

It's just a string for God's sake.
o Apologists like Alan Baker & Steve Scharf have no concept of "strings".

> If "Arlen" is really concerned about tracking he should use a VPN to
> change his IP address

That again _proves_ Steve is a moron.

Clueless apologists like Steve Scharf are _immune_ to the simplest of fact,
where I must have stated scores of times on this newsgroup I'm on one of
over six thousand VPN servers at any given time for Christs' sake.

I have entire threads and tutorials on using VPN full time for Gods sake.
o And yet, apologists like Steve Scharf are utterly _immune_ to facts.

My own NNTP posting host clearly shows changing servers for heaven's sake!

> and a utility like TMAC to change his MAC address
> <https://technitium.com/tmac/>.

WTF?
o Who on this planet is as stupid as that suggestion just proved him to be?

Does Steve Sharf have _any_ idea how MAC addresses work?
o None whatsoever?

Really?

People as stupid as Steve's comments just proved, shouldn't even exist.
o And yet, they do.

> I no longer see his posts, but when I did, his posts were correct about
> 40% of the time and incorrect about 60% of the time.

We have an entire thread on that subject, where Steve Scharf can't tell the
difference between a fact and an opinion.
o *Steve claims Arlen is only 60% correct where Arlen is 100% correct on material facts*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/u7yQ959XPRU/a9jvGbXfAwAJ>

> The real problem with his
> posts is the snarky and obnoxious tone of them.

I don't blame Steve Scharf for being upset that it's trivial to prove that
what he posted, in this thread alone, is proof he's an utter moron.

See also:
o *Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basic*

*skills an adult should have on the Internet?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo>

--
The problem isn't that apologists are morons; it's that they don't know it.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-08 5:57 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
> In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :
>
>> Clearly he doesn't understand how User Agent strings work. He's
>> incorrect, but he probably just doesn't understand the technology.
>
> WTF?
>
> A user agent string is a string. o There's nothing more or less to it.
>
> It's just a string for God's sake.
> o Apologists like Alan Baker & Steve Scharf have no concept of "strings".

It IS just a string.

It's just that it isn't a string that you need to change to prevent
people from tracking you.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

[Schweik]

Perhaps it is not simply lying.

A delusion is a false belief that is not subject to reason or
contradictory evidence which may be firmly maintained in the face of
incontrovertible evidence that it is false. Delusions are common
psychotic disorders and can also be a feature of brain damage or
disorders.
Examples of delusions include the sufferer believing have done or
created something of extreme value or have an unusual power or talent.
--
Cheers,

Schweik

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> But he fails to understand so much, so...

To the apologists Alan Baker & Steve Scharf...
o Both of whom appear to be incomprehensibly ignorant of mere strings...

What you apologists all fail to comprehend, which even Frank Slootweg
I'm sure _probably_ understands, is that a User-Agent (aka X-Newsreader)
string can be almost any string you want it to be.

It doesn't have any inherent meaning in and of itself for God's sake.

