"Just Taylor" cares about only 1 person: Spammy!!!
Anonymous
(i.e. Sanford Wallace)
-- the only person he ever cared about (himself!!)
Quoting:
From: v...@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: June 5, 1998
Date: 6 Jun 2002 18:39:06 -0600
Organization: Rhyolite Software
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <adovba$sam$1...@calcite.rhyolite.com>
References: <adljh...@enews2.newsguy.com>
<B92552F0.3451A%che...@chickenboner.com>
<adonoo$n2b$1...@calcite.rhyolite.com>
<j9qvfu4cs3h27l197...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.rhyolite.com
X-Trace: calcite.rhyolite.com 1023410346 29015 127.0.0.1 (7 Jun 2002
00:39:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: use...@calcite.rhyolite.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2002 00:39:06 GMT
In article <j9qvfu4cs3h27l197...@4ax.com>,
Just Taylor <tay...@wilhelp.com> wrote:
> ...
>>I don't mean to insult your saint or suggest that he was other than
>>a very good man, but please, this stuff is getting way too thick.
>>Most of these annual eulogies are too obviously the old tactic of
>>praising someone in the hope that the praise will rub off on the giver.
>
>So nobody can give praise when praise is do? Its all a scam in hopes to
>make the giver feel good about himself/herself? Check. Any kind words
said
>about anyone is nothing but a lie with hopes that it will reflect on the
>giver.
Are the kind words directed to Mr. Nitchals or his ghost? They don't
seem to be. Instead, people are praising him to each other. The
first year or two, the annual chorus might have been honest expressions
of grief. Even today they might be that in a few cases, but the
majority are merely participating in a cascade of NANAE politcally
correct pieties instead of puns or cat stories.
>That's why I always like smart, beautiful people like you Vernon.
I can't seem to recall when I was last called beautiful.
I'd settle for "aspires to be honest."
> ...
>>>large networks (UUNET, Sprint, Verio) to stop their spam support? Jim
>>>accomplished a lot while he was here, but things are different these
days.
>>
>>I don't see much difference or how there could be much difference.
>>For example, UUnet and Sprint did not spring into existence in 1998.
>
>They also were not the major players.
I don't know what Internet you were using in 1998, but UUnet and Sprint
had major email spam problems on the Internet I used back then. Each had
NANAE commentators in 1998 championing them as the Great Satans of Spam.
See some of the 11,000 hits for
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=sprint&as_ugroup=news.admin.net-
abuse.*&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as_
maxm=6&as_maxy=1998&as_scoring=d
and a few of the 15,000 hits for
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=uunet&as_ugroup=news.admin.net-
abuse.*&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=6&as
_maxm=6&as_maxy=1998&as_scoring=d
> Not all the roaches in the Agis
>closet were killed and they spread like all roaches do. That and the fact
>that not all the roaches knew about spam in the first place... it took
time
>for many of them to catch on.
If that is intended to say that UUnet and Sprint were never and still
are not the only big carriers spam, then I agree.
>>>Most spammers are criminals that have already been in trouble with the
law
>>>for fraud, burglary, etc. It is not the same bunch that existed in days
gone
>>>by.
>>
>>As far as I can tell, that's simply wrong. The same sort of people
>>are involved in spam today as at the beginning.
>>At the beginning, there were 3 types:
>> 1. criminals and con artists like Spamford, the Nigerian 419 spammers,
>> and the life insurance and loan shark spammers.
>> 2. the wannabe criminals suckers that want get something for nothing,
>> are happy to believe that "Bulk Mail Advertising Really Work," and
>> so are wiling to pay for an education.
>> 3. "mainsleaze" or the big outfits.
>
>And that is where you would be wrong. The reason why your inbox has so
more
>spam today than when spam first took off was because the unrepentant
>criminals and con-artists hadn't caught on to that darling new thing call
>Internet, e-mail and Usenet that really didn't catch on until after the
fall
>of Spamford and the rise of AOL defections.
I agree that more #1's have noticed spam, but I don't see how that
invalidates my observation that spam always involved a lot of people
you wouldn't want to share a building with.
There were certainly plenty of "unrepentant criminals and con-artists"
spewing in 1998. (Note that I count Spamford as one of con-artists who
did not repent. Just as he was smart enough to get involved in the con
early, he was smart enough to quit early.)
>>Where yesterday we had Spamford, today we have Ralsky. If you look
>>at their operations, you'll find that asside from minor technical
>>details, they're very similar. I think there are fewer of #2 and more
>>criminals and frauds spamming on their own, such as the wannabe loan
>>sharks.
>
>And like Spamford, are one or two steps ahead of the game. I know you
were
>around when Cyberpromo was cut off on 10/16/97 just as you were around so
>there is no need to point out that NANAE had already defeated the
>Agis/Cyberpromo spamhaus.
I hope that was sarcastic. NANAE affectations notwithstanding, NANAE
had no significant effects on either AGIS or Cyberpromo.
It's not just as Bill Cole keeps pointing out that NANAE is just a
colletion of articles, but that most of the effective acts against
Cyberpromo were done by people who paid little attention to NANAE.
AGIS imploded more than fought and was defeated.
>Where Jim stood out was with his ideology and his passion to change the
>status quo of hunt/LART/hunt. Hell, I never agreed with him on that but I
>respected his views and at least gave him the benefit of explaining them.
I don't dispute his virtues, although to be entirely honest, I never
noticed that he was more consistent or effective in his passions than
some other people I could name.
Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
From: bisk...@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: June 5, 1998
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:38:09 GMT
Organization: Every once in a while I think about it.
Message-ID: <997.3cffc831.ce98a@biskybox>
References: <adljh...@enews2.newsguy.com>
<1gavfu4rfte0eklj6...@4ax.com> <73d.3cffa865.5c859@biskybox>
<t0hvfu8htufpogsps...@4ax.com>
X-Complaints-To: news...@supernews.com
Lines: 41
Just Taylor <tay...@wilhelp.com> posted:
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:22:29 GMT, bisk...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Mark Styles <ne...@lambic.co.uk> posted:
> >> On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 14:59:31 GMT, bisk...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >It seems to me SPEWS is not a conduit to
> >> >rational discussion and education -- which is one of the things Jim
> >> >truly believed in.
> >>
> >> SPEWS sends people here, where they get an education (sometimes a rude
> >> one, but any education is good education ;)).
> >
> >You are free to disagree with me, this is Usenet after all. However,
> >Jim was a close friend and as I knew him I do not believe he would
> >approve of SPEWS.
> >
> >And Hawkeye is a fuckhead for even positing otherwise.
>
> Jim was also forgiving too. To those inside this group and outside this
> group. Remember the fight he put up here over Sanford and PickleJar
helping
> out on the Smith Bill? He took grief big time here in this group over it
yet
> never spoke badly about those who disagreed with him.
Point taken. He did, however, stand by me and did not forgive when the
unforgivable was done. There are some things, some horrible things,
that cannot be forgiven, and even Jim knew that.
> Even to this day Jim's way of dealing with spam/spammers is unique as he
> stood for what he believed in regardless of the opposition... mainly
> remaining open-minded to new ideas and not assuming the worst in
everyone.
> It was those hot days where he was the epitome of cool... his passing
was
> and still is a major loss to this group.
Yeah. I miss his phone calls. I miss his IRC chats. I miss his wisdom
and humor and insight.
bisky
--
http://samspade.org/
Because the global village has more than its fair share of idiots.
From: "Clifton T. Sharp Jr." <cli...@clifto.com>
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: Anybody have a current contact address for Sanford Wallace?
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 20:06:31 -0500
Organization: as little as possible
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <3CDC6E97...@clifto.com>
References: <a7dodukif0u1ko2l2...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12-251-26-199.client.attbi.com (12.251.26.199)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1021079381 19233048 12.251.26.199 (16 [119839])
X-Orig-Path: dhcp-131-302!nobody
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i686)
Just Taylor wrote:
> I have some information for him that he may very well be interested in
and
> the last haunt I knew about for Sanford was www.sanfordwallace.com which
is
> now 404..
I bet mail will go through even if the www address is done broke.
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; sanfordwallace.com, type = MX, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
sanfordwallace.com. 1H IN MX 50 mail.smartbotpro.net.
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
sanfordwallace.com. 1H IN NS ns1.smartbotpro.net.
sanfordwallace.com. 1H IN NS ns2.smartbotpro.net.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
mail.smartbotpro.net. 6M IN A 209.50.251.193
ns1.smartbotpro.net. 6M IN A 205.236.189.50
ns2.smartbotpro.net. 6M IN A 198.31.211.34
--
If spammers weren't stupid, they'd be the idle rich instead of spammers.
- Morely Dotes
From: tay...@REMOVETHIS.wilhelp.com (Taylor Netscum)
Subject: Re: 3 ways to discredit anti-spammers
Date: 1998/01/15
Message-ID: <34c082e3...@news.mindspring.com>#1/1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <34c20930....@news.mindspring.com>
<34bd1484...@news.mindspring.com>
<34c31a2d....@news.mindspring.com> <69lkdi$aqm$1...@news1.teleport.com>
<34be67a4....@news.mindspring.com>
X-Server-Date: 15 Jan 1998 21:44:09 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Kookbusters
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
On Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:51:21 GMT,
rritzman+news#news.admin.ne...@mindspring.com (Ron Ritzman)
after refusing to take prescription drugs wrote:
>On 15 Jan 1998 18:26:58 GMT, Rich "Cold Snake" Tietjens
><at...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>>Ron, Please! We all *know* that Sanford Wallace has a history of faking
>>hacker attacks, lying, mailbombing, and revenge-relaying. We *don't*
have
>>any evidence that the poor SOB that was called at 4 AM was called by an
>>*anti*-spammer.
>
>No we don't. It could have been Wallace (or another spammer) who made
>the phone call or it could have been "one of us". You and I both know
>that there are a few anti-spammers who are hotheaded enough to make a
>4 AM phone call.
I would like to see mike@westworld's phone log for that night! :) I
doubt it though, he wasn't acting the troll roll at that time, just
the IDP AGIS rant.
Taylor Netscum (RIP 10/16/97)
********************************************
I AM SO SMART! I AM SO SMART!
s-m-r-t...I MEAN s-m-A-r-t! -Homer Simpson, 1994
********************************************
Tired of UCE/UBE? (SPAM)
join www.cauce.org
********************************************
----------
This post is about Sanford Wallace Taylor Jimenez Netscum
This post is about Sanford Wallace Taylor Jimenez Netscum
This post is about Sanford Wallace Taylor Jimenez Netscum
This post is about Sanford Wallace Taylor Jimenez Netscum
This post is about Sanford Wallace Taylor Jimenez Netscum
This post is about Sanford Wallace Taylor Jimenez Netscum