"Sam"
In article <3485813d.117631170@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>, gburnore+NOspam@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) writes:
On 2 Dec 1997 14:59:30 GMT, "Sam"
wrote: :Found it: : :Subject: Re: Burnore forgeries easily solvable :From: Sam
:Date: 1997/07/10 :Message-ID: <5q3ms3$phq@chronicle.concentric.net> :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,
, 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 mmdf@databasix.com
Well, no matter how you look at it, it was. It did came from mmdf@databasix.com. 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