For example,
set %User-Agent% = 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41
set %User-Agent% = 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.41 (b55bd473.101.271)
set %User-Agent% = 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.84
set %User-Agent% = ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
set %User-Agent% = ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
set %User-Agent% = G2/1.0
set %User-Agent% = Hogwasher/5.18
set %User-Agent% = MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.12.3)
set %User-Agent% = MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.14.6)
set %User-Agent% = MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.9.9
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0a2
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 SeaMonkey/2.40
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.14) Gecko/20071210 Thunderbird/1.5.0.14
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.5.1
set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/3.2 (iPad)
set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/4.0.1 (iPad)
set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/5.2.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
set %User-Agent% = Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802)
set %User-Agent% = Snitbuster (Multics version)
set %User-Agent% = Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
set %User-Agent% = XPN/1.2.6 (Street Spirit ; Linux)
set %User-Agent% = Xnews/2006.08.24
set %User-Agent% = Xnews/2009.05.01 Mime-proxy/2.0.c.1 (Win32)
set %User-Agent% = Xnews/5.04.25
set %User-Agent% = Xnews/??.01.30
set %User-Agent% = flnews/0.14 (for AIX)
set %User-Agent% = flnews/0.14 (for GNU/Linux)
set %User-Agent% = flnews/0.18pre13 (for NetBSD)'#1310 + 'Mime-Version: 1.0
set %User-Agent% = slrn/0.9.8.1 (FreeBSD)
set %User-Agent% = slrn/1.0.2 (Darwin)
set %User-Agent% = slrn/1.0.2 (Linux)
set %User-Agent% = tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.10 (i86pc))
set %User-Agent% = tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-6.3-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2
set %User-Agent% = tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (Linux/4.9.0-0.bpo.5-amd64 (x86_64))
set %User-Agent% = tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64 (x86_64))
set %User-Agent% = tin/2.4.0-20160823 ("Octomore") (UNIX) (Linux/4.7.9-100.fc23.x86_64 (x86_64))
set %User-Agent% = tin/2.4.1-20161224 ("Daill") (UNIX) (OpenBSD/6.1 (amd64))
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 3.0/32.763
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 5.00/32.1171
set %X-Newsreader% = Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
set %X-Newsreader% = MesNews/1.08.06.00-it
set %X-Newsreader% = Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3664
set %X-Newsreader% = Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
set %X-Newsreader% = Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.3790.1830
set %X-Newsreader% = Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416
set %X-Newsreader% = PMINews 2.00.1205 For OS/2
set %X-Newsreader% = PiaoHong.Usenet.Client.Free:1.65
etc.
--
What's shocking is that apologists can't process even simple facts.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Schweik <goodsoldi...@somewhere.com> wrote :

> Examples of delusions include the sufferer believing have done or
> created something of extreme value or have an unusual power or talent.

It's the apologists Alan Baker & Steve Scharf claiming the
string has some kind of "meaning" to them - not me.

To me, it's just a string of characters off a lookup table, e.g.,
o set %User-Agent% = ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
o set %User-Agent% = G2/1.0
o set %User-Agent% = Hogwasher/5.18
o set %User-Agent% = MacSOUP/2.8.6b1 (ed136d9b90) (Mac OS 10.12.3)
o set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
o set %User-Agent% = Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/3.2 (iPad)
o set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/4.0.1 (iPad)
o set %User-Agent% = NewsTap/5.2.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
o set %User-Agent% = Ratcatcher/2.0.0.25 (Windows/20130802)
o set %User-Agent% = Snitbuster (Multics version)
o set %User-Agent% = Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
o set %User-Agent% = XPN/1.2.6 (Street Spirit ; Linux)
o set %User-Agent% = Xnews/2006.08.24
etc.

What's shocking is how incredibly naive these apologists prove to be.
--
Apple MARKETING must have a field day with people this incredibly stupid.

[Arlen Holder]

Steve Scharf,

I _wish_ you apologists could carry on an _adult_ conversation...
o Sort of like this one moments ago I typed off the top of my head...

Not one of you apologists is capable of even close to this level of thought
o *Life with COVID-19*, by The Real Bev
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/Uwuhlfo4h04>

To wit:

In response to what s|b <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote :

> It's not going to last.

Hi S or b,

I know you from this android newsgroup where you have been shown to be
intelligent, which is vastly appreciated in this sea of the hoi polloi.

You're probably correct that human nature will return to its past, where,
I'm trying to study how this particular virus caused such a disruption to
our normal schedules (and even personal space considerations).

Personally, I feel this virus is going to be with us forever.

However, nobody can predict what will happen simply because a lot depends
on how "leaky" the quarantine is, how completely the antibody blood draw
and/or nasal swabs are, and how soon an "effective" vaccine comes out to
protect those at greatest risk, nor whether the virus, admittedly an RNA
virus (which has fewer replication checks than do DNA viruses) will mutate,
and in what direction immunologically.

I've read many predictions, where the most common seems to be a series of
decreasing amplitude 'waves' of infection over the next decade or five, or
ten, or forever, where we must remember that only a couple coronaviruses
cause from one tenth to up to about a third of all common colds today.

