[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed (was: Re: not so fast Re: Kudos to NETCOM!)
"Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Gary L. Burnore) writes:
>
> > On 2 Dec 1997 14:59:30 GMT, "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >:Found it:
> >:
> >:Subject: Re: Burnore forgeries easily solvable
> >:From: Sam <[email protected]>
> >:Date: 1997/07/10
> >:Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> >:Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.anonymous,alt.anonymous.messages,alt.censorship,news.ad
> >:
> >:
> >
> >
> > Nice try Sam but no go.
>
> Not so fast. In the message that this was a follow-up to,
> <[email protected]>, your own exact words were:
>
> > This one dated 9 July 1997
> > is a good example. See the forged from line? Ths did not come from
> > [email protected]
>
> Well, no matter how you look at it, it was. It did came from
> [email protected]. There was no forgery. And that was precisely the
> point of my initial post. I cannot believe that someone who is supposed to
> administer a mail server cannot recognize an auto-ack generated by his own
> machine, instead insisting that the message came from a third party, forged
> with his return address.
>
> This puts all other claimed forgeries from a mail2news gateway, that you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> have taken an issue with, and used as a basis to form your claims against
> UCE-baiting, and such, as suspect.
^^^^^^^^^^
You've noticed that too, huh? Gary Burnore's "big lie" technique depends
upon his claims being retold over and over, by himself and his associates
such as Belinda Bryan <[email protected]>, WITHOUT SERIOUS ANALYSIS
like yours, in order to be believed.
Gary's continuous whining about "forgeries" is becoming pathetic. In his
haste to falsely claim that something was "forged" he missed the fact that
the claimed "forgery" was traceable back to HIS OWN SERVER. He shot himself
in the foot trying to frame the remailers this time. What would be the
point in trying to forge a Usenet post to make it look like it came from
"[email protected]", anyway?
Gary Burnore's forgery allegations against Mailmasher are similarly
suspect. First of all, before planning the attack, somebody apparently
didn't do his homework, or he'd have realized that Mailmasher was a
web-based 'nymserver, not a remailer. Despite being challenged to do so,
Gary has never been able to produce a single piece of documentation showing
that Mailmasher ever had the ability to paste From: headers. The "evidence"
that was posted had truncated Path headers that stopped at the mail2news
gateway and contained "X-No-Archive" headers, just as Gary's own posts do,
presumably to explain why none of these posts is independently available
from third-party archives for verification. If the posts even existed in
the first place, they are more likely to have been generated from a
Netcruiser account, complete with headers designed to frame Mailmasher,
than from Mailmasher itself.
--