cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Compan

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by privacy.at Anonymous Remailer, Aug 2, 2004.

  1. https://www.regsoft.net/regsoft/vieworderpage.php3?productid=50499


    SAFEBOOT SOLO if full disk encryption software. It is
    incompatible with Norton Speed Disk; this fact is not brought to
    the attention of the potential customer in a conspicuous manner
    prior to installation, but is difficult to find on their
    website. Use of Speed Disk after installation WILL result in
    complete data lose. The recovery tools (boot disk images)
    provided with the software package WILL NOT restore data after
    Speed Disk usage; the drives must be sent into the company for
    recovery and they will threaten to charge you a fee to recover.

    After heated email exchanges, I sent my perfectly working
    working drives to their address in Naples, Florida. Upon
    receipt of the drives, they claimed that the drives arrived
    broken. Interestingly, there was only a seven (7) minute delay
    from the delivery time reported by the USPS, by computer
    tracking label, and their email to me stating that the drives
    were broken. Obviously, that would have been insufficient time
    to even transport the drives to the workbench, let alone to
    unpack and test. The reader may draw his own conclusion.

    The company still refuses to send the drives for data recovery,
    a necessary step to retrieve the data from the now broken
    drives, so that they may decrypt the data and return to me.

    Some data on one drive was recovered, no data on broken drive
    was recovered. The data that was recovered was recovered
    without the use of my password since I intentionally never gave
    them a password after they requested it. I was concerned about
    the software being backdoored; you may now draw your own
    conclusions regarding this issue.

    I have found the company and its personnel very difficult to
    deal with; I have dealt with these individuals mostly:

    Mr. SIMON HUNT, CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST
    Mr. MARCO VERSTEIJNE, COMPANY SECRETARY

    I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS COMPANY OR ANY OF ITS PRODUCTS.

    cnioawj cropiweh oi o d ofgcop co o od bod gio djfiopb itodjvbiopdg iogerfiogbv jcop oid oi gior io jdfxc
    rdiofcx jod iodc viod ioc dfsiok hiodkf hboi dfo
    privacy.at Anonymous Remailer, Aug 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Leythos Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    In article <>, Use-
    Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    [snipped crap]

    Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be considered
    as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

    In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the anonymous
    poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that is at fault
    for not understanding/using the product correctly.

    Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
    invalid by most.

    This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the product
    and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It should also be
    noted that other people are using SafeBoot without the mentioned
    problems.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    Leythos, Aug 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Use-
    >Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    >[snipped crap]
    >
    >Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be considered
    >as truthful as the email address the poster provides.


    That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
    anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the tyranny
    of the corporations which hire other companies to scour Usenet for
    "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of lawsuits.

    Anonymity is every one's right. (That's why they make envelopes and
    locks, idiot.)

    >In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the anonymous
    >poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that is at fault
    >for not understanding/using the product correctly.


    That is strictly your OPINION. You have no proof this man is not
    telling the truth. Judging from the preciseness and clarity of his
    writing, I find him not to be a kook.

    On the other hand, your offensive and childish petulancy at trying to
    censor this person I find most distasteful and indicative of your own
    lack or character, in that you think you are the arbiter of what I
    should and should not be allowed to read on Usenet.

    Ever hear of a killfitler? If you don't have software capable of
    killfiltering this person, I suggest you get some. Although, I'm sure
    that with your mentality, you find aggressive censorship much more
    pleasing.

    Do you own stock in Safeboot?

    >Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
    >invalid by most.


    Oh, that is a dictum from you? Who granted your wish to be censor of
    what others believe or choose not to believe?

    >This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the product
    >and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It should also be
    >noted that other people are using SafeBoot without the mentioned
    >problems.
    >

    I do not find any ignorance in this thread except for your own
    disorganized thinking that everyone should listen to you.

    Hail, Leythos! Lord of Usenet! All bow and SHUT THE **** UP - Leythos
    so commands it!

    Drop dead, fascist swine.
    , Aug 2, 2004
    #3
  4. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Leythos Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    In article <>, marty12
    @hotmail.com says...
    > On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, Use-
    > >Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    > >[snipped crap]
    > >
    > >Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be considered
    > >as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

    >
    > That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
    > anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the tyranny
    > of the corporations which hire other companies to scour Usenet for
    > "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of lawsuits.


    Except that a detailed posting that contains factual information can not
    be considered slander and as such the poster has nothing to hide from.
    If it were the truth he/she would have nothing to fear - makes it look
    very suspicious.

    I have no connection with any software/hardware vendor.

    There is no Tyranny here - only a whiner posting about a product he/she
    didn't understand. If there were any truth to it they wouldn't have to
    hide.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    Leythos, Aug 2, 2004
    #4
  5. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:38:05 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:

    >In article <>, marty12
    >@hotmail.com says...
    >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>, Use-
    >> >Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    >> >[snipped crap]
    >> >
    >> >Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be considered
    >> >as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

    >>
    >> That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
    >> anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the tyranny
    >> of the corporations which hire other companies to scour Usenet for
    >> "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of lawsuits.

    >
    >Except that a detailed posting that contains factual information can not
    >be considered slander and as such the poster has nothing to hide from.


    You are an uninformed jackass.

    Have you ever seen someone cross examined by a top attorney. By the time
    the bottom feeder is done, white is black, and black is white.

    >If it were the truth he/she would have nothing to fear - makes it look
    >very suspicious.


    See reply above in regard to "...uninformed jackass."

    >I have no connection with any software/hardware vendor.
    >
    >There is no Tyranny here -


    Oh, of course not. Only the tyranny of the crowd led by an ignoramus
    like you.

    >only a whiner posting about a product he/she
    >didn't understand. If there were any truth to it they wouldn't have to
    >hide.


    Oh, is that why reporters go to jail in order to protect their sources,
    whose anonymity is most important to the ethics of journalism and
    disclosure of unethical or criminal behavior?

    How about Deepthroat? I guess he should have came forward and spent
    time in prison for alerting us to the corruption in the Presidency, the
    Justice Department, and the F.B.I.

    I've had my say with you and the asininely stupid, uniformed opinion of
    a Usenet nazis like yourself.

    (Immature idiots such as yourself are the cause of threads such as this
    taking on an extended life.)

    Good-bye, Mr. Brownshirt.

    Heil, Leythos! Dictator of Usenet!