That's pretty damn infectious.

Contrast two coronaviruses causing at least 1/10th of all colds with the
_hundreds_ of rhino and adenoviruses out there that _also_ cause the common
cold, and that gives you a glimpse at just how infectious these zoonotic
coronaviruses have evolved to be.

What's particularly nasty about this SARS-CoV-2 bug is that furin enzyme
cleaves the glycoprotein spike such that it attaches wonderfully to our
ACE2 receptors in our ciliated lung cells allowing our phospholipid cell
membranes to fuse with that of the virus.

This essentially opens the door to the capsid which contains the curled up
RNA of the virus, which our cells replicate outside the nucleus, to form so
many new virus particles that our cells rupture, lending our own
phospholipid envelope to the virus to allow it to shed anew.

The problem is that our humoral (i.e., targeted) immune system is not
acquainted with this particular spike protein, so all we're left with is
our innate (i.e., non specific) immune system, which, unfortunately, tends
to run amok with what is known in the trade as a 'cytokine storm'.

Worse, even if we survive the 'honeycomb lung' scarring of the full-blown
Covid-19 disease, our targeted antibody titre only lasts a handful of years
(based on most, but not all scientific papers I've read to date).

What that means is that even if we come up with a way to create the
glycoprotein antigen and inject it into our bodies to make antibodies
targeted to that antigenic shape, those antibodies don't seem to last all
that long so we're gonna have to be taking the vaccine forever (if that's
the case).

The point is there is no cure other than the normal one, which is that
those who die, die, and those who live, pass their genes on to the future.

Unfortunately, most of us are octogenarians, so, we're the ones who
experience the cytokine storm that ends up, in the end, to be our doom.
--
SARS-CoV-2 spike affinity is orders of magnitude greater than SARS-CoV-1.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Frank Slootweg <th...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote :

> Huh? Who's talking about "trackable"? I see no such thing, at least
> not in the part you quoted (and can't be bother to re-read the 20+ posts
> in this thread).

Frank Slootweg,

*I've proved my point the apologists are fantastically ignorant*.
o *Their entire belief system is based on exactly zero (0) facts*.

Moving on... please ask me _anything_ you want about the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
o Anything.

Yup.
o Anything.

o *Mobile phones are covered in germs. Disinfecting them daily*
*could help stop diseases spreading*, by BRS
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/BsvN6N1VSZM/D6GZFInHBQAJ>

*Here is just a sample of what you'll learn... off the top of my head*!

Hi The Real Bev,

I wonder how many people on this thread actually understand viruses?
o They're not even living things - they're just a bunch of chemicals.

While the coronavirus family can "survive" on inanimate objects for up to 9
days (with half lives of 1 day on paper, 3 days on some metals, 3 hours in
air, etc.), suffice to say your phone is teaming with all sorts of viruses,
the coronavirus being only one of many enveloped viruses.

While the DNA or RNA of any particular virus is different, all you need to
do to "inactivate" them is denature their capsid proteins or wipe out the
phospholipid envelope, or change the shape of the glycoprotein spike, etc.

The point is it's all chemical in nature when discussing disinfection.
o All you need to do is pick a chemical which won't hurt the phone itself.

To that end, it seems, strangely, the hoi polloi are just now figuring out
that "germs" exist in the billions on your cellphone, where it's deviously
difficult to "sterilize" (think autoclave) but pretty darn simple to
'disinfect' (think alcohol+water) physical items such as cell phones.

As most of you probably know, a coronavirus is an enveloped virus which
causes something like 10% to 30% of all common colds (only four of them are
needed to cause that many colds - so it's clearly quite prevalent).

This particular SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus happens to have a spike protein
which is cleaved by furin such that its affinity for your ACE2 receptors is
an order to one or two more orders of magnitude better than that of its
similar cousin sometimes referred to as "classical SARS" (aka SARS-CoV-1).

The spike protein will be its weakness for antibody reactions (think
vaccines); but the envelope is its weakness for disinfectants.

