aioe news server is back

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by E. Scrooge, Sep 8, 2006.

  1. E. Scrooge

    E. Scrooge Guest

    The guy might have relocated when it was down for for a while.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Sep 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. E. Scrooge

    Senior Guest

    On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:16:59 +1200, "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz
    (*sling)> wrote:

    >The guy might have relocated when it was down for for a while.
    >
    >E. Scrooge
    >

    What are you taliking about?
    Senior, Sep 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. E. Scrooge

    Mike Dee Guest

    "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in news:edq99n$bep$1
    @emma.aioe.org:

    > The guy might have relocated when it was down for for a while.


    Give it a couple of days to go down again.

    When (not if) it does, do yourself a favour and try this:
    http://news.motzarella.org/en/index.php

    --
    dee
    Mike Dee, Sep 8, 2006
    #3
  4. E. Scrooge

    Gordon Guest

    Gordon, Sep 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 8, 2006
    #5
  6. E. Scrooge

    Apteryx Guest

    "Mike Dee" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns98387242CCEF5emteedee@85.227.11.7...
    > "E. Scrooge" <scrooge@*shot.co.nz (*sling)> wrote in news:edq99n$bep$1
    > @emma.aioe.org:
    >
    >> The guy might have relocated when it was down for for a while.

    >
    > Give it a couple of days to go down again.
    >
    > When (not if) it does, do yourself a favour and try this:
    > http://news.motzarella.org/en/index.php


    It's terms of use require a valid email address as the sender address, so
    you need to set up a spam trap email address first to use that.

    --
    Apteryx
    Apteryx, Sep 9, 2006
    #6
  7. E. Scrooge

    Mike Dee Guest

    On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:29:40 +1200, Apteryx wrote:

    >> http://news.motzarella.org/en/index.php

    >
    > It's terms of use require a valid email address as the sender address, so
    > you need to set up a spam trap email address first to use that.


    You read the entire paragraph of the terms of use, regarding name use?
    http://news.motzarella.org/en/terms.php

    --------------------
    Terms of use

    [...]

    * Sender Address
    [...] For the From: address the Top
    Level Domain (TLD) invalid may be used, as in
    lid. See also RFC2606 and Usenet Best Practice.
    ---------------------

    Invalid.invalid is the acceptable SPAM trap useage at motzarella.org.

    Motzarella's Terms of use also give helpful links, such as
    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html to help you to understand why
    it is preferable to use "invalid.invalid" over any other form of name
    "munging".

    --
    dee
    Mike Dee, Sep 9, 2006
    #7
  8. In message <>, Mike Dee
    wrote:

    > Motzarella's Terms of use also give helpful links, such as
    > http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html to help you to understand why
    > it is preferable to use "invalid.invalid" over any other form of name
    > "munging".


    Some of us don't feel the need to conceal our identities and contact info
    completely. We just want to make it more difficult to harvest by automated
    spam bots.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 9, 2006
    #8
  9. E. Scrooge

    Mike Dee Guest

    On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 22:27:39 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In message <>, Mike Dee
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Motzarella's Terms of use also give helpful links, such as
    >> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html to help you to understand why
    >> it is preferable to use "invalid.invalid" over any other form of name
    >> "munging".

    >
    > Some of us don't feel the need to conceal our identities and contact info
    > completely.


    Oh, that's why you post using an illegal domain in your headers?

    It would be more appropriate if you (being nz,comp's unofficial *nix
    spokesperson) were to use <> in your
    headers (if you do wish to expose your identity and *not* be a usenet
    burden).

    Being the *nix guru that you espouse to be, you of all people should
    have more appreciation of where, what and why rfc2606 exists and what it
    means to you and your relationship with the (usenet) world.

    > We just want to make it more difficult to harvest by automated
    > spam bots.


    BS Lawrence. You are fooling yourself only with that comment.

    --
    dee
    Mike Dee, Sep 9, 2006
    #9
  10. E. Scrooge

    jasen Guest

    On 2006-09-09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Mike Dee
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Motzarella's Terms of use also give helpful links, such as
    >> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2606.html to help you to understand why
    >> it is preferable to use "invalid.invalid" over any other form of name
    >> "munging".

    >
    > Some of us don't feel the need to conceal our identities and contact info
    > completely. We just want to make it more difficult to harvest by automated
    > spam bots.


    _zealand.invalid

    would be OK AFAICT

    --

    Bye.
    Jasen
    jasen, Sep 9, 2006
    #10
  11. E. Scrooge

    ~misfit~ Guest

    E. Scrooge wrote:

    [xpost to the looney bin removed]

    > The guy might have relocated when it was down for for a while.
    >
    > E. Scrooge


    Do you have to crosspost? Pick a group and stick to it FFS. We don't need
    anymore idiots posting here than we already have.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Sep 10, 2006
    #11
  12. In message <>, Mike Dee
    wrote:

    > It would be more appropriate if you ... were to use [omitted]
    > in your headers (if you do wish to expose your identity and *not* be a
    > usenet burden).