    Heil, Der Fuhrer, Leythos!
    >--
    , Aug 2, 2004
    #5
  6. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Leythos Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    You are making a lot out of this considering you are appear to not have
    any connection with the poster or the product - unless you are the
    poster defending the post.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    Leythos, Aug 2, 2004
    #6
  7. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    *Vanguard* Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    "" <>
    wrote in news::
    > On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> Use- Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    >> [snipped crap]
    >>
    >> Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be
    >> considered as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

    >
    > That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
    > anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the
    > tyranny of the corporations which hire other companies to scour
    > Usenet for "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of
    > lawsuits.
    >
    > Anonymity is every one's right. (That's why they make envelopes and
    > locks, idiot.)
    >
    >> In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the
    >> anonymous poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that
    >> is at fault for not understanding/using the product correctly.

    >
    > That is strictly your OPINION. You have no proof this man is not
    > telling the truth. Judging from the preciseness and clarity of his
    > writing, I find him not to be a kook.
    >
    > On the other hand, your offensive and childish petulancy at trying to
    > censor this person I find most distasteful and indicative of your own
    > lack or character, in that you think you are the arbiter of what I
    > should and should not be allowed to read on Usenet.
    >
    > Ever hear of a killfitler? If you don't have software capable of
    > killfiltering this person, I suggest you get some. Although, I'm sure
    > that with your mentality, you find aggressive censorship much more
    > pleasing.
    >
    > Do you own stock in Safeboot?
    >
    >> Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
    >> invalid by most.

    >
    > Oh, that is a dictum from you? Who granted your wish to be censor of
    > what others believe or choose not to believe?
    >
    >> This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the
    >> product and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It
    >> should also be noted that other people are using SafeBoot without
    >> the mentioned problems.
    >>

    > I do not find any ignorance in this thread except for your own
    > disorganized thinking that everyone should listen to you.
    >
    > Hail, Leythos! Lord of Usenet! All bow and SHUT THE **** UP - Leythos
    > so commands it!
    >
    > Drop dead, fascist swine.


    Oh, and Safeboot has a monopoly on all security products so it
    effectively becomes a tyranny, huh? Oh, and, of course, Safeboot
    expends a portion of their revenue to fund a white-hooded clan of
    vigilantes to harass or exterminate detractors of their software. Sure,
    uh huh. And, of course, with such eloquent composition of your reply
    then we must surely equate your expertise and authority based on that
    same such composition. Gee, now when was the last time I heard a
    well-known and respected public leader or speaker resort to ****, drop
    dead, fascist swine, and other rants and vulgarities? Must be all those
    interpreters at the U.N. get paid to do some "fine tuning" of their
    interpretations.

    If you even bothered to search on this original post, you would see the
    whiner has assailed this newsgroups and others repeatedly. It was NOT
    their intention to seek help to resolve the problem. It is not their
    intention to educate. It is their intention to whine repeatedly, like a
    2-year old venting a tantrum and the same one again and again. As such,
    it doesn't matter what is the content of their post. The repetition of
    their post equates it to SPAM!
    *Vanguard*, Aug 2, 2004
    #7
  8. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:41:47 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
    <do-not-email@reply-to-group> wrote:

    >"" <>
    >wrote in news::
    >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Use- Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    >>> [snipped crap]
    >>>
    >>> Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be
    >>> considered as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

    >>
    >> That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
    >> anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the
    >> tyranny of the corporations which hire other companies to scour
    >> Usenet for "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of
    >> lawsuits.
    >>
    >> Anonymity is every one's right. (That's why they make envelopes and
    >> locks, idiot.)
    >>
    >>> In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the
    >>> anonymous poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that
    >>> is at fault for not understanding/using the product correctly.

    >>
    >> That is strictly your OPINION. You have no proof this man is not
    >> telling the truth. Judging from the preciseness and clarity of his
    >> writing, I find him not to be a kook.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, your offensive and childish petulancy at trying to
    >> censor this person I find most distasteful and indicative of your own
    >> lack or character, in that you think you are the arbiter of what I
    >> should and should not be allowed to read on Usenet.
    >>
    >> Ever hear of a killfitler? If you don't have software capable of
    >> killfiltering this person, I suggest you get some. Although, I'm sure
    >> that with your mentality, you find aggressive censorship much more
    >> pleasing.
    >>
    >> Do you own stock in Safeboot?
    >>
    >>> Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
    >>> invalid by most.

    >>
    >> Oh, that is a dictum from you? Who granted your wish to be censor of
    >> what others believe or choose not to believe?
    >>
    >>> This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the
    >>> product and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It
    >>> should also be noted that other people are using SafeBoot without
    >>> the mentioned problems.
    >>>

    >> I do not find any ignorance in this thread except for your own
    >> disorganized thinking that everyone should listen to you.
    >>
    >> Hail, Leythos! Lord of Usenet! All bow and SHUT THE **** UP - Leythos
    >> so commands it!
    >>
    >> Drop dead, fascist swine.

    >
    >Oh, and Safeboot has a monopoly on all security products so it
    >effectively becomes a tyranny, huh? Oh, and, of course, Safeboot
    >expends a portion of their revenue to fund a white-hooded clan of
    >vigilantes to harass or exterminate detractors of their software. Sure,
    >uh huh. And, of course, with such eloquent composition of your reply
    >then we must surely equate your expertise and authority based on that
    >same such composition. Gee, now when was the last time I heard a
    >well-known and respected public leader or speaker resort to ****, drop
    >dead, fascist swine, and other rants and vulgarities? Must be all those
    >interpreters at the U.N. get paid to do some "fine tuning" of their
    >interpretations.
    >
    >If you even bothered to search on this original post, you would see the
    >whiner has assailed this newsgroups and others repeatedly. It was NOT
    >their intention to seek help to resolve the problem. It is not their
    >intention to educate. It is their intention to whine repeatedly, like a
    >2-year old venting a tantrum and the same one again and again. As such,
    >it doesn't matter what is the content of their post. The repetition of
    >their post equates it to SPAM!


    You two are the whiners. Without you two control freaks this thread
    would have died out long ago.