That phospholipid envelope surrounding the capsid is its strength inside
your body; but that lipid envelope is its weakness outside your body, in
that it's as simple to destroy that lipid envelope on your phone as it is
to hand wash your oily dishes at home.

Almost anything that acts on fats will work, e.g.,
o Expose it to dry air
o Expose it to heat
o Expose it to UV light
o Expose it to detergents
o Expose it to peroxides
o Expose it to oxidizers
o Expose it to alcohols
etc.

Any and all of these will break up the lipid outer envelope, thereby making
the virus "inactive" on your phone.

Ask away if you wish to know more about the coronavirus on your phone.
--
Two kinds of people are on Usenet: those adding value... & those who can't.

[sms]

On 5/8/2020 4:34 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

<snip>

> So you haven't seen his thrashing as he tries to understand contacts
> databases on Android.

I have not.

> It's been hilarious.

It ceased to be amusing a long time ago.

[Alan Baker]

You just have to view it from the right perspective.

:-)

[A1len Hol1er]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

>> It ceased to be amusing a long time ago.
>
> You just have to view it from the right perspective.

Re: FACTS & ASSESSMENT of those facts...
o Adults should never disagree on facts (facts are funny that way);
o Adults can logically disagree on assessments (adults are funny that way).

For the permanent Usenet record...
o Steve Scharf has made his spurious unsupported claims multiple times.

And yet, he has _never_ backed his claim up with even a _single_ fact.
o *Steve claims Arlen is only 60% correct where Arlen is 100% correct*
*on material facts*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/misc.phone.mobile.iphone>

What Steve doesn't seem to comprehend is the basic difference between:
o Fact
o Opinion

What Steve's really saying is that he disagrees with my "opinion" 40% of
the time, which is fine, as adults can reasonably assess facts differently.

But Steve is apparently not intelligent enough to know the difference
between a fact and an assessment of that fact - since he says the "facts"
are wrong almost half the time - and yet - any adult can see Steve has
_never_ pointed to even a _single_ fact which was wrong.

Not even one.
o And that's a fact.

In fact, Steve when silent when I showed him (with facts) that Qualcomm's
royalties per iPhone went _up_, rather than down - simply because Steve was
incapable of reading facts in a simple news article.

Given Steve's current job, I find it a bit scary that Steve is _that_
incapable of processing basic facts about a relatively complex transaction.

The scary thing is that Steve _should_ be smarter than he proves to be...
o Given his Cupertino roots...

In fact, I'm glad I don't live in Steve's town, as I'd vote him out of
office if I could since he _proved_ to be incapable of comprehending
something that I would expect any _adult_ to be able to process.
o *Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three*
*and a half billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid*
*by the poor Apple consumer)*
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/lJ4CkRhfCwAJ>

The fact is that _all_ the apologists, Steve Scharf & Alan Baker included
o Failed to comprehend the simply royalty calculation was on iPhones

And that, in and of itself, is what scares me about you apologists.
o You're so easily proved to be incapable of adult facultative cognition.
--
Those who claim my facts are wrong need only to back up their claims.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-09 7:37 p.m., A1len Hol1er wrote:
> In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :
>
>>> It ceased to be amusing a long time ago.
>>
>> You just have to view it from the right perspective.
>
> Re: FACTS & ASSESSMENT of those facts...
> o Adults should never disagree on facts (facts are funny that way);
> o Adults can logically disagree on assessments (adults are funny that way).
>
> For the permanent Usenet record...

Hi, Liar!

I'm going to ignore everything you wrote below and repeat:


But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...

...because the same string is used by so many people.

You lie.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Learn to deal with it.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what Alan Baker <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote :

> Suddenly you don't value facts quite so much, Liar?
>
> Why did you lie, Liar?
>
> Or are you denying you lied when you said you use vim and telnet to post
> "by hand"...
>
> ...while actually using NewsTap for iOS?

Hi Alan,

Being an apologist means you are a special type of human being, but, given
the challenge, is there _anything_ you can talk about on an adult level?

