From nobody at nowhere.invalid Tue Nov 1 10:19:57 2005 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Tue Nov 1 04:20:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R References: Message-ID: On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:43:32 -0800, Ray coughed into spamcop.geeks and left this in : > Found this doing a google search when wondering the same thing myself... > > http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113 Warning: You can't actually read that article because a friggin ad pops up in an ILAYER in the foreground, blocking out the text. Fsckin' marketoons........ -- Steve The most difficult years of marriage are those following the wedding. From borgholio at storymind.com Tue Nov 1 01:23:04 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Tue Nov 1 04:25:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steven Maesslein wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:43:32 -0800, Ray coughed into spamcop.geeks and > left this in : > > >>Found this doing a google search when wondering the same thing myself... >> >>http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113 > > > Warning: You can't actually read that article because a friggin ad pops > up in an ILAYER in the foreground, blocking out the text. > > Fsckin' marketoons........ > 'S ok, I read it before. :) From devnull at spamcop.net Tue Nov 1 08:43:51 2005 From: devnull at spamcop.net (Frog Prince) Date: Tue Nov 1 09:15:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R References: Message-ID: "Borgholio" | > | >>Found this doing a google search when wondering the same thing myself... | >> | >>http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113 | > | > | > Warning: You can't actually read that article because a friggin ad pops | > up in an ILAYER in the foreground, blocking out the text. | > | > Fsckin' marketoons........ | > | | 'S ok, I read it before. :) And that helps the rest of us how? From borgholio at storymind.com Tue Nov 1 09:36:36 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Tue Nov 1 12:40:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Frog Prince wrote: > "Borgholio" > | > > | >>Found this doing a google search when wondering the same thing myself... > | >> > | >>http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113 > | > > | > > | > Warning: You can't actually read that article because a friggin ad pops > | > up in an ILAYER in the foreground, blocking out the text. > | > > | > Fsckin' marketoons........ > | > > | > | 'S ok, I read it before. :) > > And that helps the rest of us how? > > Dude...telepathy! From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Tue Nov 1 09:52:36 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Tue Nov 1 12:55:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steven Maesslein wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:43:32 -0800, Ray coughed into spamcop.geeks and > left this in : > >> Found this doing a google search when wondering the same thing myself... >> >> http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113 > > Warning: You can't actually read that article because a friggin ad pops > up in an ILAYER in the foreground, blocking out the text. > > Fsckin' marketoons........ > My setup didn't see the popup. Firefox without adblocker. My hosts file blocks many ads. -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Tue Nov 1 14:58:29 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Pop) Date: Tue Nov 1 15:00:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Seen in a spam Message-ID: "did this campaign reach you in error? pls click the remove link at our website, and enter your id there" Yeah, I know, don't read 'em, but it was right there in front of me! What an idiot! Wonder how many people actually still click? Pop -- --- No one should ever have to unsubscribe from a list they did not intentionally subscribe to. From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Nov 1 15:25:03 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Tue Nov 1 15:30:11 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] 11/1/2005 Maint Window Message-ID: Maintenance Window Nov 1, 2005 During the period 14:00-18:00 -0800 we will have an outage of about 45 minutes for the installation of new hardware for the reporting system. Thank you for your patience. The email system will not affected by this maintenance window. Ellen SpamCop follow/ups to SpamCop Please propagate to the forums From nobody at nowhere.invalid Tue Nov 1 21:51:44 2005 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Tue Nov 1 15:55:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R References: Message-ID: On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:52:36 -0800, Brian coughed into spamcop.geeks and left this in : >>> http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113 >> >> Warning: You can't actually read that article because a friggin ad pops >> up in an ILAYER in the foreground, blocking out the text. >> >> Fsckin' marketoons........ > > My setup didn't see the popup. Firefox without adblocker. My hosts file > blocks many ads. Didn't show up second time round here either, so I investigated further. ads.cdfreaks.com deposits a cookie which, if present, blocks the ILAYER. So, first time round you get the ad and the cookie is deposited. Second time round the cookie is there so no ad. Fsckin' marketoons. -- Steve Hurewitz's Memory Principle: The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional to ..... to ........ uh .............. From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Nov 1 13:07:04 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 1 16:10:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Seen in a spam References: Message-ID: Pop wrote: > "did this campaign reach you in error? > pls click the remove link at our website, and enter your > id there" > > Yeah, I know, don't read 'em, but it was right there in front of > me! What an idiot! Wonder how many people actually still click? You can read 'em if you want and you can believe 'em if you want. The accuracy of the 'rules' about spam are as 'perfect' or imperfect as any other rules. In reality, altho' the proportions are weighted heavily toward rules #1 & #2, there are actually all kinds of unsolicited mail, including mail of which you are on a list and the party who sent you the mail will remove you from that list if you ask them to. There are a *lot* of reasons not to read spam, not the least of which is the general avoidance of 'thinking about' what spam sez. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Nov 1 17:56:25 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Tue Nov 1 18:00:14 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Maint Window completed Message-ID: The maintenance window scheduled for 11/1/2005 has been completed. Thanks! Ellen SpamCop follow/ups to SpamCop Please propagate to the forums From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Tue Nov 1 23:39:56 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Wed Nov 2 02:45:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steven Maesslein wrote: > On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:52:36 -0800, Brian coughed into spamcop.geeks and > left this in : > >>>> http://www.cdfreaks.com/article/113 >>> Warning: You can't actually read that article because a friggin ad pops >>> up in an ILAYER in the foreground, blocking out the text. >>> >>> Fsckin' marketoons........ >> My setup didn't see the popup. Firefox without adblocker. My hosts file >> blocks many ads. > > Didn't show up second time round here either, so I investigated further. > ads.cdfreaks.com deposits a cookie which, if present, blocks the ILAYER. > So, first time round you get the ad and the cookie is deposited. Second > time round the cookie is there so no ad. > > Fsckin' marketoons. > There's something else going on as well, cause I didn't accept a cookie from them and it was my first time there. I very seldom accept cookies. -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From usenet at lordblacklaw.co.uk Wed Nov 2 08:46:48 2005 From: usenet at lordblacklaw.co.uk (Gareth Halfacree) Date: Wed Nov 2 03:45:08 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Steven Maesslein wrote: > More set-top DVD players are compatible with -R than +R. Not strictly true if your DVD recorder supports bitsetting. Bitsetting is where you change the book type of a DVD+R or DVD+RW to DVD-ROM, making set-top DVD players think it's a professionally-made pressed DVD video. You cannot set DVD-R to DVD-ROM; trying will just result in multiple coasters. So, if you can bitset the discs to DVD-ROM, buy DVD+R for maximum compatibility. The only other difference (when it comes to standalone, non-computer, DVD writers) is that DVD-R supports the DVD-VR format. This is an attempt to bring some of the advantages of the DVD-RAM format to DVD-R. Again, this is a format only supported by DVD-R and not DVD+R. If your standalone DVD recorder doesn't support DVD-VR, then there's no point buying DVD-R discs; also, DVD-VR is totally incompatible with the vast majority of set-top DVD players out there. -- -Gareth Halfacree http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk From nobody at spamcop.net Wed Nov 2 09:22:39 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (Ellen) Date: Wed Nov 2 09:25:14 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] System outages/instability Message-ID: Morning folks -- yes we are having system problems and operations/engineering is working the issues. You may see failures trying to log-in or other error messages. Please do not try to change your password as this will not solve the problem. The problems will probably continue sporadically. There is no ETA right now for complete resolution but this is being treated by everyone as a priority 1 situation. Thank you for your patience! The email system is not affected. I suppose the good news is that there will still be shiney new spams to report after the problems are resolved -- and that is also the bad news .... Ellen SpamCop follow-ups to SpamCop Please propagate to the forums From devnull at spamcop.net Wed Nov 2 12:00:31 2005 From: devnull at spamcop.net (Frog Prince) Date: Wed Nov 2 12:05:09 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Question on blocking view of source on a web page Message-ID: We're using DreamweaverMX and would like to prevent a visitor and competitor from viewing, copying, pirating the web site code. We would also like to block access to the underlying files. We do want to allow the visitor to print the data to hard copy but we do not want to allow anyone to download the digital files. Is there a practical way to prevent coping? If not is there some way to make the deed harder to accomplish? Last I'm looking for an effective way to watermark or tag all the files so that we can substantiate copy right violations FP brother_rabbit @ hotmail.com From 35zyuhr02 at sneakemail.com Wed Nov 2 19:54:51 2005 From: 35zyuhr02 at sneakemail.com (Mr K. Mean) Date: Wed Nov 2 14:55:13 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Frog Prince wrote: > We're using DreamweaverMX and would like to prevent a visitor and competitor > from viewing, copying, pirating the web site code. > > We would also like to block access to the underlying files. We do want to > allow the visitor to print the data to hard copy but we do not want to allow > anyone to download the digital files. > > Is there a practical way to prevent coping? If not is there some way to > make the deed harder to accomplish? > > Last I'm looking for an effective way to watermark or tag all the files so > that we can substantiate copy right violations. You could try some of the javascript encryption scripts. I haven't tried them so I'm not sure how they might work or how well, but: http://www.felgall.com/jstip31.htm http://www.cgiscript.net/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=js_misc%2edb&command=viewone&id=60 http://www.cgiscript.net/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=js_misc%2edb&command=viewone&id=59&op From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Wed Nov 2 15:11:07 2005 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Wed Nov 2 16:15:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page References: Message-ID: <4$Iyhgq$p58g@eisner.encompasserve.org> In article , "Mr K. Mean" <35zyuhr02@sneakemail.com> writes: > Frog Prince wrote: >> We're using DreamweaverMX and would like to prevent a visitor and competitor >> from viewing, copying, pirating the web site code. >> >> We would also like to block access to the underlying files. We do want to >> allow the visitor to print the data to hard copy but we do not want to allow >> anyone to download the digital files. >> >> Is there a practical way to prevent coping? If not is there some way to >> make the deed harder to accomplish? >> >> Last I'm looking for an effective way to watermark or tag all the files so >> that we can substantiate copy right violations. > > You could try some of the javascript encryption scripts. ...at the cost of not offering your web site to those who have secured their browsers. From pantheus at suespammers.org Wed Nov 2 13:37:07 2005 From: pantheus at suespammers.org (Ken Knull) Date: Wed Nov 2 16:40:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page References: <4$Iyhgq$p58g@eisner.encompasserve.