    (It seems what we have here are bunch of newbies who cannot kill filter
    and refuse to operate Usenet with the proper software, or some
    egocentric, frustrated flips trying to be the "bosses" of a.c.s.)
    , Aug 2, 2004
    #8
  9. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    *Vanguard* Guest

    "privacy.at Anonymous Remailer"
    <Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
    wrote in news::
    > https://www.regsoft.net/regsoft/vieworderpage.php3?productid=50499
    >
    >
    > SAFEBOOT SOLO if full disk encryption software. It is
    > incompatible with Norton Speed Disk; this fact is not brought to

    <snip>

    Same bitchpost this whiner has repeated assailed this newsgroup using an
    anonymouse remailer (mail2news) which can be considered the equivalent
    of a spammer abusing an open relay. Guess this whiner chose to use a
    different mail2news open proxy since several news servers decided to
    block any posts originating from gradwell.net in the PATH, or it could
    be gradwell.net got complaints and block this abuser using their IP
    address. Now this whiner had to move and is using another remailer
    (dizum.net).

    It doesn't matter if the OP has a valid case or not. That's not the
    issue. The issue is that the OP keeps reposting their same diatribe
    over and over and over. The OP thus equates their message to SPAM
    (hence the use of the hash busting string in the Subject and postfixed
    to the body)! This is a poster that is not concerned about helping the
    peer community of the newsgroup. They just want to bitch and do so
    repeatedly about once a week.

    The OP is rude in not providing a constant moniker by which others that
    no longer want to be assailed with this diatribe can killfile this
    poster. Perhaps their open proxy (mail2news) doesn't permit selecting a
    moniker (i.e., author or sender name). Not all e-mail clients can
    filter or have clauses for rules to block by IP address (in the
    NNTP-Posting-Host header, if even included). I would love to know which
    NNTP clients will let me define a rule to killfile based on a substring
    in the PATH header. I could then block any and all messages originating
    from open remailers by filtering out any that have "!mail2news" in the
    PATH header. OE won't do it, Thunderbird won't do it, and I didn't see
    anywhere in Forte Agent to do it.
    *Vanguard*, Aug 2, 2004
    #9
  10. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 10:41:47 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
    <do-not-email@reply-to-group> wrote:

    >"" <>
    >wrote in news::
    >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 13:05:03 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <>,
    >>> Use- Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1] says...
    >>> [snipped crap]
    >>>
    >>> Any posting about a product by an anonymous poster should be
    >>> considered as truthful as the email address the poster provides.

    >>
    >> That's a damn lie. The most famous pamphleteers of the past use
    >> anonymity to save their lives against tyranny. Today we have the
    >> tyranny of the corporations which hire other companies to scour
    >> Usenet for "complainers" so they can shut them up with threats of
    >> lawsuits.
    >>
    >> Anonymity is every one's right. (That's why they make envelopes and
    >> locks, idiot.)
    >>
    >>> In most cases of posting problems about a product, where the
    >>> anonymous poster continues to spam the groups, it's the poster that
    >>> is at fault for not understanding/using the product correctly.

    >>
    >> That is strictly your OPINION. You have no proof this man is not
    >> telling the truth. Judging from the preciseness and clarity of his
    >> writing, I find him not to be a kook.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, your offensive and childish petulancy at trying to
    >> censor this person I find most distasteful and indicative of your own
    >> lack or character, in that you think you are the arbiter of what I
    >> should and should not be allowed to read on Usenet.
    >>
    >> Ever hear of a killfitler? If you don't have software capable of
    >> killfiltering this person, I suggest you get some. Although, I'm sure
    >> that with your mentality, you find aggressive censorship much more
    >> pleasing.
    >>
    >> Do you own stock in Safeboot?
    >>
    >>> Anonymous complaints, without a real need to hide, are considered
    >>> invalid by most.

    >>
    >> Oh, that is a dictum from you? Who granted your wish to be censor of
    >> what others believe or choose not to believe?
    >>
    >>> This particular poster continues to show their ignorance of the
    >>> product and how to resolve a problem with anyone or anything. It
    >>> should also be noted that other people are using SafeBoot without
    >>> the mentioned problems.
    >>>

    >> I do not find any ignorance in this thread except for your own
    >> disorganized thinking that everyone should listen to you.
    >>
    >> Hail, Leythos! Lord of Usenet! All bow and SHUT THE **** UP - Leythos
    >> so commands it!
    >>
    >> Drop dead, fascist swine.

    >
    >Oh, and Safeboot has a monopoly on all security products so it
    >effectively becomes a tyranny, huh? Oh, and, of course, Safeboot
    >expends a portion of their revenue to fund a white-hooded clan of
    >vigilantes to harass or exterminate detractors of their software. Sure,
    >uh huh. And, of course, with such eloquent composition of your reply
    >then we must surely equate your expertise and authority based on that
    >same such composition. Gee, now when was the last time I heard a
    >well-known and respected public leader or speaker resort to ****, drop
    >dead, fascist swine, and other rants and vulgarities? Must be all those
    >interpreters at the U.N. get paid to do some "fine tuning" of their
    >interpretations.
    >
    >If you even bothered to search on this original post, you would see the
    >whiner has assailed this newsgroups and others repeatedly. It was NOT
    >their intention to seek help to resolve the problem. It is not their
    >intention to educate. It is their intention to whine repeatedly, like a
    >2-year old venting a tantrum and the same one again and again. As such,
    >it doesn't matter what is the content of their post. The repetition of
    >their post equates it to SPAM!


    You two are the whiners. Without you two control freaks this thread
    would have died out long ago.

    (It seems what we have here are bunch of newbies who cannot kill filter
    and refuse to operate Usenet with the proper software, or some
    egocentric, frustrated flips trying to be the "bosses" of a.c.s.)
    , Aug 2, 2004
    #10
  11. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    *Vanguard* Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    "" <>
    wrote in news::
    >
    > You two are the whiners. Without you two control freaks this thread
    > would have died out long ago.


    The poster declared that they will continually repost their bitchpost
    about once a week. Whether or not we bitch about their bitching won't
    stop their bitching. As much as the OP believes they have the right to
    repetitive "warn" and spam the newsgroup then we also have the right to
    warn potential believers of this OP of the true nature of their
    postings. So as often as this whiner posts then we will post, too.
    Using your same arguments, we can also warn against bad software and bad
    users. They warn, so we warn. They have declared that they will repeat
    their warnings. So will we.
    *Vanguard*, Aug 2, 2004
    #11
  12. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Guest

    On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:05:01 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
    <do-not-email@reply-to-group> wrote:

    >"privacy.at Anonymous Remailer"
    ><Use-Author-Supplied-Address-Header@[127.1]>
    >wrote in news::
    >> https://www.regsoft.net/regsoft/vieworderpage.php3?productid=50499
    >>
    >>
    >> SAFEBOOT SOLO if full disk encryption software. It is
    >> incompatible with Norton Speed Disk; this fact is not brought to

    ><snip>
    >
    >Same bitchpost this whiner has repeated assailed this newsgroup using an
    >anonymouse remailer (mail2news) which can be considered the equivalent
    >of a spammer abusing an open relay.