For example, I've been in Great Books for decades where we've read and
discussed over 500 books as a group at our local library (now by Zoom):
o *What is a privacy-aware cross platform free personal*
*video-tele-conference app to host & join meetings*
*of about a dozen participants discussing Great Books?*
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/DMZxUOMFb7M>

Are there any great books you can discuss as an adult?
--
It's difficult for normal adults to find common ground with apologists.

[sms]

On 5/9/2020 8:11 PM, Alan Baker wrote:

<snip>

> But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...
>
> ...because the same string is used by so many people.

No one would think any worse of him if he simply admitted his mistake
and moved on. In fact it would be one small step forward.

As I've said before, about 40% of what he posts is correct. If he could
remove the snarkiness from that 40%, and just stop posting about
subjects of which he has no knowledge, it would be a win-win for everyone.

[Alan Baker]

Also, for a guy who claims to only post as an "adult"...

...he sure includes a lot of juvenile snipes about people not even
involved in his thread yet.

[Arlen Holder]

In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :

Steve,

I can't believe you said what you said 'cuz no adult would claim that!
o What you said means you're _incredibly_ immune to basic facts.

I'm gonna change the header for a second so you will _see_ this.
o Because you are proving, Steve, you're fantastically immune to facts.

I'm sick & tired of you spouting complete nonsense, Steve.
o It's as if you're a kindergarten child immune to basic facts.

Only you & Alan Baker claim User Agent strings are all that's tracked!
o You're both incomprehensibly stupid - so you're _immune_ to that fact.

Alan Baker and you are the only people on this entire planet...
o Who built your idiotic strawman that it's _only_ the User Agent string.

You both are clearly complete morons... utterly _immune_ to facts!
o Everything you say proves you're complete and utter fools.

Nobody on this planet, but the two of you, claim that the string itself is
what's tracked - which I've told you numerous times.

It's a strawman only the two of you built.
o Nobody else - just the two of you - have that belief system, Steve.

Steve ... listen clearly...
o I don't expect Alan Baker to _ever_ comprehend something simple as that.

Clearly he's left-quadrant Dunning Kruger - he is unable to process facts.
o I use him _only_ to study the strange mind of the Apple apologist.

But you Steve ... I assume you have a college degree & a normal mind.
o Why are you _immune_ to the facts?

You & Alan are the only two people on this planet who claim what you claim.
o You are both incomprehensibly _immune_ to the simplest of basic facts.

Only you & Alan Baker claim User Agent strings are all that's tracked!
o You're both incomprehensibly stupid - so you're _immune_ to that fact.

In summary, I'm shocked that I have to explain something so trivial as it's
the sum total of the fingerprint that's most trackable, where I randomize
every header I can as a result - since the value of a Usenet post isn't in
the header anyway - it's in the BODY of the message (which I can also
randomize if I like).

I don't expect Alan Baker to understand a concept _that_ simple, Steve...
o But the fact YOU don't comprehend something that simple - is a problem.

Please _stop_ being utterly immune to basic facts I've stated _many_ times.
o On this entire planet, only an apologists would claim what you claimed.

Normal adults know that fingerprinting is based on _multiple_ identifying
bits; but apologists like you, Steve, are worrisome in how incredibly
stupid you _remain_, even _long_ after this was explained to you.

Stop building an idiotic strawman just so you can swing a sword against it.
o Leave that to the apologists who don't comprehend even simple facts.
--
Apologists like Steve & Alan prove incredibly immune to simple facts.

[For Steve Scharf]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 09:56:20 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :

>> But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...
>>
>> ...because the same string is used by so many people.
>
> No one would think any worse of him if he simply admitted his mistake
> and moved on. In fact it would be one small step forward.
>
> As I've said before, about 40% of what he posts is correct. If he could
> remove the snarkiness from that 40%, and just stop posting about
> subjects of which he has no knowledge, it would be a win-win for everyone.

