Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed (was: Re: not so fast Re: Kudos to NETCOM!)

[Anonymous]

"Sam" <sam-001 at dpinc.ml.org> wrote:

> In article <3485813d.117631170 at nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>,
>         gburnore+NOspam at netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) writes:
> 
> > On 2 Dec 1997 14:59:30 GMT, "Sam" <sam-001 at dpinc.ml.org> wrote:
> >
> >:Found it:
> >:
> >:Subject:      Re: Burnore forgeries easily solvable
> >:From:         Sam <sam-000 at usa.net>
> >:Date:         1997/07/10
> >:Message-ID:   <5q3ms3$phq at 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,
> <gburnoreED2z89.GHs at netcom.com>, 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 at databasix.com
> 
> Well, no matter how you look at it, it was.  It did came from
> mmdf at 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 <eridani at ix.netcom.com>, 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 
"mmdf at databasix.com", 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.

--