    Bullshit!

    In NO way is a remailer equated with an "open relay."

    > Guess this whiner chose to use a
    >different mail2news open proxy since several news servers decided to
    >block any posts originating from gradwell.net in the PATH, or it could
    >be gradwell.net got complaints and block this abuser using their IP
    >address. Now this whiner had to move and is using another remailer
    >(dizum.net).


    Since no other regulars seem to be using anon remailers, killfiling on
    anon remailers is that hard. There are a number of ways of doing it. I
    know from experience because I have posted to alt.privacy.anon-server
    for some years.

    >It doesn't matter if the OP has a valid case or not. That's not the
    >issue. The issue is that the OP keeps reposting their same diatribe
    >over and over and over.


    What do you regard as "over and over." Once a week for a number of
    weeks. That's hardly over and over. Even so, unanswered his posts would
    fall into the black hole of retention time if you dweebs would let it be
    - or KILLFILE him.

    > The OP thus equates their message to SPAM
    >(hence the use of the hash busting string in the Subject and postfixed
    >to the body)! This is a poster that is not concerned about helping the
    >peer community of the newsgroup. They just want to bitch and do so
    >repeatedly about once a week.


    That's his right. Once a week is what you are bitching about. You *do*
    have a problem - in your own head.

    >The OP is rude in not providing a constant moniker by which others that
    >no longer want to be assailed with this diatribe can killfile this
    >poster. Perhaps their open proxy (mail2news) doesn't permit selecting a
    >moniker (i.e., author or sender name). Not all e-mail clients can
    >filter or have clauses for rules to block by IP address (in the
    >NNTP-Posting-Host header, if even included).


    That is wrong. He should not be forcing all who have seen his message to
    see it over and over. He absolutely should allow killfiling because he
    should only be concerned with new readers of the group to see it. If the
    group thinks him full of it, he should not exacerbate it with forcing
    such inepts as yourself to this point of frustration.

    > I would love to know which
    >NNTP clients will let me define a rule to killfile based on a substring
    >in the PATH header.


    Agent's Global Search/Filter allows filtering on *any* header, including
    the Path header. Of course, it also filters on body text. If it is the
    same message over and over, just kill file on keywords in the body text.

    X-News, a freebie, also allows filtering on headers and body text.

    http://xnews.newsguy.com/

    http://www.geocities.com/d4vidb/x_setup10.html#status

    > I could then block any and all messages originating
    >from open remailers by filtering out any that have "!mail2news" in the
    >PATH header. OE won't do it, Thunderbird won't do it, and I didn't see
    >anywhere in Forte Agent to do it.


    I've covered that.

    There are approximately 24 non-middle remailers you have to be concerned
    with -

    amessage antani austria
    bigapple bunker cripto
    discord dizum edo
    freedom frell futurew
    george hastio italy
    krotus lemuria metacolo
    paranoia starwars tonga
    kroken liberty randseed

    Filter on them.

    there are two middleman - that I know of presently, which also deliver
    to Usenet : bikikii and dingo.

    It is beyond me how you people operate usenet so unprepared with the
    right software.

    Since the important key points in the text cannot change because he must
    continually refer to the company and other keywords, body text
    filtering would be a snap.

    To make myself plain:

    I do not condone fascist censoring.

    I do not condone idiots who deliberately avoid killfiles.

    I do condone bitch'n and whining. That's Usenet.
    , Aug 2, 2004
    #12
  13. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    *Vanguard* Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    "" <>
    wrote in news::
    >
    > You two are the whiners. Without you two control freaks this thread

    <snip - repeat post>

    Duplicating your post lends it no further validity nor further
    importance.

    Since you use Forte Agent and what you must therefore deem as "proper
    [usenet] software", (and this for a newsreader that cannot handle
    multiple news servers without resorting to shortcuts loading different
    config files), please explain how to define a kill filter that checks on
    a substring in the PATH header. From what I saw of what little Agent
    lets you define for kill filters, all you get is Author and E-mail
    Address for filtering out a post. When I attempted to define a kill
    filter using a "NNTP-Posting-Host" qualifier, it spewed back an error
    message saying it doesn't understand that qualifier. Wow, what an
    all-encompassing set of qualifiers in that you get to check all of 2,
    just TWO, headers. In Forte Agent, how would I, for examples, kill
    filter on:

    - PATH contains substring "mail2news".
    - NNTP-Posting-Host, if exists, has value of xx.xx.xx.xx (i.e., some
    specific IP address).
    - X-No-Archive = YES (case insensitive, of course).
    - A header with substring "Complaint" somewhere in its name does not
    exist.
    - Subject contains "Re:" AND References header is missing.

    Kill filtering on Author and E-mail Address is as stupid as blocking
    spam using the Junk Mail rule based on E-mail address. Those are fields
    that the *sender* specifies and so they can change at will. They are
    worthless for kill filters. Oooh, I'm gonna kill filter on Joe Schmuck
    who then changes their name to My Muck, so then I filter on their e-mail
    address of only for them to later change it
    in their client to . Yeah, like kill
    filtering on name and e-mail address are really useful. NOT! You need
    to kill filter on a header over which the sender has no immediate or
    direct control, something that got added AFTER they sent their message.

    If Forte Agent is such the wonderful NNTP client you profess it to be
    then, please, show me how to define the above example kill filters. I
    already know OE won't do it. I also know Thunderbird won't do it. From
    what I saw in Forte, it won't do it, either.
    *Vanguard*, Aug 2, 2004
    #13
  14. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Leythos Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    In article <>, marty12
    @hotmail.com says...
    > (It seems what we have here are bunch of newbies who cannot kill filter
    > and refuse to operate Usenet with the proper software, or some
    > egocentric, frustrated flips trying to be the "bosses" of a.c.s.)


    And it seems that you don't know much about using the reply function,
    other than in it's default state - most people snip the parts of the
    reply that are no longer needed. Maybe you should get a quality
    newsreader that you can use.

    And just so that you know, my newsreader will let me bozo-list threads
    based on the word SAFEBOOT, but I don't care to.