Steve,

No wonder you think I'm "wrong on facts" for Christs' sake.
o You can't even comprehend something as simple as a header for God's sake.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 11:13 a.m., For Steve Scharf wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 09:56:20 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
> In response to what sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote :
>
>>> But a "User agent" has no utility for tracking anyone, Liar...
>>>
>>> ...because the same string is used by so many people.
>>
>> No one would think any worse of him if he simply admitted his mistake
>> and moved on. In fact it would be one small step forward.
>>
>> As I've said before, about 40% of what he posts is correct. If he could
>> remove the snarkiness from that 40%, and just stop posting about
>> subjects of which he has no knowledge, it would be a win-win for everyone.
>
> Steve,
>
> No wonder you think I'm "wrong on facts" for Christs' sake.
> o You can't even comprehend something as simple as a header for God's sake.

He comprehends them just fine, Liar.

>
> I can't believe you said what you said 'cuz no adult would claim that!
> o What you said means you're _incredibly_ immune to basic facts.
>
> I'm gonna change the header for a second so you will _see_ this.
> o Because you are proving, Steve, you're fantastically immune to facts.

Which will prove... ...what, Liar?

>
> I'm sick & tired of you spouting complete nonsense, Steve.
> o It's as if you're a kindergarten child immune to basic facts.
>
> Only you & Alan Baker claim User Agent strings are all that's tracked!
> o You're both incomprehensibly stupid - so you're _immune_ to that fact.

Nope. I literally never said or implied anything of the sort, Liar.

But it's one of your common tactics: to argue against things that were
never claimed.

>
> Alan Baker and you are the only people on this entire planet...
> o Who built your idiotic strawman that it's _only_ the User Agent string.

I built no such thing, Liar?

>
> You both are clearly complete morons... utterly _immune_ to facts!
> o Everything you say proves you're complete and utter fools.
>
> Nobody on this planet, but the two of you, claim that the string itself is
> what's tracked - which I've told you numerous times.

Then why change it, Liar?

>
> It's a strawman only the two of you built.
> o Nobody else - just the two of you - have that belief system, Steve.
>
> Steve ... listen clearly...
> o I don't expect Alan Baker to _ever_ comprehend something simple as that.

I don't expect you'll ever answer why you change your "User agent"...

...or why it stays the same for long periods, Liar.

>
> Clearly he's left-quadrant Dunning Kruger - he is unable to process facts.
> o I use him _only_ to study the strange mind of the Apple apologist.
>
> But you Steve ... I assume you have a college degree & a normal mind.
> o Why are you _immune_ to the facts?
>
> You & Alan are the only two people on this planet who claim what you claim.
> o You are both incomprehensibly _immune_ to the simplest of basic facts.
>
> Only you & Alan Baker claim User Agent strings are all that's tracked!
> o You're both incomprehensibly stupid - so you're _immune_ to that fact.

You're raving so hard now that you're repeating yourself.

>
> In summary, I'm shocked that I have to explain something so trivial as it's
> the sum total of the fingerprint that's most trackable, where I randomize
> every header I can as a result - since the value of a Usenet post isn't in
> the header anyway - it's in the BODY of the message (which I can also
> randomize if I like).

But you don't randomize the User agent, Liar.

It remains the same for long periods.

You only started randomizing it when I pointed you were claiming to use
vim and telnet to post and I saw post after post with the exact same
user string; one that made sense.

[Alan Baker]

What reads that table, Liar?

What is the mechanism you use?

If what you presented was actually a lookup table of strings, you
wouldn't need the "set" at the beginning of each. So other piece of
software would pick a string from a table that wouldn't include "set
%User-Agent = " at the start of every line.

Furthermore, what software you using the doesn't need some form of
quoting or escaping for whitespace characters in strings?

If " " is being used to separate the tokens "set", "%User-Agent%", and
"="...

...then how does your software know that "MacSOUP/2.8.6b1" isn't a
separate token from the "(ed136d9b90)", and "(Mac OS 10.12.3)"?

But this will be like the time I asked for your method for synching your
contact data across different devices, won't it, Liar?

You remember how you started thrashing but never actually produced the
software you used nor the series of steps taken to use it, right, Liar?