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:11:07 -0600, Larry Kilgallen wrote: > In article , "Mr K. Mean" > <35zyuhr02@sneakemail.com> writes: >> Frog Prince wrote: >>> We're using DreamweaverMX and would like to prevent a visitor and >>> competitor from viewing, copying, pirating the web site code. >>> >>> We would also like to block access to the underlying files. We do want >>> to allow the visitor to print the data to hard copy but we do not want >>> to allow anyone to download the digital files. >>> >>> Is there a practical way to prevent coping? If not is there some way >>> to make the deed harder to accomplish? >>> >>> Last I'm looking for an effective way to watermark or tag all the files >>> so that we can substantiate copy right violations. >> >> You could try some of the javascript encryption scripts. > > ...at the cost of not offering your web site to those who have secured > their browsers. The ONLY way to prevent copying, viewing, and pirating .. is to NOT put the data ON the wild wild web, period, end of that story. There are ways to slow it down, or prevent the totally uninitiated from doing so, with javascript and other scripts, but all have some downsides. There are also ways to prevent javascript from disabling YOUR own ability to block as is referred to here: > ."..at the cost of not offering your web site to those who have > secured their browsers." and that is to use a late model Firefox browser with the RefControl extension. With that you can block a LOT of things, yet be selective as to where it isn't blocked. Example .. I block globally, javascript, redirects, and a lot of things related to Referrer but allow it to not be blocked on /some/ totally trustworthy (to me) sites. As to watermarking ... there have been, over the years, many such applications .. but all of them, to my knowledge, are break-able, by use of ImageMajic, PhotoShop or Photo Impact and some skills. Again, if it isn't a desire to have it copied, stolen or otherwise used then DON'T put it 'up' there. Noobies can be slowed down, somnehwat, but one with skills and desire can take them, no matter what you do. Ken -- In a world without walls and fences nobody needs Windows and Gates! User #104362 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org From blacklist-me at davjam.org Wed Nov 2 21:43:05 2005 From: blacklist-me at davjam.org (David Bolt) Date: Wed Nov 2 16:55:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page References: Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Mr K. Mean <35zyuhr02@sneakemail.com> wrote:- >Frog Prince wrote: >> We're using DreamweaverMX and would like to prevent a visitor and competitor >> from viewing, copying, pirating the web site code. >> We would also like to block access to the underlying files. We do >>want to >> allow the visitor to print the data to hard copy but we do not want to allow >> anyone to download the digital files. >> Is there a practical way to prevent coping? Apart from not putting the files up so they can be viewed? No. To be viewed, they have to be downloaded. The only way to >>If not is there some way to >> make the deed harder to accomplish? Not really. Once a page has been downloaded by the browser, it's going to be stored in the browser cache. From there it can be viewed, edited, or printed, just as if it were a locally produced file. On top of that, since any graphics associated with the page are downloaded so they can be viewed as part of the page, they can be printed, edited, or viewed, without reference to the original HTML source. >> Last I'm looking for an effective way to watermark or tag all the >>files so >> that we can substantiate copy right violations. Graphics can be watermarked, and so can be more easily protected. It's going to be much harder to prove that a page source was copied as you're likely to find someone producing a similar layout, and using the same software to produce the page(s), will end up with similar HTML source code. >You could try some of the javascript encryption scripts. I haven't >tried them so I'm not sure how they might work or how well, but: > >http://www.felgall.com/jstip31.htm >http://www.cgiscript.net/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=js_misc% >2edb&command=viewone&id=60 >http://www.cgiscript.net/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=js_misc% >2edb&command=viewone&id=59&op Even Javascript encryption won't stop someone determined to look at your page source, although it might stop someone who doesn't know how to decode them. Or who haven't heard about DOM inspection plug-ins[0] that will have the browser render the page and then display the final results. [0] Used to have one of these to decrypt the pages given in spams. The problem was the only available plug-in, at the time I bothered doing this amount of tracking, was for IE and I stopped using that as a browser due to the number of its security flaws. Regards, David Bolt -- Member of Team Acorn checking nodes at 50 Mnodes/s: http://www.distributed.net/ AMD1800 1Gb WinXP/SuSE 9.3 | AMD1300 512Mb SuSE 9.0 | AMD2400 256Mb SuSE 9.0 AMD2400 192Mb SuSE 10.0 | Falcon 14Mb TOS 4.02 | STE 4Mb TOS 1.62 RPC600 129Mb RISCOS 3.6 | A3010 4Mb RISCOS 3.11 | A4000 4Mb RISCOS 3.11 From 35zyuhr02 at sneakemail.com Wed Nov 2 22:10:22 2005 From: 35zyuhr02 at sneakemail.com (Mr K. Mean) Date: Wed Nov 2 17:15:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Bolt wrote: > On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Mr K. Mean <35zyuhr02@sneakemail.com> wrote:- > > Even Javascript encryption won't stop someone determined to look at your > page source, although it might stop someone who doesn't know how to > decode them. Or who haven't heard about DOM inspection plug-ins[0] that > will have the browser render the page and then display the final > results. I originally started out writing that nothing could be done, that disabling the right click view source was just an annoying ineffective trick that doesn't stop anybody, until I realized it was possible to encrypt the source. But yeah, ultimately, if a browser is going to be able to render it, if you are going to make the pages publicly accessible, then somebody with a moderate amount of technical ability will be able to read them despite your best efforts. From user at domain.invalid Thu Nov 3 07:49:22 2005 From: user at domain.invalid (User) Date: Thu Nov 3 08:50:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 02.11.2005 11:00, Frog Prince wrote: --- Original Message --- > We're using DreamweaverMX and would like to prevent a visitor and competitor > from viewing, copying, pirating the web site code. > > We would also like to block access to the underlying files. We do want to > allow the visitor to print the data to hard copy but we do not want to allow > anyone to download the digital files. > > Is there a practical way to prevent coping? If not is there some way to > make the deed harder to accomplish? > > Last I'm looking for an effective way to watermark or tag all the files so > that we can substantiate copy right violations > > FP > brother_rabbit @ hotmail.com > > After reading the many responses to your question, my conclusion is to just leave it alone, as-is. The more you try to lock your site, the more the "script kiddies" are going to attempt to UNLock it and they usually don't stop there, they try other things as they've found a "challenge" ... :-( From BNRAGMAOKKXT at spammotel.com Thu Nov 3 14:20:59 2005 From: BNRAGMAOKKXT at spammotel.com (Canopus) Date: Thu Nov 3 09:25:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page References: <4$Iyhgq$p58g@eisner.encompasserve.org> Message-ID: Ken Knull on 02/11/2005 wrote: >As to watermarking ... there have been, over the years, many such >applications .. but all of them, to my knowledge, are break-able, by use >of ImageMajic, PhotoShop or Photo Impact and some skills. There are services that embed watermarks and register them, the water marks cannot be seen, but, can be read with the correct software. Unfortunately, if someone downloads the image, opens it full screen then takes a screen shot of it they can make an almost perfect copy without the embedded watermark. -- Rob http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/ From kenbrody at spamcop.net Thu Nov 3 14:25:24 2005 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Thu Nov 3 15:00:11 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page References: <4$Iyhgq$p58g@eisner.encompasserve.org> Message-ID: <436A6424.CF2519B8@spamcop.net> Canopus wrote: > > Ken Knull on 02/11/2005 wrote: > > >As to watermarking ... there have been, over the years, many such > >applications .. but all of them, to my knowledge, are break-able, by use > >of ImageMajic, PhotoShop or Photo Impact and some skills. > > There are services that embed watermarks and register them, the water > marks cannot be seen, but, can be read with the correct software. > Unfortunately, if someone downloads the image, opens it full screen then > takes a screen shot of it they can make an almost perfect copy without the > embedded watermark. Wouldn't loading an image into an editor, increasing the contrast by 1, and saving the result, eliminate the waterwark? -- +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ | Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | | | kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include | +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ Don't e-mail me at: From nobody at nowhere.invalid Thu Nov 3 22:38:59 2005 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Thu Nov 3 16:40:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page References: <4$Iyhgq$p58g@eisner.encompasserve.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:37:07 -0800, Ken Knull coughed into spamcop.geeks and left this in : > The ONLY way to prevent copying, viewing, and pirating .. is to NOT put > the data ON the wild wild web, period, end of that story. Amen to that. -- Steve QOTD - "It was so cold last Winter that I even saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets" From bud at telus.net Fri Nov 4 15:55:34 2005 From: bud at telus.net (Bud) Date: Fri Nov 4 19:00:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Uninstall Office 2003 Message-ID: I want to uninstall MS Office 2003 and remove all traces of it. Add/Remove will not allow it. The program has been acting up and producing error screens/cannot access/shortcut invalid/ and generally being a pain. I have the CD but it won't even let me reinstall. How do I remove this program from C drive so I can use the CD for a new install. The present install has been in for a year and has all the updates/security patches/and whatever else MS considered necessary. I just went along with them. In add/remove, I tried to remove/change updates and the entire program but it won't budge. For sure I need help. A reformat is not something I'm looking forward to. Thank you, -- Bud From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Fri Nov 4 18:29:58 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Fri Nov 4 19:30:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Uninstall Office 2003 References: Message-ID: Bud did pass the time by typing: > I want to uninstall MS Office 2003 and remove all traces of it. Add/Remove > will not allow it. The program has been acting up and producing error > screens/cannot access/shortcut invalid/ and generally being a pain. I have > the CD but it won't even let me reinstall. > How do I remove this program from C drive so I can use the CD for a new > install. > The present install has been in for a year and has all the updates/security > patches/and whatever else MS considered necessary. I just went along with > them. In add/remove, I tried to remove/change updates and the entire program > but it won't budge. > For sure I need help. A reformat is not something I'm looking forward to. > Thank you, http://support.microsoft.com/off2003/?sid=685 http://www.kbalertz.com/kb_903771.aspx The second link is probably better. -- DougW From bait-423c86b2-42ff9001 at good.julianhaight.com Fri Nov 4 23:01:47 2005 From: bait-423c86b2-42ff9001 at good.julianhaight.com (Chris F. Willoughby) Date: Sat Nov 5 