    The only way to get rid of lamers posting about a product that they
    didn't use properly, hiding behind an anonymous address, is to treat
    them like the spammers they are (or like the unnamed one we can't
    mention).

    Get a life, usenet is working, it's letting people reply as they see
    fit.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    Leythos, Aug 2, 2004
    #14
  15. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:53:42 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
    <do-not-email@reply-to-group> wrote:

    >"" <>
    >wrote in news::
    >>
    >> You two are the whiners. Without you two control freaks this thread

    ><snip - repeat post>
    >
    >Duplicating your post lends it no further validity nor further
    >importance.
    >
    >Since you use Forte Agent and what you must therefore deem as "proper
    >[usenet] software", (and this for a newsreader that cannot handle
    >multiple news servers without resorting to shortcuts loading different
    >config files), please explain how to define a kill filter that checks on
    >a substring in the PATH header. From what I saw of what little Agent
    >lets you define for kill filters, all you get is Author and E-mail
    >Address for filtering out a post. When I attempted to define a kill
    >filter using a "NNTP-Posting-Host" qualifier, it spewed back an error
    >message saying it doesn't understand that qualifier. Wow, what an
    >all-encompassing set of qualifiers in that you get to check all of 2,
    >just TWO, headers. In Forte Agent, how would I, for examples, kill
    >filter on:
    >
    >- PATH contains substring "mail2news".


    Using the Global Search/Filter entails first having to download the
    message bodies. This doesn't mean you have to read them.

    A global filter can name the header it wants filtered. For instance,
    here are some keywords filtered, plus the Path header.

    safeboot or crooks or path: athenanews.com (if you wanted to filter out
    my messages.)

    >- NNTP-Posting-Host, if exists, has value of xx.xx.xx.xx (i.e., some
    >specific IP address).
    >- X-No-Archive = YES (case insensitive, of course).
    >- A header with substring "Complaint" somewhere in its name does not
    >exist.
    >- Subject contains "Re:" AND References header is missing.


    For filtering anon messages where the body message remains significantly
    the same is a snap. Just filter on those keywords. This is method you
    should use with Agent or X-news.

    >Kill filtering on Author and E-mail Address is as stupid as blocking
    >spam using the Junk Mail rule based on E-mail address. Those are fields
    >that the *sender* specifies and so they can change at will. They are
    >worthless for kill filters. Oooh, I'm gonna kill filter on Joe Schmuck
    >who then changes their name to My Muck, so then I filter on their e-mail
    >address of only for them to later change it
    >in their client to . Yeah, like kill
    >filtering on name and e-mail address are really useful. NOT! You need
    >to kill filter on a header over which the sender has no immediate or
    >direct control, something that got added AFTER they sent their message.


    Tell me the obvious.

    >If Forte Agent is such the wonderful NNTP client you profess it to be
    >then, please, show me how to define the above example kill filters. I
    >already know OE won't do it. I also know Thunderbird won't do it. From
    >what I saw in Forte, it won't do it, either.


    Jeez, man. Don't tell somebody who uses Agent - and has used it near
    since its inception, what it won't do.

    The below is taken from Agent's HELP file.
    (You do not have to necessarily use a label to filter on body text. Just
    put it into the filter.)

    Expression Qualifiers In general, Agent searches as much of the message
    as possible for the words or phrases in the expression. How much of the
    message is searched depends on the type of search (Usenet, email, or
    global search). In addition, you can use so-called expression
    qualifiers to limit the search to selected fields. If a search
    expression contains no qualifies, the follow items are searched:

    Usenet Filters: The Subject and Author fields only (and not the message
    body)

    Email Filters: All header fields (and not the message body)

    Global Search: All header fields and the message body. To limit the
    search to
    a particular message field, use a qualifier prefix, which is the name
    of the field to be searched, followed by a colon. For example:

    subject: testing searches just the subject field for the word "testing"

    subject: testing and from: tom gold searches just the subject field for
    the word "testing" and just the from field for the phrase "tom
    gold". Thus, it matches only those messages for which the
    subject contains the word "testing" and the from field
    contains the phrase "tom gold". Usenet, email, and global
    search expressions all allow different qualifiers, as detailed
    below. Usenet Filters may contain the following qualifiers:

    subject: matches the subject header field author: or from: match the
    author of the message, which is normally the From header field
    Email Filters may use the name of any header field as a
    qualifier. For example, you match all messages posted with
    Agent with the expression:

    x-mailer: forte agent In addition, email filters may use the following
    special qualifier words: any-sender: matches any of the fields From,
    Apparently-From, Sender, Reply-To, or X-Sender. any-recipient: matches
    any of the fields To, Apparently-To, Cc, or Bcc. Global Search
    expressions allow all of the qualifiers allowed by email filters, and
    the following additional qualifiers: body: matches the text sections of
    the message body. IOW, it matches all of the text that you would
    normally read in the message if you were not viewing the raw,
    unformatted message.

    raw-body: matches the complete, unformatted body of the message,
    including sections containing binary attachments and images.

    Now, I am not going to hold a seminar on this. Agent's HELP section can
    show you how to do all this. X-News is a bit harder and takes some
    getting used to.

    If you want to sit here and continually bitch about this anon poster, be
    my guest. But *don't* tell me you cannot killfilter him. That's the
    fault in your choice of software.
    , Aug 2, 2004
    #15
  16. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:07:06 GMT, Leythos <> wrote:

    >In article <>, marty12
    >@hotmail.com says...
    >> (It seems what we have here are bunch of newbies who cannot kill filter
    >> and refuse to operate Usenet with the proper software, or some
    >> egocentric, frustrated flips trying to be the "bosses" of a.c.s.)

    >
    >And it seems that you don't know much about using the reply function,
    >other than in it's default state - most people snip the parts of the
    >reply that are no longer needed. Maybe you should get a quality
    >newsreader that you can use.
    >
    >And just so that you know, my newsreader will let me bozo-list threads
    >based on the word SAFEBOOT, but I don't care to.
    >
    >The only way to get rid of lamers posting about a product that they
    >didn't use properly, hiding behind an anonymous address, is to treat
    >them like the spammers they are (or like the unnamed one we can't
    >mention).
    >
    >Get a life, usenet is working, it's letting people reply as they see
    >fit.
    >

    You are a very disingenuous sort who continually evades the main
    argument. In short, you are a dishonest liar.