And then you ran to comp.mobile.android and started asking questions
about what software could be used?

[For Steve Scharf]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 15:42:53 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> But you don't randomize the User agent, Liar.

Alan Baker,

How does it actually feel that your entire belief system...
o Is, literally, completely imaginary

Just like that of Steve Scharf...
o Do you realize _nobody_ but apologists believes what you believe?

The only people who are supposed to have imaginary belief systems...
o Are young children

The rest of us are supposed to own basic adult facultative skills.
o Look at the header, for example, of this post, Alan.
--
Apologists are utterly incapable of comprehending the simplest facts.

[For Steve Scharf]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 15:51:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> What reads that table, Liar?

Hi Alan Baker,

Look at my headers in this post, Alan Baker.
o If I didn't let you know who I was in the BODY...

What would you know about me from _just_ the headers alone?
o Can you tell my time zone for example?

Or my IP address (aka NNTP posting host)?
o Or even what my character encoding is (e.g., GB versus EN)?

Then look at _your_ headers Alan...
o Assuming they're not spoofed... what do they tell about you?

Assuming they're not spoofed, do they tell me your platform?
o Or your time zone, just for one minor trivially simple example?

You (and Steve Scharf) are incredibly naive about headers Alan
o Every statement from you proves you clearly don't understand anything.

The only reason I converse with you is that I am _studying_ you.
o You have no meaningful value to anyone, Alan.

Your brain is what I'm interested in.
o Because it is so strange and foreign to me.

For example, we both agree the USERAGENT string is simply a string.
o And yet, you call me a "liar" for what we both agree upon.

You don't even realize _why_ you call facts you can't process lies.
o Steve Scharf did exactly what you do.

Both of you call facts that you simply can't process... lies.

> What is the mechanism you use?

Again, Alan Baker, you prove incredibly immune to facts.
o It's a freaking dictionary lookup for Christs sake.

Do you really think it's "hard" to make a list of strings?
o What planet do you and Steve Scharf come from that you're _that_ dense?

> But this will be like the time I asked for your method for synching your
> contact data across different devices, won't it, Liar?

Alan,
Simply because you can't process the simplest of facts...
o Doesn't mean those facts are lies.

It simply means you're an idiot, Alan.

You are _lucky_ I spend time dealing with you, in fact...
o Since in decades of tech, I've never met an idiot like you.

You _interest_ me because you exist.
o I had never thought people as dumb as you are - could exist.

And yet, you exist.
--
The only reason for dealing with apologists is that they teach us exactly
why Apple is so successful at selling the mere illusion of functionality.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 3:53 p.m., For Steve Scharf wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 15:42:53 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> But you don't randomize the User agent, Liar.
>
> Alan Baker,
>
> How does it actually feel that your entire belief system...
> o Is, literally, completely imaginary
>
> Just like that of Steve Scharf...
> o Do you realize _nobody_ but apologists believes what you believe?
>
> The only people who are supposed to have imaginary belief systems...
> o Are young children
>
> The rest of us are supposed to own basic adult facultative skills.
> o Look at the header, for example, of this post, Alan.
>

You're doing it NOW, Liar.

I thought I'd made it obvious enough that I understood that it CAN be
done, but you're not very bright.

But for a long period of time, all your posts had the header:

"User agent NewsTap/5.4.1 (iPhone/iPod Touch)"

And before that, it was:

"User agent NewsTap/4.0.1 (iPad)"

There was no randomizing.

So what happened to your clever "scripts plus vi" system for doing this
randomizing you claim was going on, Liar? Did it just fail for a few weeks?

And if not being tracked was so very, very important to you...

...why does your posting host information...

...which actually DOES uniquely identify you...

...stay the same across many posts, Liar?

Why do you use the same email address over and over, Liar?

"arlen...@anyexample.com"

Posting host data and email addresses actually CAN be used to track you...

...but you don't randomize those.


It's almost like the whole "I'm doing this to avoid being tracked" thing
is just an excuse...