02:05:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: DVD-R vs DVD+R References: Message-ID: Personally, I like to buy my cookies at the grocery store. *gd&r* Chris "Brian" wrote in message news:dk9qk3$gk9$1@news.spamcop.net... > There's something else going on as well, cause I didn't accept a cookie > from them and it was my first time there. I very seldom accept cookies. > > -- > Brian > SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From bud at telus.net Fri Nov 4 23:14:12 2005 From: bud at telus.net (Bud) Date: Sat Nov 5 02:15:08 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Uninstall Office 2003 References: Message-ID: "DougW" wrote in message news:dkgue4$o8v$1@news.spamcop.net... > Bud did pass the time by typing: >> I want to uninstall MS Office 2003 and remove all traces of it. >> Add/Remove >> will not allow it. The program has been acting up and producing error >> screens/cannot access/shortcut invalid/ and generally being a pain. I >> have >> the CD but it won't even let me reinstall. >> How do I remove this program from C drive so I can use the CD for a new >> install. >> The present install has been in for a year and has all the >> updates/security >> patches/and whatever else MS considered necessary. I just went along with >> them. In add/remove, I tried to remove/change updates and the entire >> program >> but it won't budge. >> For sure I need help. A reformat is not something I'm looking forward to. >> Thank you, > > http://support.microsoft.com/off2003/?sid=685 > http://www.kbalertz.com/kb_903771.aspx > > The second link is probably better. > > -- > DougW Thanks Doug, The second link looks to be what I'm looking for. I'll work on it first thing tomorrow and report results. Much appreciated as usual. -- Bud > From BNRAGMAOKKXT at spammotel.com Sat Nov 5 12:25:49 2005 From: BNRAGMAOKKXT at spammotel.com (Canopus) Date: Sat Nov 5 07:30:11 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Question on blocking view of source on a web page References: <4$Iyhgq$p58g@eisner.encompasserve.org> <436A6424.CF2519B8@spamcop.net> Message-ID: Kenneth Brody on 03/11/2005 wrote: >Canopus wrote: >> >>Ken Knull on 02/11/2005 wrote: >> >>>As to watermarking ... there have been, over the years, many such >>>applications .. but all of them, to my knowledge, are break-able, by use >>>of ImageMajic, PhotoShop or Photo Impact and some skills. >> >>There are services that embed watermarks and register them, the water >>marks cannot be seen, but, can be read with the correct software. >>Unfortunately, if someone downloads the image, opens it full screen then >>takes a screen shot of it they can make an almost perfect copy without the >>embedded watermark. > >Wouldn't loading an image into an editor, increasing the contrast by 1, >and saving the result, eliminate the waterwark? If it's visible I would have thought that doing that would make it more visible. If it's embedded as code and cannot be seen then it should have no effect. I'm sure water-mark registration services would have taken such basic editing into consideration. -- Rob http://www.flickr.com/photos/canopus_archives/ From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 01:04:59 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Sofa King Tyred of Lar Ting) Date: Mon Nov 7 01:05:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Usenet abuse Message-ID: Hi there, One of the newsgroups I frequent (alt.something...) has recently acquired a troll who's cross-posting his defamatory, hate-speech replies from soc.culture.israel. The spamcop engine gives an abuse address as follows: Parsing input: 213.78.80.208 host 213.78.80.208 (getting name) no name Routing details for 213.78.80.208 [refresh/show] Cached whois for 213.78.80.208 : abuse@onetel.net.uk tonybeltram@onetel.net.uk Using abuse net on abuse@onetel.net.uk abuse net onetel.net.uk = abuse@onetel.net.uk, postmaster@onetel.net.uk Using best contacts abuse@onetel.net.uk postmaster@onetel.net.uk Statistics: 213.78.80.208 not listed in bl.spamcop.net More Information.. 213.78.80.208 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org 213.78.80.208 not listed in dnsbl.njabl.org 213.78.80.208 not listed in cbl.abuseat.org 213.78.80.208 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net ( 127.0.0.10 ) 213.78.80.208 not listed in relays.ordb.org. Reporting addresses: abuse@onetel.net.uk postmaster@onetel.net.uk The TOS of onetel forbids any kind of defamatory web pages, etc. from being posted on their web space, but I'm perhaps stretching it to claim that they need to enforce that for usenet. I have cited their TOS in my LARTs. So far, I've got no response from the abuse folks, apart from emails bouncing on the abuse address after a few days of temporary failures (some days ago). I'm not sure if now it's working - no bounces, but no effect either. In any case, the troll lives for weeks on this IP space. Don't think it's zombie pilot, unless it's a botnet on the same ISP. Anyway, his style of profanity seems to be consistent with someone from the UK ;-) What are the odds that by reporting him this way, I will get him shut down? I do realize that kill files and such are a better way to go, but I'm curious since I have fought a lot of email abuse (spam) and had results. This is my first attempt at going after a hate-speech cross-posting troll. It appears he may be trying to win a kook award or something, or perhaps someone that reads that group did something to irritate him and he's getting revenge somehow. -- Help fight spam by "educating" the lax, zombie-hosting ISPs: http://pages.infinit.net/filmore/educateYourISP.htm From nobody at nowhere.invalid Mon Nov 7 11:22:58 2005 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Mon Nov 7 05:25:22 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Usenet abuse References: Message-ID: On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:04:59 -0500, Sofa King Tyred of Lar Ting coughed into spamcop.geeks and left this in : > What are the odds that by reporting him this way, I will get him shut > down? >From onetel.net.uk? I'd say approaching zero from negative values. Onetel is a telco, like BT, wanadoo (France Telecom), China Telecom, MCI et al. 'Nuff said. -- Steve QUARK: The sound made by a well-bred duck: From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 08:42:31 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 08:45:05 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Help Goddammmmitt! Message-ID: I finally purchased a new cable modem for my home PC, thinking it would solve my connection problems. No dice. My computer will still not connect to the internet when I boot up unless I run "ipconfig /renew". Comcast can't ping me and I can't make a connection unless I do that, even though ipconfig shows that I have a valid IP address. Comcast tech was useless trying to help me, bitched because I had Win2000 and he only knew the XP operating system, told me something was screwed up with either my computer or ethernet card settings (which is probably true) but he could do nothing about it. I fooled around with the settings for my network connection and enabled several DNS type services in administrative tools, but still no joy (I had disabled a bunch of stuff related to networking for safety since I don't have a home LAN). What should I do? Delete the ethernet card hardware profile and reinstall it? I'm really stuck here......what is causing this? From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 7 06:32:14 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Nov 7 09:35:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > cable modem > My computer will still > not connect to the internet when I boot up unless I run "ipconfig > /renew". Comcast can't ping me and I can't make a connection unless I > do that, even though ipconfig shows that I have a valid IP address. > don't have a home LAN). I'm not 2K but 98. Your network config should obtain its IP automatically, and use DHCP, and disable DNS - unless you have an alternate strategy. If you are using a Client, you should decide how to have it logon, such as "The primary network logon is the client that is used to validate your user name and password, process any login scripts, and perform other startup tasks." In a simplistic setup, that could well be the windows logon. Then, that logon function has Properties - where you can choose for example Quick logon as opposed to a log on to a windows NT domain.. If you were dialup before, you need to be sure that your apps aren't configured to use the dialup connxns. In OE that is done in the various mail or news accounts in the Properties/ Connection section and in IE it is in Tools/ Oiptions/ Connections. There's also an internet connxn wizard available there. Many modems have a webpage diagnostic tool built into them by accessing something like http://192.168.100.1/startup.html or just the http IP without any startup.html. If your network config is as above, then your troubleshooting could start by powering down the modem and the pc. Powerup the modem and let the lights get situated, that lets the modem get itself an IP and be prepared to dole it out to someone, ie a MAC address. Then powerup the computer so that it can be the MAC somone who gets the IP. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 10:03:23 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 10:05:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > Your network config should obtain its IP automatically, and use DHCP, > and disable DNS - unless you have an alternate strategy. If you are > using a Client, you should decide how to have it logon, such as "The > primary network logon is the client that is used to validate your user > name and password, process any login scripts, and perform other > startup tasks." In a simplistic setup, that could well be the > windows logon. Then, that logon function has Properties - where you > can choose for example Quick logon as opposed to a log on to a > windows NT domain.. Everything worked fine until I downloaded a bunch of windows patches several months ago and I disabled some "sharing" services for safety. I did have DNS disabled, I enabled it, still no joy. My card is setup to obtain an IP automatically. I wonder if the TCP/IP stuff is borked? > > If you were dialup before, you need to be sure that your apps aren't > configured to use the dialup connxns. Haven't had dialup in over 5 years.....this just sprung up out of the blue. From kenbrody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 10:07:00 2005 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Mon Nov 7 10:20:16 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Uninstall Norton Internet Security (was Re: Uninstall Office 2003) References: Message-ID: <436F6D94.3269F2A6@spamcop.net> DougW wrote: > > Bud did pass the time by typing: > > I want to uninstall MS Office 2003 and remove all traces of it. Add/Remove > > will not allow it. The program has been acting up and producing error > > screens/cannot access/shortcut invalid/ and generally being a pain. I have > > the CD but it won't even let me reinstall. [...] > > For sure I need help. A reformat is not something I'm looking forward to. > > Thank you, > > http://support.microsoft.com/off2003/?sid=685 > http://www.kbalertz.com/kb_903771.aspx > > The second link is probably better. Any pointers on removing a hosed Norton Internet Security? In the past month, we have gotten _several_ systems in which Norton Internet Security was hosed. (Probably by a worm/trojan/virus/whatever.) Upon system startup, you would get several program crash messages, and numerous programs would be unable to access the internet. NIS would refuse to unstall due to a missing file (unfortunately, I didn't write down the name), and a fresh install would refuse to run as it couldn't uninstall the currently-installed version. I mananged to disable NIS on the systems by finding all of the numerous registry entries that loaded it, but there's still no way to install it or get a working version installed. Any pointers like the above will be greatly appreciated. -- +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ | Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | | | kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include | +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ Don't e-mail me at: From kenbrody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 10:16:24 2005 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Mon Nov 7 10:20:18 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: <436F6FC8.79C260F6@spamcop.net> indigo wrote: > > I finally purchased a new cable modem for my home PC, thinking it would > solve my connection problems. No dice. My computer will still not connect to > the internet when I boot up unless I