    *You* are heretofore PLONKED!
    , Aug 2, 2004
    #16
  17. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Leythos Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    In article <>, marty12
    @hotmail.com says...
    > You are a very disingenuous sort who continually evades the main
    > argument. In short, you are a dishonest liar.


    Um, so, you are saying that I'm lying when all I care about is that the
    lame poster take his crappy, spam, to another place, other than usenet.
    He would get farther ahead is there was some reason to believe him or
    his posts, but reporting what he says is the truth and then hiding
    behind a anon service leads most intelligent people to believe there is
    an ulterior reason for his postings, which means something other than
    his posted issue.

    Nothing I've posted is dishonest or a lie, unlike the lamer that is
    hiding behind the post.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    Leythos, Aug 2, 2004
    #17
  18. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    *Vanguard* Guest

    "" <>
    wrote in news::
    > In NO way is a remailer equated with an "open relay."


    Your opinion, not mine. Someone sending e-mail through a proxy for
    which they never have to establish an account and cannot be traced and
    which isn't regulated in its use in any way whatsoever by that proxy
    provider is an open relay. So how does a mail2news gateway, other than
    the destination is usenet versus SMTP, qualify as different than an open
    relay used for e-mail? As I understand, the mail2news gateway do not by
    themselves make messages anonymous but the e-mails sent to them may
    first go through the anonymous remailer of the service providing the
    mail2news gateway. Also, almost all the toothless "policies" that I've
    read for the remailers makes their operation and effect pretty much the
    same as someone running an open proxy: no bandwidth quota, no logging of
    IP address of sender, no accounts required for use, no way to bar the
    sender in case of abuse, spam, or illegal activities.

    The remailer disavows any responsibility (which is typical of any e-mail
    service) and acknowledges they have no control over the use of their
    resources. Read http://dingo.1hwy.com/abuse.htm for an example of how
    stupid and toothless is any "policy" regarding abuse for a remailer.
    While some remailers will let you submit your e-mail address to add
    yourself to THIER voluntarily enforced blacklist to eliminate any
    e-mails from them from reaching you, that would require you actually
    manage the resource receiving the e-mails. For usenet, that doesn't
    apply. You cannot and should not be able to censor what other usenet
    users can see just because you disagree with one or a few posters. I
    really don't want to bother running my own local and private news server
    and getting a news feed for it just so I can define rules as to what
    posts my news server will accept which can then be read with my
    newsreader client.

    > Since no other regulars seem to be using anon remailers, killfiling on
    > anon remailers is that hard. There are a number of ways of doing it.
    > I know from experience because I have posted to
    > alt.privacy.anon-server for some years.


    Do none of the remailers permit selecting a constant moniker (i.e.,
    sender or author)? An ever changing name one each of your posts is a
    pointless and bogus identifier and you might as well as leave it blank.

    > What do you regard as "over and over." Once a week for a number of
    > weeks. That's hardly over and over. Even so, unanswered his posts
    > would fall into the black hole of retention time if you dweebs would
    > let it be - or KILLFILE him.


    No, their posts will not fall into the black hole of retention time;
    i.e., his posts will not expire on the news servers. Why? Because the
    OP has declared that they will repeatedly repost their message to
    deliberately obviate the expiration of posts. Without anyone ever
    replying to their post, this dweeb will repost it again in about another
    week, and in another week, and ad nauseum. It isn't going to go away
    because you hope it expires eventually across the news servers. The old
    copy expires, vaporizes, and voila, another same-content copy of it
    reappears. It is a deliberate attempt by theOP to circumvent the
    expiration of posts whether on the news server or by users employing
    views or rules to eliminate old posts. Just because you toss out the
    Sunday paper doesn't mean that ad won't appear in next Sunday's paper,
    and again the next Sunday, and so on ad nauseum, especially since there
    is no cost and no responsibility on the part of the advertiser.

    <snip>
    > That is wrong. He should not be forcing all who have seen his message
    > to see it over and over. He absolutely should allow killfiling
    > because he should only be concerned with new readers of the group to
    > see it. If the group thinks him full of it, he should not exacerbate
    > it with forcing such inepts as yourself to this point of frustration.


    But the OP gives us nothing to killfile on (except, according to you,
    maybe in Forte Agent in can be done). In your use of remailers, do you
    get to choose what moniker (i.e., sender or name) gets used in your
    posts? From what I've seen of the OP's posts, each and every one gets a
    new moniker; i.e., their remailer cycles through a randomly generated
    set of names. At the beginning, their IP address got included in the
    NNTP-Posting-Host header but now that has disappeared when they changed
    to a different remailer. Killfiling on "mail2news" in the PATH header
    will killfile all such users, not just this one user. So this OP gives
    us nothing concrete upon which to base a kill filter.

    >> I would love to know which
    >> NNTP clients will let me define a rule to killfile based on a
    >> substring in the PATH header.

    >
    > Agent's Global Search/Filter allows filtering on *any* header,
    > including the Path header. Of course, it also filters on body text.
    > If it is the same message over and over, just kill file on keywords
    > in the body text.


    Yet I see no *action* that can be attached to the search to delete the
    messages that I am attempting to kill. I don't want to search for them
    and then have to manually delete them. I want to kill them without ever
    having to see them. Also, once I define "PATH: mail2news" in a search,
    how do I save that search to reuse it later? By scrolling through a
    long history of past searches? And why would I want to do searching as
    opposed to creating a rule so an automatic *action* (of delete) could be
    associated with each result found in the search without any intervention
    from me? I don't want to be going through a history of searches, find
    the ones relevant to those that I would've preferred to be in a rule,
    manually execute the search again, and manually delete all the results
    found in the manual search.

    And if all headers can be searched in a global search, why were all
    those headers omitted in the Message -> Filters -> Add Kill Filter menu?
    They obviously have the code to search all headers in the global search
    but didn't bother reusing it for kill filters. Can a search be saved as
    a rule AND an action attached to that saved search (i.e., make it a rule
    or filter), so the results found by the searching will get automatically
    acted upon?

    I don't want to bother doing searches. I want to use a rule or filter
    to do that automatically for me. According to Forte's help, "Add Usenet
    Filter dialog - If a message header is selected in the Message List
    pane, Agent automatically inserts the selected message's subject or
    author into this field." In that dialog, there are only 2 buttons for
    adding qualifiers: Author and Subject. If I enter any other qualifier
    (i.e., header), it bitches that it cannot filter on that header.
    *OTHER* than manual searches, where do you define rules or filters in
    Forte Agent that will run automatically and that actually have an action
    associated with them. The task is not to manually *find* the message
    but to automatically *delete* it.