    I would ask you to please never post my e-mail address in that form ever
    again, OK? Because if you did it again, it would become grounds for me to
    lodge an abuse complaint about you with your ISP. Has it never occurred to
    you how stupid it is to use standard, predictable obfuscations of e-mail
    addresses?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Sep 10, 2006
    #12
  13. E. Scrooge

    Mike Dee Guest

    jasen <> wrote in news:edveed$skp$:

    > _zealand.invalid
    >
    > would be OK AFAICT
    >


    Anything ending in *invalid* would be *valid*, unfortunately "dimdows"
    D'Oliveiro doesn't seem to be aware of that. In fact, his nose seems to
    have gotten into a way-way-over-reactioned-out-of-joint response to my
    previous post.

    --
    dee
    Mike Dee, Sep 10, 2006
    #13
  14. E. Scrooge

    Mike Dee Guest

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote in
    news:ee0hj0$778$:

    >> It would be more appropriate if you ... were to use [omitted]
    >> in your headers (if you do wish to expose your identity and *not*
    >> be a usenet burden).

    >
    > I would ask you to please never post my e-mail address in that
    > form ever again, OK? Because if you did it again, it would become
    > grounds for me to lodge an abuse complaint about you with your
    > ISP. Has it never occurred to you how stupid it is to use
    > standard, predictable obfuscations of e-mail addresses?


    Do you know how stupid it is to chime in uninvited to a thread with
    such a stupid comment as "Some of us don't feel the need to conceal our
    identities and contact info completely. We just want to make it more
    difficult to harvest by automated spam bots." While hiding behind a
    lousy poorly gaurded illegal Domain Name?

    What a fucking dumb response. Go right ahead and post you usage
    complaint. I'm sure my ISP will want to hear from you. Don't forget to
    post *all* of the nessesary headers, including your own. If you don't
    know where they *all* are, be sure that I will be happily obliged to
    forward them on to them on your behalf.

    --
    dee
    Mike Dee, Sep 10, 2006
    #14
  15. E. Scrooge

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Mike Dee wrote:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro >
    > > > It would be more appropriate if you ... were to use [omitted]
    > > > in your headers (if you do wish to expose your identity and *not*
    > > > be a usenet burden).

    > >
    > > I would ask you to please never post my e-mail address in that
    > > form ever again, OK? Because if you did it again, it would become
    > > grounds for me to lodge an abuse complaint about you with your
    > > ISP. Has it never occurred to you how stupid it is to use
    > > standard, predictable obfuscations of e-mail addresses?

    >
    > Do you know how stupid it is to chime in uninvited to a thread with
    > such a stupid comment as "Some of us don't feel the need to conceal
    > our identities and contact info completely. We just want to make it
    > more difficult to harvest by automated spam bots." While hiding
    > behind a lousy poorly gaurded illegal Domain Name?
    >
    > What a fucking dumb response. Go right ahead and post you usage
    > complaint. I'm sure my ISP will want to hear from you. Don't forget to
    > post *all* of the nessesary headers, including your own. If you don't
    > know where they *all* are, be sure that I will be happily obliged to
    > forward them on to them on your behalf.


    Jesus H Christ you're so damn full of yourself. Or should that be full of
    shit? I don't think there's much of a distiction anyway.
    --
    Shaun.
    ~misfit~, Sep 10, 2006
    #15
  16. E. Scrooge

    E. Scrooge Guest

    "~misfit~" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mike Dee wrote:
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro >
    >> > > It would be more appropriate if you ... were to use [omitted]
    >> > > in your headers (if you do wish to expose your identity and *not*
    >> > > be a usenet burden).
    >> >
    >> > I would ask you to please never post my e-mail address in that
    >> > form ever again, OK? Because if you did it again, it would become
    >> > grounds for me to lodge an abuse complaint about you with your
    >> > ISP. Has it never occurred to you how stupid it is to use
    >> > standard, predictable obfuscations of e-mail addresses?

    >>
    >> Do you know how stupid it is to chime in uninvited to a thread with
    >> such a stupid comment as "Some of us don't feel the need to conceal
    >> our identities and contact info completely. We just want to make it
    >> more difficult to harvest by automated spam bots." While hiding
    >> behind a lousy poorly gaurded illegal Domain Name?
    >>
    >> What a fucking dumb response. Go right ahead and post you usage
    >> complaint. I'm sure my ISP will want to hear from you. Don't forget to
    >> post *all* of the nessesary headers, including your own. If you don't
    >> know where they *all* are, be sure that I will be happily obliged to
    >> forward them on to them on your behalf.

    >
    > Jesus H Christ you're so damn full of yourself. Or should that be full of
    > shit? I don't think there's much of a distiction anyway.
    > --
    > Shaun.


    I fail to see what that nonsense has to do with aioe being back online.
    People like you should be wasting time in nz.politics.

    E. Scrooge
    E. Scrooge, Sep 11, 2006
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    944
    Sharktbbtfy
    Aug 10, 2006
  2. E. Scrooge

    AIOE is back online

    E. Scrooge, Aug 4, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    439
    Matty F
    Aug 8, 2006
  3. geopelia

    aioe back?

    geopelia, Sep 8, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    geopelia
    Sep 8, 2006
  4. Mike Dee

    Aioe.org is back

    Mike Dee, Jan 21, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    576
  5. Lukagain Cos ThistleBounce

    Aioe seems to be back.

    Lukagain Cos ThistleBounce, Jun 1, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    321
    Mike Dee
    Jun 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page