run "ipconfig /renew". Comcast can't > ping me and I can't make a connection unless I do that, even though ipconfig > shows that I have a valid IP address. Note that you will have "a valid IP address" even if the cable modem is off. (Unless it's a USB connection, in which case you don't have a network interface unless the modem is on.) If DHCP is on, and it fails to talk to the DHCP server, you will be assigned a fallback address. This will be indicated by an IP address of 169.254.nnn.nnn rather than the usual DHCP address of 192.168.0.nnn http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/cmtips/badip.html#ip169 Given that an "ipconfig /renew" works, it sounds like it may be that your system is trying to talk to the DHCP server before it's ready. Can you turn on the cable modem first, and wait until all of its lights indicate that it's ready, before booting your system? (My in-laws' system has the modem and the computer on a power strip, and they are both turned on at the same time. However, the modem always finishes its startup and goes ready before the XP logon screen appears.) > Comcast tech was useless trying to help me, bitched because I had Win2000 > and he only knew the XP operating system, told me something was screwed up > with either my computer or ethernet card settings (which is probably true) > but he could do nothing about it. I fooled around with the settings for my > network connection and enabled several DNS type services in administrative > tools, but still no joy (I had disabled a bunch of stuff related to > networking for safety since I don't have a home LAN). > > What should I do? Delete the ethernet card hardware profile and reinstall > it? I'm really stuck here......what is causing this? -- +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ | Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | | | kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include | +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ Don't e-mail me at: From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 10:31:07 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 10:35:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: <436F6FC8.79C260F6@spamcop.net> Message-ID: Kenneth Brody wrote: > Note that you will have "a valid IP address" even if the cable modem > is off. (Unless it's a USB connection, in which case you don't have > a network interface unless the modem is on.) If DHCP is on, and it > fails to talk to the DHCP server, you will be assigned a fallback > address. This will be indicated by an IP address of 169.254.nnn.nnn > rather than the usual DHCP address of 192.168.0.nnn > Nope, I had a "real" IP address according to the tech. > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.d.h.walker/cmtips/badip.html#ip169 > > Given that an "ipconfig /renew" works, it sounds like it may be that > your system is trying to talk to the DHCP server before it's ready. > Can you turn on the cable modem first, and wait until all of its > lights indicate that it's ready, before booting your system? (My > in-laws' system has the modem and the computer on a power strip, and > they are both turned on at the same time. However, the modem always > finishes its startup and goes ready before the XP logon screen > appears.) > Same here, everything plugged into one master power strip. Modem is up and running at least 30-40 seconds before Windows loads fully. From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Mon Nov 7 09:52:42 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Mon Nov 7 10:55:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo did pass the time by typing: > I finally purchased a new cable modem for my home PC, thinking it would > solve my connection problems. No dice. My computer will still not connect to > the internet when I boot up unless I run "ipconfig /renew". Comcast can't > ping me and I can't make a connection unless I do that, even though ipconfig > shows that I have a valid IP address. > > Comcast tech was useless trying to help me, bitched because I had Win2000 > and he only knew the XP operating system, told me something was screwed up > with either my computer or ethernet card settings (which is probably true) > but he could do nothing about it. I fooled around with the settings for my > network connection and enabled several DNS type services in administrative > tools, but still no joy (I had disabled a bunch of stuff related to > networking for safety since I don't have a home LAN). > > What should I do? Delete the ethernet card hardware profile and reinstall > it? I'm really stuck here......what is causing this? Been too long since I mucked about with 2k. However, http://techrepublic.com.com/1200-26-5124039.html should have something. IIRC the problem is in adapter (tcp/ip) and wins settings, but as I said, it's been a while. -- DougW From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Mon Nov 7 07:51:15 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Mon Nov 7 10:55:06 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Uninstall Norton Internet Security (was Re: Uninstall Office 2003) In-Reply-To: <436F6D94.3269F2A6@spamcop.net> References: <436F6D94.3269F2A6@spamcop.net> Message-ID: Kenneth Brody wrote: > > Any pointers on removing a hosed Norton Internet Security? > > In the past month, we have gotten _several_ systems in which Norton > Internet Security was hosed. (Probably by a worm/trojan/virus/whatever.) > Upon system startup, you would get several program crash messages, and > numerous programs would be unable to access the internet. NIS would > refuse to unstall due to a missing file (unfortunately, I didn't write > down the name), and a fresh install would refuse to run as it couldn't > uninstall the currently-installed version. > > I mananged to disable NIS on the systems by finding all of the numerous > registry entries that loaded it, but there's still no way to install it > or get a working version installed. > > Any pointers like the above will be greatly appreciated. > If you've removed all registry entries (search for Symantec as well) you should be able to reinstall, but not sure why you'd want to. You've stated that it was hosed on several systems. I encourage my new clients to let me uninstall it and install the group of security software that has been keeping my clients computers malware free for a long time. They are free (unless you want the paid versions) and operate with less resource usage and don't come with the problems. -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Mon Nov 7 08:04:17 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Mon Nov 7 11:10:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > I finally purchased a new cable modem for my home PC, thinking it would > solve my connection problems. No dice. My computer will still not connect to > the internet when I boot up unless I run "ipconfig /renew". Comcast can't > ping me and I can't make a connection unless I do that, even though ipconfig > shows that I have a valid IP address. > > Comcast tech was useless trying to help me, bitched because I had Win2000 > and he only knew the XP operating system, told me something was screwed up > with either my computer or ethernet card settings (which is probably true) > but he could do nothing about it. I fooled around with the settings for my > network connection and enabled several DNS type services in administrative > tools, but still no joy (I had disabled a bunch of stuff related to > networking for safety since I don't have a home LAN). > > What should I do? Delete the ethernet card hardware profile and reinstall > it? I'm really stuck here......what is causing this? > > There's a couple of possibilities. Most likely in the TCP/IP configuration, but let me ask first if you have a router? -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 11:55:08 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 12:00:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Brian wrote: > > There's a couple of possibilities. Most likely in the TCP/IP > configuration, but let me ask first if you have a router? No. I'm half tempted to take screen shots of the "advanced" settings and all related stuff for my config and post them here for folks to look at, but that's not considered kosher on these groups. From kenbrody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 12:16:04 2005 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Mon Nov 7 12:25:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: <436F6FC8.79C260F6@spamcop.net> Message-ID: <436F8BD4.29A5ACA5@spamcop.net> indigo wrote: > > Kenneth Brody wrote: > > Note that you will have "a valid IP address" even if the cable modem > > is off. (Unless it's a USB connection, in which case you don't have > > a network interface unless the modem is on.) If DHCP is on, and it > > fails to talk to the DHCP server, you will be assigned a fallback > > address. This will be indicated by an IP address of 169.254.nnn.nnn > > rather than the usual DHCP address of 192.168.0.nnn > > > > Nope, I had a "real" IP address according to the tech. Was he looking at your computer's IP, or the modem's IP? (How is your computer connected? Via a network card in your system, or USB?) If you drop to a command prompt (start/run/"cmd"), what is the output of the commands "route print" and "ipconfig"? (Prior to "ipconfig /renew" and after.) [...] -- +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ | Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | | | kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include | +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ Don't e-mail me at: From kenbrody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 12:17:12 2005 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Mon Nov 7 12:25:07 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: <436F8C18.166BC42A@spamcop.net> indigo wrote: > > Brian wrote: > > > > There's a couple of possibilities. Most likely in the TCP/IP > > configuration, but let me ask first if you have a router? > > No. I'm half tempted to take screen shots of the "advanced" settings and all > related stuff for my config and post them here for folks to look at, but > that's not considered kosher on these groups. You can put them on an http or ftp site and post the URL. -- +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ | Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | | | kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include | +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ Don't e-mail me at: From kenbrody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 12:21:38 2005 From: kenbrody at spamcop.net (Kenneth Brody) Date: Mon Nov 7 12:25:10 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Uninstall Norton Internet Security (was Re: Uninstall Office2003) References: <436F6D94.3269F2A6@spamcop.net> Message-ID: <436F8D22.84AEB5BF@spamcop.net> Brian wrote: > > Kenneth Brody wrote: > > > > > Any pointers on removing a hosed Norton Internet Security? > > > > In the past month, we have gotten _several_ systems in which Norton > > Internet Security was hosed. (Probably by a worm/trojan/virus/whatever.) > > Upon system startup, you would get several program crash messages, and > > numerous programs would be unable to access the internet. NIS would > > refuse to unstall due to a missing file (unfortunately, I didn't write > > down the name), and a fresh install would refuse to run as it couldn't > > uninstall the currently-installed version. > > > > I mananged to disable NIS on the systems by finding all of the numerous > > registry entries that loaded it, but there's still no way to install it > > or get a working version installed. > > > > Any pointers like the above will be greatly appreciated. > > > > If you've removed all registry entries (search for Symantec as well) you > should be able to reinstall, but not sure why you'd want to. You've > stated that it was hosed on several systems. Well, they're not my systems, so I don't really have the final say. (These are "clients" on in the sense that they brought their systems in for a cleanup because of the ad we ran, as opposed to systems that we manage full-time.) > I encourage my new clients to let me uninstall it and install the group > of security software that has been keeping my clients computers malware > free for a long time. They are free (unless you want the paid versions) > and operate with less resource usage and don't come with the problems. Well, at the point that they brought them in, NIS was in a state that it couldn't uninstall itself. Basically, I've disabled it, rather than uninstall it. And it's still "installed" as far as its own install is concerned. For all I know, other programs won't install because they see NIS installed. BTW, what suite of utilities to you