    Note that when I downloaded and installed the trial version of Forte
    that there is no "Global Search/Filter" option that you mention. I
    found "Edit -> Global Search", or hitting Ctrl-G, but there is no Filter
    sub-menu or sub-function available in that dialog; i.e., I cannot define
    a search and then save it as a filter. The "filtering" is the search
    criteria you enter. Search-and-delete (all manual) is not the same as
    rule-deleted (and automatic). Global Search isn't filtering out
    anything. It FINDS whatever you specified for the search criteria.

    Since Forte Agent often gets touted as the better newsreader, its dearth
    of filters and/or rules is surprising. With all the hoopla that Forte
    Agent is better, and if it were true, then I must be missing something
    in Forte Agent where I can define rules or filters that operate WITHOUT
    user intervention and to which an action, like delete, can be applied.
    I also don't like the workaround to provide support for multiple news
    servers just because Forte Agent can only handle one at a time, but
    that's another issue.

    > X-News, a freebie, also allows filtering on headers and body text.
    >
    > http://xnews.newsguy.com/


    I'll have to revisit that newsreader. I remember looking at it a couple
    years ago but thought it got dropped, went dead, or was no longer
    supported. Even if it did get revived, it still, for example, has old
    references to DejaNews. How long ago did DejaNews become Google Groups?
    February 2001, wasn't it? If the documentation isn't accurate, it bodes
    ill for the program.

    From what I read at http://xnews.newsguy.com/manual.html#filters,
    filters in Xnews are what are called views in other newsreaders.
    Nothing gets deleted, just hidden. That means you waste the disk space
    in your message store for message that you never want to see, and you
    will see those unwanted posts once you remove the filter or change to a
    different one. It looks like I would instead have to score a post.
    Supposedly ALL the headers would be usable so I could select the PATH
    header. *IF* all headers are available for scoring then this might
    work, and regular expressions might make it possible to specify exactly
    where in the header to look, like "$\!mail2news" to check it is at the
    end of the PATH value.

    > There are approximately 24 non-middle remailers you have to be
    > concerned with -
    >
    > amessage antani austria
    > bigapple bunker cripto
    > discord dizum edo
    > freedom frell futurew
    > george hastio italy
    > krotus lemuria metacolo
    > paranoia starwars tonga
    > kroken liberty randseed
    >
    > Filter on them.


    Do you know if it is standard or de facto policy to use "mail2news" in
    the PATH header when using these remailers? Or is that optional?
    Rather than filter on "...!news.dizum.com!..." somewhere in the PATH, I
    could catch them all with just filtering on "!mail2news".

    > there are two middleman - that I know of presently, which also deliver
    > to Usenet : bikikii and dingo.
    >
    > It is beyond me how you people operate usenet so unprepared with the
    > right software.


    Not everyone has the time to waste researching every possible client
    that exists. Also, not everyone has the luxury of dictating what client
    they get to use. If you use my computer, you use what software is on it
    and you don't get to install anything else. If you use a desktop at
    work, you are responsible for obeying your company policies regarding
    software and installs. You use what you know, you use what you are
    allowed to use, and you use what best meets YOUR needs and not someone
    else's. OE fits okay but know I'd like something more, a choice I can
    make for my home computer not at work. I don't see Forte doing what I
    want since I'm not interested in performing manual searches (that carry
    no action on the results) and having to do manual deletes.

    > Since the important key points in the text cannot change because he
    > must continually refer to the company and other keywords, body text
    > filtering would be a snap.


    Filtering on words within the body is much less a reliable filter unless
    the words can be guaranteed to be unique. A filter on Safeboot,
    encryption, "Speed Disk" isn't sufficient to guarantee only these
    bitchposts gets killed automatically. Adding "Simon Hunt" and "Marco
    Versteine" might help, but any replies to the post that I killfiled will
    also not be seen (for those that quote most or all of the post). In
    rare instances, I do want to kill the entire thread, but often I do
    start secondary discussions which I do want to see. I cannot add the
    garbage strings that the poster adds to the Subject header and also in
    the body, and the fact that the poster is adding these to their post to
    circumvent anti-spam filters is equating their post to spam. The poster
    wrote it using hash busting strings for a reason, and it is not a
    beneficial reason to the peer community in the newsgroup. Looks like
    spam means it is spam.

    Again, however, the kill filters in Forte Agent only let me designate
    Author and E-mail Address to filter on. Searching is worthless as a
    kill filter because that requires manual intervention which obviates the
    point of *automatically* kill filing someone. It is possible I missed
    the instructions on how to convert a global *search* into a rule or
    filter that runs automatically.

    > To make myself plain:
    >
    > I do not condone fascist censoring.
    >
    > I do not condone idiots who deliberately avoid killfiles.
    >
    > I do condone bitch'n and whining. That's Usenet.


    So you agree that you can whine that we can whine about the OP's
    whining. You whine about our whining, so you, too, are whining! hee
    hee hee ;->
    *Vanguard*, Aug 2, 2004
    #18
  19. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    *Vanguard* Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    "" <>
    wrote in news::
    > On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 11:53:42 -0500, "*Vanguard*"
    > <do-not-email@reply-to-group> wrote:
    >
    >> "" <>
    >> wrote in news::
    >>>
    >>> You two are the whiners. Without you two control freaks this thread
    >>> <snip - repeat post>

    >>
    >> Duplicating your post lends it no further validity nor further
    >> importance.
    >>
    >> Since you use Forte Agent and what you must therefore deem as "proper
    >> [usenet] software", (and this for a newsreader that cannot handle
    >> multiple news servers without resorting to shortcuts loading
    >> different config files), please explain how to define a kill filter
    >> that checks on a substring in the PATH header. From what I saw of
    >> what little Agent lets you define for kill filters, all you get is
    >> Author and E-mail Address for filtering out a post. When I
    >> attempted to define a kill filter using a "NNTP-Posting-Host"
    >> qualifier, it spewed back an error message saying it doesn't
    >> understand that qualifier. Wow, what an all-encompassing set of
    >> qualifiers in that you get to check all of 2, just TWO, headers. In
    >> Forte Agent, how would I, for examples, kill filter on:
    >>
    >> - PATH contains substring "mail2news".