...right, Liar?

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 4:05 p.m., For Steve Scharf wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 15:51:55 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> What reads that table, Liar?
>
> Hi Alan Baker,
>
> Look at my headers in this post, Alan Baker.
> o If I didn't let you know who I was in the BODY...

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> What would you know about me from _just_ the headers alone?
> o Can you tell my time zone for example?

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> Or my IP address (aka NNTP posting host)?
> o Or even what my character encoding is (e.g., GB versus EN)?

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> Then look at _your_ headers Alan...
> o Assuming they're not spoofed... what do they tell about you?

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> Assuming they're not spoofed, do they tell me your platform?
> o Or your time zone, just for one minor trivially simple example?

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> You (and Steve Scharf) are incredibly naive about headers Alan
> o Every statement from you proves you clearly don't understand anything.

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> The only reason I converse with you is that I am _studying_ you.
> o You have no meaningful value to anyone, Alan.

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> Your brain is what I'm interested in.
> o Because it is so strange and foreign to me.

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> For example, we both agree the USERAGENT string is simply a string.
> o And yet, you call me a "liar" for what we both agree upon.

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> You don't even realize _why_ you call facts you can't process lies.
> o Steve Scharf did exactly what you do.
>
> Both of you call facts that you simply can't process... lies.
>

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>> What is the mechanism you use, Liar?

>
> Again, Alan Baker, you prove incredibly immune to facts.
> o It's a freaking dictionary lookup for Christs sake.
>
> Do you really think it's "hard" to make a list of strings?
> o What planet do you and Steve Scharf come from that you're _that_ dense?

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
>> But this will be like the time I asked for your method for synching your
>> contact data across different devices, won't it, Liar?
>
> Alan,
> Simply because you can't process the simplest of facts...
> o Doesn't mean those facts are lies.
>
> It simply means you're an idiot, Alan.

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> You are _lucky_ I spend time dealing with you, in fact...
> o Since in decades of tech, I've never met an idiot like you.

Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

>
> You _interest_ me because you exist.
> o I had never thought people as dumb as you are - could exist.
>
> And yet, you exist.
>

And yet, you refuse to simply explain what software reads this table you
claim exists...

...and accepts strings with spaces in the middle of them with no
enclosing quotes or escape characters, Liar.

Why is that?

:-)

[For Alan Baker]

On Sun, 10 May 2020 16:25:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?

Alan,

*People like you are very likely why Apple MARKETING is so successful.*

Every time you say "liar" it's proof you lack adult facultative skills.
1. You originally claimed I didn't understand & couldn't change headers
2. Then you claimed that I didn't realize what header lines even were
3. Now you seem to claim that I can't pluck them out of a simple table

Nobody is _that_ stupid Alan ... and yet .. you exist.
o For Christs' sake, Alan, do you realize you're an utter idiot?

The fact is (a) I did explain it, and yet (b) you're too unfathomably
stupid to understand that I did explain it.

Could you imagine if you or if that other moron, Steve Scharf, had to
actually understand something that was even slightly complicated?

Explaining anything to you is like explaining quantum physics to a dog.
o It's just a freaking character string, for Christs' sake.

*People like you are very likely why Apple MARKETING is so successful.*
--
Understanding apologists is the first step in understanding Apple owners.

[Alan Baker]

On 2020-05-10 6:03 p.m., For Alan Baker wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2020 16:25:41 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Why can't you simply explain what reads this table you claim you use, Liar?
>
> Alan,
>
> *People like you are very likely why Apple MARKETING is so successful.*
>
> Every time you say "liar" it's proof you lack adult facultative skills.
> 1. You originally claimed I didn't understand & couldn't change headers

Nope. I never claimed that.

Liar.

> 2. Then you claimed that I didn't realize what header lines even were

Nope. I never claimed that.

Liar.

> 3. Now you seem to claim that I can't pluck them out of a simple table

I'm not saying you can't, Liar.

I'm asking you to explain your exact process.

Which is the ONE thing you simply won't do.

Interesting, don't you think...

...Liar?