use? -- +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ | Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | | | kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | #include | +-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+ Don't e-mail me at: From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Mon Nov 7 09:33:01 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Mon Nov 7 12:40:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Brian wrote: >> There's a couple of possibilities. Most likely in the TCP/IP >> configuration, but let me ask first if you have a router? > > No. I'm half tempted to take screen shots of the "advanced" settings and all > related stuff for my config and post them here for folks to look at, but > that's not considered kosher on these groups. > > I have an online help desk and could come take a look at your computer if you'd like. -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 12:47:05 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 12:50:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: <436F6FC8.79C260F6@spamcop.net> <436F8BD4.29A5ACA5@spamcop.net> Message-ID: Kenneth Brody wrote: > > Was he looking at your computer's IP, or the modem's IP? (How is your > computer connected? Via a network card in your system, or USB?) I ran ipconfig and read the numbers to him over the phone, it was a valid Comcast IP. Cable modem is connected directly to the cable, and I'm using the ethernet port, not the USB port. He couldn't ping me until I ran ipconfig /renew, said something is blocking the modem from making a connection. From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 12:49:13 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 12:50:05 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Brian wrote: > indigo wrote: > > Brian wrote: > >> There's a couple of possibilities. Most likely in the TCP/IP > >> configuration, but let me ask first if you have a router? > > > > No. I'm half tempted to take screen shots of the "advanced" > > settings and all related stuff for my config and post them here for > > folks to look at, but that's not considered kosher on these groups. > > > > > I have an online help desk and could come take a look at your computer > if you'd like. Thanks for the offer, but if it comes to that I'm friends with several guys in the IT group here, I'd ask them to come over to my house claiming it's a work problem and I can't VPN in ;-) From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 7 09:49:30 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Nov 7 12:50:07 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > No. I'm half tempted to take screen shots of the "advanced" settings > and all related stuff for my config and post them here for folks to > look at, but that's not considered kosher on these groups. IMO 'anything' can be posted into spamcop.spam, including binary attachments, and I have. But, that's just my philosophy. .spam doesn't go out on the mailman mailing list or get archived to pipermail or gmane distributed. And, not very many people read there.. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 12:55:34 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 13:00:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > indigo wrote: > > > No. I'm half tempted to take screen shots of the "advanced" settings > > and all related stuff for my config and post them here for folks to > > look at, but that's not considered kosher on these groups. > > IMO 'anything' can be posted into spamcop.spam, including binary > attachments, and I have. > > But, that's just my philosophy. .spam doesn't go out on the mailman > mailing list or get archived to pipermail or gmane distributed. And, > not very many people read there.. good point, I forgot about that. What would you (or anyone) like to see, specifically, for troubleshooting this? From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Mon Nov 7 09:55:59 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Mon Nov 7 13:00:06 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: <436F6FC8.79C260F6@spamcop.net> <436F8BD4.29A5ACA5@spamcop.net> Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Kenneth Brody wrote: >> Was he looking at your computer's IP, or the modem's IP? (How is your >> computer connected? Via a network card in your system, or USB?) > > I ran ipconfig and read the numbers to him over the phone, it was a valid > Comcast IP. Cable modem is connected directly to the cable, and I'm using > the ethernet port, not the USB port. > > He couldn't ping me until I ran ipconfig /renew, said something is blocking > the modem from making a connection. > > You could uninstall the network card and start all over. This will often fix problems like this. But before you do that, run LSPfix http://www.cexx.org/lspfix.htm and see if that helps. -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Mon Nov 7 10:16:09 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Mon Nov 7 13:20:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Uninstall Norton Internet Security (was Re: Uninstall Office2003) In-Reply-To: <436F8D22.84AEB5BF@spamcop.net> References: <436F6D94.3269F2A6@spamcop.net> <436F8D22.84AEB5BF@spamcop.net> Message-ID: Kenneth Brody wrote: > Brian wrote: >> Kenneth Brody wrote: >> >>> Any pointers on removing a hosed Norton Internet Security? >>> >>> In the past month, we have gotten _several_ systems in which Norton >>> Internet Security was hosed. (Probably by a worm/trojan/virus/whatever.) >>> Upon system startup, you would get several program crash messages, and >>> numerous programs would be unable to access the internet. NIS would >>> refuse to unstall due to a missing file (unfortunately, I didn't write >>> down the name), and a fresh install would refuse to run as it couldn't >>> uninstall the currently-installed version. >>> >>> I mananged to disable NIS on the systems by finding all of the numerous >>> registry entries that loaded it, but there's still no way to install it >>> or get a working version installed. >>> >>> Any pointers like the above will be greatly appreciated. >>> >> If you've removed all registry entries (search for Symantec as well) you >> should be able to reinstall, but not sure why you'd want to. You've >> stated that it was hosed on several systems. > > Well, they're not my systems, so I don't really have the final say. > (These are "clients" on in the sense that they brought their systems > in for a cleanup because of the ad we ran, as opposed to systems that > we manage full-time.) > You clean up computers but cant remove NIS? How is it that you are able to clean up malware that makes it difficult to get rid of? Just running various AVs or Antispyware is not good enough. My clients are similar. I usually don't manage them all that much, other than to give support once I'm done with my process. I do all this with my online help desk, working on them over the Internet, though I do have local customers that bring their machines to me if they can't get online or have dial-up connections. >> I encourage my new clients to let me uninstall it and install the group >> of security software that has been keeping my clients computers malware >> free for a long time. They are free (unless you want the paid versions) >> and operate with less resource usage and don't come with the problems. > > Well, at the point that they brought them in, NIS was in a state that it > couldn't uninstall itself. Basically, I've disabled it, rather than > uninstall it. > > And it's still "installed" as far as its own install is concerned. For > all I know, other programs won't install because they see NIS installed. > I don't understand why you can't uninstall it. And it sounds like not just one, but several. Did you try doing a repair? > BTW, what suite of utilities to you use? > -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 16:12:34 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 16:15:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: <436F6FC8.79C260F6@spamcop.net> <436F8BD4.29A5ACA5@spamcop.net> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > > > > You could uninstall the network card and start all over. This will > often fix problems like this. I'm thinking of doing that. I assume that after I remove it using the hardware/remove utility, I reboot and Windows will detect the card and find a driver? I better make sure I have the CD ROM that came with my MoBo before I do this, correct? But before you do that, run LSPfix > http://www.cexx.org/lspfix.htm and see if that helps. Erm, don't think I'll be using that proggie, looks like more trouble than I want to get into......(I use AdAware) ** IMPORTANT ** There is a known issue with using this software in combination with obsolete versions of Lavasoft's popular AD-Aware utility. A known issue in some versions of AD-Aware results in improper removal of pests such as New.Net, CommonName, and WebHancer, resulting in lost Internet access. If LSP-Fix is used subsequently to repair these errors, the system may begin exhibiting crashes in MSAFD.DLL and/or RPCSS. This can be fixed by performing a "hard restore" of Windows' networking components. This involves uninstalling the "Communications" item in Windows setup, deleting the Winsock2 registry key, and reinstalling Communications. http://support.earthlink.net/mu/1/psc/img/walkthroughs/windows_9x_nt/dialers/dun_1.3/5289.psc.html explains this procedure in detail. If you have additional information about what this version of AD-Aware does to mess up Winsock, or have a system this has happened on that doesn't need to be repaired immediately, please email me: winsock "at" cexx.org so I can figure out what is going on and fix it. I have so far been unable to reproduce this issue, and consequently, unable to update LSP-Fix to deal with it. From 35zyuhr02 at sneakemail.com Mon Nov 7 22:14:41 2005 From: 35zyuhr02 at sneakemail.com (Mr K. Mean) Date: Mon Nov 7 16:15:08 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kenneth Loafman wrote: > > I don't have a solution either, except that Verizon has just laid fiber in > my neighborhood, so the solution may be for me to switch ISP's. Comcast > tech support is useless since all I have is Linux at home. Talk about a > case of monopoly support. They won't even talk to you unless you run that > piece of trash from Redmond. You know, you don't have to tell them though. How many times have I said, yes, I have Windows, umm, yeah, I'm rebooting, it is just restarting now. Ok, rebooted now (as I'm typing ifconfig eth0 down, and so on). From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 16:15:30 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 16:20:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Kenneth Loafman wrote: > > I'm on Comcast as well and have been having similar problems. I've > read through all the messages so far, and I think you're seeing the > same thing I am. I'll have a 'valid' address at the router, but the > lease time will have expired. At that point, nothing goes out. If I > do get a lease, most of the time its for 4 days, but sometimes I get > a lease for only 1 hour and have to reset the router to get another > one. This normally occurs on a Sunday morning for me (5-8am CST). > The rest of the time, I either don't notice it, or it's not acting up > then. > Huh. Interesting.....but still shitty for me and you. Comcast tech support is useless since all I have is Linux at > home. Talk about a case of monopoly support. They won't even talk > to you unless you run that piece of trash from Redmond. No kidding. The second idiot I talked to over the phone actually spent 5 minutes trying to convince me to upgrade to XP to solve the problem! Because he knew nothing about Win2K. Like the TCP/IP crap is dealt with any differently......it isn't, right? From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Mon Nov 7 13:20:46 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Mon Nov 7 16:25:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: <436F6FC8.79C260F6@spamcop.net> <436F8BD4.29A5ACA5@spamcop.net> Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Brian wrote: >> You could uninstall the network card and start all over. This will >> often fix problems like this. > > I'm thinking of doing that. I assume that after I remove it using the > hardware/remove utility, I reboot and Windows will detect the card and find > a driver? I better make sure I have the CD ROM that came with my MoBo before > I do this, correct? > You will need your Win2k disk is all. > But before you do that, run LSPfix >> http://www.cexx.org/lspfix.htm and see if that helps. > > Erm, don't think I'll be using that proggie, looks like more trouble than I > want to get into......