    >
    > Using the Global Search/Filter entails first having to download the
    > message bodies. This doesn't mean you have to read them.
    >
    > A global filter can name the header it wants filtered. For instance,
    > here are some keywords filtered, plus the Path header.
    >
    > safeboot or crooks or path: athenanews.com (if you wanted to filter
    > out my messages.)
    >
    >> - NNTP-Posting-Host, if exists, has value of xx.xx.xx.xx (i.e., some
    >> specific IP address).
    >> - X-No-Archive = YES (case insensitive, of course).
    >> - A header with substring "Complaint" somewhere in its name does not
    >> exist.
    >> - Subject contains "Re:" AND References header is missing.

    >
    > For filtering anon messages where the body message remains
    > significantly the same is a snap. Just filter on those keywords.
    > This is method you should use with Agent or X-news.
    >
    >> Kill filtering on Author and E-mail Address is as stupid as blocking
    >> spam using the Junk Mail rule based on E-mail address. Those are
    >> fields that the *sender* specifies and so they can change at will.
    >> They are worthless for kill filters. Oooh, I'm gonna kill filter on
    >> Joe Schmuck who then changes their name to My Muck, so then I filter
    >> on their e-mail address of only for them
    >> to later change it in their client to .
    >> Yeah, like kill filtering on name and e-mail address are really
    >> useful. NOT! You need to kill filter on a header over which the
    >> sender has no immediate or direct control, something that got added
    >> AFTER they sent their message.

    >
    > Tell me the obvious.
    >
    >> If Forte Agent is such the wonderful NNTP client you profess it to be
    >> then, please, show me how to define the above example kill filters.
    >> I already know OE won't do it. I also know Thunderbird won't do it.
    >> From what I saw in Forte, it won't do it, either.

    >
    > Jeez, man. Don't tell somebody who uses Agent - and has used it near
    > since its inception, what it won't do.
    >
    > The below is taken from Agent's HELP file.
    > (You do not have to necessarily use a label to filter on body text.
    > Just put it into the filter.)
    >
    > Expression Qualifiers In general, Agent searches as much of the
    > message as possible for the words or phrases in the expression. How
    > much of the message is searched depends on the type of search
    > (Usenet, email, or global search). In addition, you can use so-called
    > expression qualifiers to limit the search to selected fields. If a
    > search expression contains no qualifies, the follow items are
    > searched:
    >
    > Usenet Filters: The Subject and Author fields only (and not the
    > message body)
    >
    > Email Filters: All header fields (and not the message body)
    >
    > Global Search: All header fields and the message body. To limit the
    > search to
    > a particular message field, use a qualifier prefix, which is the name
    > of the field to be searched, followed by a colon. For example:
    >
    > subject: testing searches just the subject field for the word
    > "testing"
    >
    > subject: testing and from: tom gold searches just the subject field
    > for the word "testing" and just the from field for the
    > phrase "tom gold". Thus, it matches only those messages for
    > which the subject contains the word "testing" and the from
    > field contains the phrase "tom gold". Usenet, email, and
    > global search expressions all allow different qualifiers, as
    > detailed below. Usenet Filters may contain the following
    > qualifiers:
    >
    > subject: matches the subject header field author: or from: match the
    > author of the message, which is normally the From header
    > field Email Filters may use the name of any header field as a
    > qualifier. For example, you match all messages posted with
    > Agent with the expression:
    >
    > x-mailer: forte agent In addition, email filters may use the following
    > special qualifier words: any-sender: matches any of the fields From,
    > Apparently-From, Sender, Reply-To, or X-Sender. any-recipient: matches
    > any of the fields To, Apparently-To, Cc, or Bcc. Global Search
    > expressions allow all of the qualifiers allowed by email filters, and
    > the following additional qualifiers: body: matches the text sections
    > of the message body. IOW, it matches all of the text that you would
    > normally read in the message if you were not viewing the raw,
    > unformatted message.
    >
    > raw-body: matches the complete, unformatted body of the message,
    > including sections containing binary attachments and images.
    >
    > Now, I am not going to hold a seminar on this. Agent's HELP section
    > can show you how to do all this. X-News is a bit harder and takes
    > some getting used to.
    >
    > If you want to sit here and continually bitch about this anon poster,
    > be my guest. But *don't* tell me you cannot killfilter him. That's the
    > fault in your choice of software.


    I download Forte Agent (again) and looked at Global Search. Previously
    I was looking at Filters -> Add Kill Filter since that seemed the
    obvious place to define a filter or rule.

    Okay, so now I have a global search defined. How do I attach an action
    to it, like delete? I don't want to be remembering and performing
    manual searches to then manually delete messages.

    Once a global *search* is defined, how do I make it a global *view* or
    filter or rule that gets executed automatically upon even visit to a
    newsgroup? I am completely new to Forte Agent so I might be missing
    something obvious. There are 2 entries in the Index for its help found
    by searching on "filter" and neither one of them describe how to define
    a filter or rule that executes automatically to perform an action.

    I did find mention of the "Manage Views Dialog", which led me to "How to
    Create Views", but that doesn't let me specify headers and their values
    or substrings in order to hide the posts that I want to killfile.


    --
    __________________________________________________
    *** Post replies to newsgroup. Share with others.
    (E-mail: domain = ".com", add "=NEWS=" to Subject)
    __________________________________________________
    *Vanguard*, Aug 2, 2004
    #19
  20. privacy.at Anonymous Remailer

    Leythos Guest

    Re: cmioj esiuof SAFEBOOT SOLO IS DISCONTINUED: CONTROL BREAK INTERNATIONAL is a Disreputable Company, DO NOT Patronize Them odfjg09erj0

    In article <>, do-not-email@reply-to-
    group says...
    [snip]

    The real problem, as has been mentioned, is that even KFing the person
    won't help the situation - there will still be some lame cry-baby
    posting about something that he blames another for and he's said that
    he'll keep posting.

    I would say that it almost puts him in the same category as the ferret
    loving nameless one.

    --
    --

    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
    Leythos, Aug 2, 2004
    #20
    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. Fritz Wuehler
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    776
    *Vanguard*
    Jul 2, 2004
  2. A.Melon
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    551
  3. Guy Domville
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    1,809
    Jim Watt
    Aug 3, 2004
  4. Guest
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    678
    Leythos
    Aug 4, 2004
  5. Anonymous Sender
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    463
    PLONK
    Oct 6, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page