(I use AdAware) > > ** IMPORTANT ** > There is a known issue with using this software in combination with *obsolete* > versions of Lavasoft's popular AD-Aware utility. A known issue in some > versions of AD-Aware results in improper removal of pests such as New.Net, > CommonName, and WebHancer, resulting in lost Internet access. If LSP-Fix is > used subsequently to repair these errors, the system may begin exhibiting > crashes in MSAFD.DLL and/or RPCSS. This can be fixed by performing a "hard > restore" of Windows' networking components. This involves uninstalling the > "Communications" item in Windows setup, deleting the Winsock2 registry key, > and reinstalling Communications. > http://support.earthlink.net/mu/1/psc/img/walkthroughs/windows_9x_nt/dialers/dun_1.3/5289.psc.html > explains this procedure in detail. > > If you have additional information about what this version of AD-Aware does > to mess up Winsock, or have a system this has happened on that doesn't need > to be repaired immediately, please email me: winsock "at" cexx.org so I can > figure out what is going on and fix it. I have so far been unable to > reproduce this issue, and consequently, unable to update LSP-Fix to deal > with it. > > I've used in on numerous computers with none of these problems. If your Ad-aware is an updated version, you shouldn't have to worry about it. -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From bud at telus.net Mon Nov 7 13:24:39 2005 From: bud at telus.net (Bud) Date: Mon Nov 7 16:25:06 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Uninstall Norton Internet Security (was Re: Uninstall Office 2003) References: <436F6D94.3269F2A6@spamcop.net> Message-ID: "Kenneth Brody" wrote in message news:436F6D94.3269F2A6@spamcop.net... > > Any pointers on removing a hosed Norton Internet Security? > I mananged to disable NIS on the systems by finding all of the numerous > registry entries that loaded it, but there's still no way to install it > or get a working version installed. Some of these are "free to try". http://www.download.com/3120-20-0.html?qt=Uninstaller -- Bud From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 16:30:46 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 16:35:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: <436F6FC8.79C260F6@spamcop.net> <436F8BD4.29A5ACA5@spamcop.net> Message-ID: Brian wrote: > indigo wrote: > > Brian wrote: > >> You could uninstall the network card and start all over. This will > >> often fix problems like this. > > > > I'm thinking of doing that. I assume that after I remove it using > > the hardware/remove utility, I reboot and Windows will detect the > > card and find > > a driver? I better make sure I have the CD ROM that came with my > > MoBo before I do this, correct? > > > > You will need your Win2k disk is all. Is that because any old generic driver can be used? My ethernet card is actually built into my MoBo, it's not a seperate card. I was wondering whether it would need the OEM driver that came with the MoBo disk. From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 7 13:35:43 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Nov 7 16:40:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Like the TCP/IP crap is > dealt with any differently......it isn't, right? The XP differences don't have anything to do with your problem -- but XP has raw sockets among other differences from 2K. Raw sockets are what made Steve Gibson so 'crazy' when it first came out http://www.grc.com/dos/xpsummary.htm [That's the summary, there's a link to a longer version.] What Kenneth said about the expired lease is an interesting dilemma -- there's nothing about your configuration that fixes the problem of having/developing an expired lease. That is supposed to be taken care of by the modem and the network it is on, not manually by you. >From a troubleshooting point of view, I presume that when you run ipconfig [not renew] what you find is an expired lease, and then when you renew it everything is OK. When I look at my current lease, I see that it was obtained about 4:30 this am and expires 2 days from then. I've never had a lease expire before a new one was obtained and I don't know exactly what makes the process take care of itself so automatically. I'll have to do some reading about that. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 17:04:56 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:05:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > From a troubleshooting point of view, I presume that when you run > ipconfig [not renew] what you find is an expired lease, and then when > you renew it everything is OK. > Nope, but nice try ;-) Every time I've looked the lease has been good for another 4-7 days. That was one of the first things I checked when this started happening. You may have been the one to suggest looking at it to me, I think I posted in here about the problem when it first occurred several months ago. Or maybe it was on the Comcast online support forum...... From borgholio at storymind.com Mon Nov 7 14:21:38 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:25:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Mike Easter wrote: > >>From a troubleshooting point of view, I presume that when you run >>ipconfig [not renew] what you find is an expired lease, and then when >>you renew it everything is OK. >> > > > Nope, but nice try ;-) Every time I've looked the lease has been good for > another 4-7 days. That was one of the first things I checked when this > started happening. You may have been the one to suggest looking at it to me, > I think I posted in here about the problem when it first occurred several > months ago. Or maybe it was on the Comcast online support forum...... > > Well there's your problem. If you just bought the damn IP address instead of constantly renewing your lease, you'd be set. I mean it's not like you need a large down payment anyways, simply use your computer as collateral. Duh. From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 7 14:28:24 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:30:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Nope, but nice try ;-) > Every time I've looked the lease has been good > for another 4-7 days. I don't yet have a clear picture. I'm not going to count the business of your IP not being pingable by comcast during trouble. All kinds of things don't echo pings. What happens when [during the trouble without/before using your ipconfig renew] you - try to ping your DHCP derived DNS by IP number - try to ping [or resolve] your DHCP derived DNS by its name - try to ping your gateway IP by its IP number - try to ping [or resolve] your gateway IP by its name When everything is working OK, your DNS/es can be seen with your ipconfig, and you likely have 2 or 3, so copy them down*. Do a rDNS on them and find out their name/s. Your gateway IP is your IP except the last rightmost octet is 1 instead of whatever yours is. If your own IP rDNSes, the gateway one will likely too. Make some notes of that stuff, and then the next time you are in the troubleshooting condition where it seems like you can't do anything, see if you can ping those IPs or resolve those addresses above. When I 'only' have DNS problems, not connectivity issues, I can't resolve my DNS by its name. I have had DNS 'problems' or rather just 'retardednes' in which it is 'pokey' for me to get my DNS but eventually I do. Because of that, I reconfigured my network to get some DNS from some other places besides the DHCP DNS -- but that's another story. Right now I'm not clear on whether you are actually having connectivity issues or DNS issues. * I only know what winipcfg looks like, but in 'more information' there's a little ... gizmo beside the DNS servers that you can click to see more than the first one. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 17:37:42 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:40:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Borgholio wrote: > > Well there's your problem. If you just bought the damn IP address > instead > of constantly renewing your lease, you'd be set. I mean it's not > like you need a large down payment anyways, simply use your computer > as collateral. Duh. thanks for not helping, Borgie.....go toy with some more 419'ers, m'kay? From borgholio at storymind.com Mon Nov 7 14:38:54 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:40:08 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Borgholio wrote: > >>Well there's your problem. If you just bought the damn IP address >>instead >>of constantly renewing your lease, you'd be set. I mean it's not >>like you need a large down payment anyways, simply use your computer >>as collateral. Duh. > > > thanks for not helping, Borgie.....go toy with some more 419'ers, m'kay? > > I get more of a rise out of helping you. I mean unlike the 419'ers, you keep coming back for more. :) From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 17:42:59 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:45:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > I don't yet have a clear picture. I'm not going to count the business > of your IP not being pingable by comcast during trouble. All kinds of > things don't echo pings. > > What happens when [during the trouble without/before using your > ipconfig renew] you > > - try to ping your DHCP derived DNS by IP number > - try to ping [or resolve] your DHCP derived DNS by its name > - try to ping your gateway IP by its IP number > - try to ping [or resolve] your gateway IP by its name Erm, my eyes just glazed over reading that, Mike, this is getting to the hairy edge of my understanding of internet connectivity....I'll email this post to my home PC and see if I can make sense of it there........I assume you want me to try all of the above while I'm not connected, right? Right now I'm not clear on whether you are actually > having connectivity issues or DNS issues. > Me neither! ;-) From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 17:44:25 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:45:08 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Borgholio wrote: > indigo wrote: > > Borgholio wrote: > > > >>Well there's your problem. If you just bought the damn IP address > >>instead > >>of constantly renewing your lease, you'd be set. I mean it's not > >>like you need a large down payment anyways, simply use your computer > >>as collateral. Duh. > > > > > > thanks for not helping, Borgie.....go toy with some more 419'ers, > > m'kay? > > > > > > I get more of a rise out of helping you. I mean unlike the 419'ers, > you keep coming back for more. :) You call that help? Sheesh, I wonder what you'd do if you were trying to make fun of me! From borgholio at storymind.com Mon Nov 7 14:45:32 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Mon Nov 7 17:50:11 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Borgholio wrote: > >>indigo wrote: >> >>>Borgholio wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Well there's your problem. If you just bought the damn IP address >>>>instead >>>>of constantly renewing your lease, you'd be set. I mean it's not >>>>like you need a large down payment anyways, simply use your computer >>>>as collateral. Duh. >>> >>> >>>thanks for not helping, Borgie.....go toy with some more 419'ers, >>>m'kay? >>> >>> >> >>I get more of a rise out of helping you. I mean unlike the 419'ers, >>you keep coming back for more. :) > > > You call that help? Sheesh, I wonder what you'd do if you were trying to > make fun of me! > > Hmm...I'd probably help. :-P From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 7 15:27:21 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Nov 7 18:30:11 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Mike Easter wrote: >> I don't yet have a clear picture. > I assume you want me to try all of the above while I'm > not connected, right? It's the connected I'm trying to figger out. You only sed indigo wrote: > My computer will still > not connect to the internet when I boot up unless I run "ipconfig > /renew". But, when people are trying to 'connect to the internet' - they are most often using an email server name or a newsserver name or a website name - and if they don't have DNS they appear to be 'dead in the water', but they actually have connectivity, just no name resolution so nothing knows where to go. In order to figure out whether or not they are connected, they have to get around the nameservice issue. So, I would want you to bootup but not use the renew ipconfig. And then see what if anything you can 'connect' to. Besides the ones I mentioned earlier, you can also use http://12.148.220.166 That is the only 'what is my IP address' that I know of that will work properly just with the http IP. > Right now I'm not clear on whether you are actually >> having connectivity issues or DNS issues. >> > > Me neither! ;-) Then, if we figger out that you are connected, but you don't have nameservice, we have a different problem to solve than if you aren't connected. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 18:56:36 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 19:00:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: > But, when people are trying to 'connect to the internet' - they are > most often using an email server name or a newsserver name or a > website > name - and if they don't have DNS they appear to be 'dead in the > water', but they actually have connectivity, just no name resolution > so nothing knows where to go. When I boot up my PC attempts to connect to multiple places: my comcast email account (OE), my work IMAP account (Outlook), Yahoo Messenger, and the Spampal blocklists. So a bunch of different ports are being used, but none can connect. Any attempt to access a web page before ipconfig/renew gets a "cannot connect" error message, the contents of which are probably important to you if it's a DNS error message, but I can't remember the exact language at the moment. Oh, and have I mentioned that sometimes I need to run /renew several times before it works? From MikeE at ster.invalid Mon Nov 7 16:09:38 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Mon Nov 7 19:10:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Mike Easter wrote: >> But, when people are trying to 'connect to the internet' - they are >> most often using an email server name or a newsserver name or a >> website >> name - and if they don't have DNS they appear to be 'dead in the >> water', but they actually have connectivity, just no name resolution >> so nothing knows where to go. > > When I boot up my PC attempts to connect to multiple places: my > comcast email account (OE), my work IMAP account (Outlook), Yahoo > Messenger, and the Spampal blocklists. So a bunch of different ports > are being used, but none can connect. No. A bunch of different *names* are getting used. Unless you 'hardwire' as some people call it, the IP address for such as your comcast email account in OE, if there isn't nameservice, nothing is going to happen. It doesn't have anything to do with the different ports, if the application isn't directed to the correct IP address, it will never find the appropriate server. > Any attempt to access a web > page before ipconfig/renew gets a "cannot connect" error message, the > contents of which are probably important to you if it's a DNS error > message, but I can't remember the exact language at the moment. But we typically call for our webpages by their names, not the IP. > Oh, and have I mentioned that sometimes I need to run /renew several > times before it works? I'm just saying that what you have told so far can't distinguish nameservice problems from connectivity problems. At least to me. I know the feeling because I have had nameservice problems. No nameservice means you can't do much unless you know something's IP, and even then it is not unusual for webservers to 'decline' to give you anything by the IP alone. I had to try about 8 different whatismyip places before I found one which would answer when called by its IP address. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 20:04:13 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 20:05:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: Here's a bunch of info I gathered: First attempt to get on the web: Cannot find server or DNS Error Internet Explorer All following messages are from event viewer: Your computer was not able to renew its address from the network (from the DHCP Server) for the Network Card with network address 000C769041BF. The following error occured: The semaphore timeout period has expired. . Your computer will continue to try and obtain an address on its own from the network address (DHCP) server. The server {0002DF01-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} did not register with DCOM within the required timeout. Your computer has lost the lease to its IP address 192.168.100.10 on the Network Card with network address 000C769041BF. The IP address lease 68.54.170.46 for the Network Card with network address 000C769041BF has been denied by the DHCP server 0.0.0.0 (The DHCP Server sent a DHCPNACK message). Unable to contact a DHCP server. The Automatic Private IP Address 169.254.153.20 will be assigned to dial-in clients. Clients may be unable to access resources on the network. The IP address lease 192.168.100.10 for the Network Card with network address 000C769041BF has been denied by the DHCP server 68.87.73.15 (The DHCP Server sent a DHCPNACK message). The IP address lease 68.54.170.46 for the Network Card with network address 000C769041BF has been denied by the DHCP server 0.0.0.0 (The DHCP Server sent a DHCPNACK message). The server could not bind to the transport \Device\NetbiosSmb because another computer on the network has the same name. The server could not start. The server could not bind to the transport \Device\NetBT_Tcpip_{3C809F74-8419-4603-9262-CACE1DB6EBB8}. ****While mucking about with ipconfig I ran ipconfig /flushdns and ipconfig /registerdns, but did not run ipconfig /renew. Several minutes later, I attempted to sign in to Yahoo Messenger and instantly got in, and was also able to access the internet. What did those two commands do, and which one cleared up the problem? I'm going to reboot and see what happens now. From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 20:09:15 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 20:10:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Mike Easter wrote: >> > What happens when [during the trouble without/before using your > ipconfig renew] you > > - try to ping your DHCP derived DNS by IP number > - try to ping [or resolve] your DHCP derived DNS by its name > - try to ping your gateway IP by its IP number > - try to ping [or resolve] your gateway IP by its name > Ping failed on all of those before I ran /flushdns and /registerdns. From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 20:22:39 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 20:25:11 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: >> > > Ping failed on all of those before I ran /flushdns and /registerdns. Rebooted, no joy, and /registerdns is what got me back online, /flushdns did not. Also found this new error message in event viewer: Your computer was not able to renew its address from the network (from the DHCP Server) for the Network Card with network address 000C769041BF. The following error occured: The semaphore timeout period has expired. . Your computer will continue to try and obtain an address on its own from the network address (DHCP) server. From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 20:25:09 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 20:30:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: Found a new error in event viewer: The system failed to register network adapter with settings: Adapter Name : {3C809F74-8419-4603-9262-CACE1DB6EBB8} Host Name : cc1074876 Adapter-specific Domain Suffix : hsd1.md.comcast.net. DNS server list : 68.87.73.242, 68.87.71.226 Sent update to server : None IP Address(es) : 68.54.170.46 The cause of this DNS registration failure was because of DNS server failure. This may be due to a zone transfer that has locked the DNS server for the applicable zone that your computer needs to register itself with. From nobody at spamcop.net Mon Nov 7 20:26:45 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Mon Nov 7 20:30:08 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: Another weird error message, this one looks like a real problem to me: The system failed to register pointer (PTR) resource records (RRs) for network adapter with settings: Adapter Name : {3C809F74-8419-4603-9262-CACE1DB6EBB8} Host Name : cc1074876 Adapter-specific Domain Suffix : hsd1.md.comcast.net. DNS server list : 68.87.73.242, 68.87.71.226 Sent update to server : 68.87.96.3 IP Address : 68.54.170.46 The reason that the system could not register these RRs was because (a) either the DNS server does not support the DNS dynamic update protocol, or (b) the authoritative zone where these records are to be registered does not allow dynamic updates. To register DNS pointer (PTR) resource records using the specific DNS domain name and IP addresses for this adapter, contact your DNS server or network systems administrator. From SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net Mon Nov 7 20:00:30 2005 From: SC.10.myspamgobbler at spamcowboy.net (Brian) Date: Mon Nov 7 23:05:11 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A quick question. Have you tried with the firewall disabled? -- Brian SC.10.myspamgobbler@spamcowboy.net From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Nov 8 07:36:07 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Tue Nov 8 07:40:05 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Brian wrote: > A quick question. Have you tried with the firewall disabled? Yes. No joy. Found something weird last night (among all of the other strange error messages I listed in other posts). I uninstalled my ethernet adapter, rebooted, Windows found it and reinstalled it, still couldn't connect. When I went to check what driver it was using, the answer was none, and none was required! Is that normal? The damn troubleshooter also said it was funtioning properly :-( From borgholio at storymind.com Tue Nov 8 09:37:32 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Tue Nov 8 12:40:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Brian wrote: > >>A quick question. Have you tried with the firewall disabled? > > > Yes. No joy. Found something weird last night (among all of the other > strange error messages I listed in other posts). I uninstalled my ethernet > adapter, rebooted, Windows found it and reinstalled it, still couldn't > connect. When I went to check what driver it was using, the answer was none, > and none was required! Is that normal? The damn troubleshooter also said it > was funtioning properly :-( > > I think EVERYTHING needs a driver. That could be worth looking into. From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Nov 8 10:03:03 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 8 13:05:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Mike Easter wrote: >>> >> What happens when [during the trouble without/before using your >> ipconfig renew] you >> >> - try to ping your DHCP derived DNS by IP number >> - try to ping [or resolve] your DHCP derived DNS by its name >> - try to ping your gateway IP by its IP number >> - try to ping [or resolve] your gateway IP by its name >> > > Ping failed on all of those before I ran /flushdns and /registerdns. I would say that it isn't simply a matter of not having nameservice, it is a matter of connectivity, of not being connected to the network. I have never seen any of those errors you posted in the post before, so I can't contribute anything about them. Well, I could say /something/ about some of them, but the something I would say would be that there's evidence of the connectivity problem, of not being networked to the WAN, of not be able to get 'out'. It isn't a matter of being connected with no nameservice. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Nov 8 13:08:23 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Tue Nov 8 13:10:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Borgholio wrote: > indigo wrote: > > Brian wrote: > > > >>A quick question. Have you tried with the firewall disabled? > > > > > > Yes. No joy. Found something weird last night (among all of the > > other strange error messages I listed in other posts). I > > uninstalled my ethernet adapter, rebooted, Windows found it and > > reinstalled it, still couldn't connect. When I went to check what > > driver it was using, the answer was none, and none was required! Is > > that normal? The damn troubleshooter also said it was funtioning > > properly :-( > > > > > > I think EVERYTHING needs a driver. That could be worth looking into. Any suggestion on HOW to look into it since winbloze is claiming nothing is wrong? From borgholio at storymind.com Tue Nov 8 10:10:37 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Tue Nov 8 13:15:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Borgholio wrote: > >>indigo wrote: >> >>>Brian wrote: >>> >>> >>>>A quick question. Have you tried with the firewall disabled? >>> >>> >>>Yes. No joy. Found something weird last night (among all of the >>>other strange error messages I listed in other posts). I >>>uninstalled my ethernet adapter, rebooted, Windows found it and >>>reinstalled it, still couldn't connect. When I went to check what >>>driver it was using, the answer was none, and none was required! Is >>>that normal? The damn troubleshooter also said it was funtioning >>>properly :-( >>> >>> >> >>I think EVERYTHING needs a driver. That could be worth looking into. > > > Any suggestion on HOW to look into it since winbloze is claiming nothing is > wrong? > > You could try manually loading the driver from the original install discs...if you have them. If not, you got another network adapter you could try? From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Nov 8 10:14:47 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 8 13:15:07 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: This post is an example of why I believe that it is better to thread messages by subject/date rather than by reference line. That is, it is better for /me/ - for my reading, because I like to read news messages in chronological order rather than in the order of a reference line tree's branches. I posted this message after I posted message news:dkqp8j$d9n$1@news.spamcop.net - but for some threaders it will appear and be read before that message. indigo wrote: > First attempt to get on the web: > Cannot find server or DNS Error > Internet Explorer can't find the server because it isn't connected to the internet or WAN. > Your computer has lost the lease to its IP address 192.168.100.10 on > the Network Card with network address 000C769041BF. But that address is a local address, not its 'real' IP. > The IP address lease 68.54.170.46 for the Network Card with network > address 000C769041BF has been denied by the DHCP server 0.0.0.0 (The > DHCP Server sent a DHCPNACK message). That's its real IP, but that's not the proper address for its DHCP server. > Unable to contact a DHCP server. Because it isn't connected/ WAN networked > The IP address lease 192.168.100.10 for the Network Card with network > address 000C769041BF has been denied by the DHCP server 68.87.73.15 > (The DHCP Server sent a DHCPNACK message). That's the proper address for the dhcp, but not the proper assigned/leased IP. > The IP address lease 68.54.170.46 for the Network Card with network > address 000C769041BF has been denied by the DHCP server 0.0.0.0 (The > DHCP Server sent a DHCPNACK message). Wrong address for the dhcp server. > The server could not bind to the transport \Device\NetbiosSmb because > another computer on the network has the same name. The server could > not start. I don't know what server that might be. > ****While mucking about with ipconfig I ran ipconfig /flushdns and > ipconfig /registerdns, but did not run ipconfig /renew. Several > minutes later, I attempted to sign in to Yahoo Messenger and > instantly got in, and was also able to access the internet. What did > those two commands do, and which one cleared up the problem? > > I'm going to reboot and see what happens now. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From MikeE at ster.invalid Tue Nov 8 10:22:58 2005 From: MikeE at ster.invalid (Mike Easter) Date: Tue Nov 8 13:25:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: >When I went to check what driver it was > using, the answer was none, and none was required! Is that normal? I have seen that before for working devices. I don't know any more than that. Presumably the support/driverishness for the device would be built into the OS and thus there wouldn't be a little file/directory tree to show you with the driver file details button. -- Mike Easter kibitzer, not SC admin From nobody at spamcop.net Tue Nov 8 13:26:32 2005 From: nobody at spamcop.net (indigo) Date: Tue Nov 8 13:30:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! References: Message-ID: Borgholio wrote: > > You could try manually loading the driver from the original install > discs...if you have them. If not, you got another network adapter > you could try? Yeah, I have both the original disk that came with the MoBo and the 2000 install disk. The problem is finding the right place on the CD rom (CAB file or driver file) because winbloze won't automatically find it for me and I have no idea what the correct driver filename is. It's an *.inf file I need, or a *.drv? From borgholio at storymind.com Tue Nov 8 10:29:34 2005 From: borgholio at storymind.com (Borgholio) Date: Tue Nov 8 13:30:08 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Help Goddammmmitt! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: indigo wrote: > Borgholio wrote: > >>You could try manually loading the driver from the original install >>discs...if you have them. If not, you got another network adapter >>you could try? > > > Yeah, I have both the original disk that came with the MoBo and the 2000 > install disk. The problem is finding the right place on the CD rom (CAB file > or driver file) because winbloze won't automatically find it for me and I > have no idea what the correct driver filename is. It's an *.inf file I need, > or a *.drv? > > Typically it's a *.inf file. From Ilgaz at spamcop.net Fri Nov 11 08:47:50 2005 From: Ilgaz at spamcop.net (Ilgaz Ocal) Date: Fri Nov 11 01:50:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Seen in a spam References: Message-ID: On 2005-11-01 21:58:29 +0200, "Pop" said: > "did this campaign reach you in error? > pls click the remove link at our website, and enter your > id there" > > Yeah, I know, don't read 'em, but it was right there in front of me! > What an idiot! Wonder how many people actually still click? > > Pop I don't suggest to anyone but for adventure and being on mac, I tried some of phishing mails I got. You know,those fake links. What amazed me is, they WORK and they are overhelmed by innocent customers entering data, giving "Server too busy" errors. Imagine, banks are sending personal letters to people alerting about this issue and phishing sites go down because of popularity! :) Now just imagine how many will fill that form :) Ilgaz From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Fri Nov 11 10:27:02 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Fri Nov 11 11:30:05 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Seen in a spam References: Message-ID: Ilgaz Ocal did pass the time by typing: > You know,those fake links. > > What amazed me is, they WORK and they are overhelmed by innocent > customers entering data, giving "Server too busy" errors. :) who says it's "innocent customers" overwhelming the spammers forms. :) -- DougW From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Fri Nov 11 15:23:06 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Pop) Date: Fri Nov 11 15:25:08 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Mailinator? Message-ID: I wasn't sure just where to post this, so me, myself and I held an election and me and I both voted for geeks, so ... Anyone heard of www.mailinator.com? Here's a guy who's been thinking outside the box, IMO. Not that I know whether that's -good- or it's -bad-, but definitely outside the box! Either that or I can't see outside my own box! Mostly I was just wondering how it works, and if it was as simple to set up as I suspect. Thought maybe some webbers here might know. It seems to be about a year and a half old, and Google seems to have nothing bad to say about it, not that I looked hard. I came across it accidentally looking for M.A.P.S., forgetting they were taken over. Specifically, I can't see how mailinator would be doing anything "bad", but ... being paranoid today ... well ... . The make your own email address and THEN go see if there's mail to it without ever having signed up for it's interesting. But the most interesting thing I found is his current map of where spam's coming from. It's probably no big feat, but based on my spam experience lately, it's pretty accurate. I enjoyed the current spam source map. Kind of wonder if Google knows he's using it that way, but ... that's his problem, not mine . Anyway, thought I'd either give him some traffic or pick up some useful knowledge about it. I haven't tried it but from the looks of his forum and Google Groups, it does work, and I didn't see any downsides. Pop -- --- twaynesdomain.com: Best little website in the North Country! From pete+usenet at heypete.com Fri Nov 11 13:30:00 2005 From: pete+usenet at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Fri Nov 11 16:30:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Mailinator? References: Message-ID: In article , "Pop" wrote: > I wasn't sure just where to post this, so me, myself and I held > an election and me and I both voted for geeks, so ... Sounds like a plan. > Anyone heard of www.mailinator.com? Here's a guy who's been > thinking outside the box, IMO. Not that I know whether > that's -good- or it's -bad-, but definitely outside the box! > Either that or I can't see outside my own box! Yup, it's an interesting concept. > Mostly I was just wondering how it works, and if it was as simple > to set up as I suspect. Thought maybe some webbers here might > know. It seems to be about a year and a half old, and Google > seems to have nothing bad to say about it, not that I looked > hard. I came across it accidentally looking for M.A.P.S., > forgetting they were taken over. Specifically, I can't see > how mailinator would be doing anything "bad", but ... being > paranoid today ... well ... . > The make your own email address and THEN go see if there's > mail to it without ever having signed up for it's interesting. > But the most interesting thing I found is his current map of > where spam's coming from. It's probably no big feat, but based > on my spam experience lately, it's pretty accurate. I enjoyed > the current spam source map. Kind of wonder if Google knows he's > using it that way, but ... that's his problem, not mine . Yes, it's pretty easy to setup. Indeed, there's *no* setup at all. Similarly, there's no privacy, so don't have personal email sent there. When asked for an email address, I generally put in me@privacy.net. If that doesn't work, or they need a confirmation address, then I just make up something @mailinator.com. Take, for example, donut@mailinator.com. Message gets sent to that address, I go to the website, enter "donut" into the proper field, then can read any messages sent to it. No need to pre-register or anything. It's a remarkably useful site. :) > Anyway, thought I'd either give him some traffic or pick up some > useful knowledge about it. I haven't tried it but from the looks > of his forum and Google Groups, it does work, and I didn't see > any downsides. Indeed. All I can see as a downside is the lack of privacy, but then again, you shouldn't be using that service for anything requiring privacy. -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From nobody at devnull.spamcop.net Fri Nov 11 19:42:12 2005 From: nobody at devnull.spamcop.net (Pop) Date: Fri Nov 11 19:45:17 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Mailinator? References: Message-ID: "Pete Stephenson" wrote in message news:pete+usenet-A83810.13300011112005@news.cesmail.net... : In article , : "Pop" wrote: : : > I wasn't sure just where to post this, so me, myself and I held : > an election and me and I both voted for geeks, so ... : : Sounds like a plan. : : > Anyone heard of www.mailinator.com? Here's a guy who's been : > thinking outside the box, IMO. Not that I know whether : > that's -good- or it's -bad-, but definitely outside the box! : > Either that or I can't see outside my own box! : : Yup, it's an interesting concept. : : > Mostly I was just wondering how it works, and if it was as simple : > to set up as I suspect. Thought maybe some webbers here might ...> But the most interesting thing I found is his current map of : > where spam's coming from. It's probably no big feat, but based : > on my spam experience lately, it's pretty accurate. I enjoyed : > the current spam source map. Kind of wonder if Google knows he's : > using it that way, but ... that's his problem, not mine . : : Yes, it's pretty easy to setup. Indeed, there's *no* setup at all. : Similarly, there's no privacy, so don't have personal email sent there. : : When asked for an email address, I generally put in me@privacy.net. If : that doesn't work, or they need a confirmation address, then I just make : up something @mailinator.com. Take, for example, donut@mailinator.com. : Message gets sent to that address, I go to the website, enter "donut" : into the proper field, then can read any messages sent to it. : : No need to pre-register or anything. : : It's a remarkably useful site. :) : : > Anyway, thought I'd either give him some traffic or pick up some : > useful knowledge about it. I haven't tried it but from the looks : > of his forum and Google Groups, it does work, and I didn't see : > any downsides. : : Indeed. All I can see as a downside is the lack of privacy, but then : again, you shouldn't be using that service for anything requiring : privacy. : : -- : Pete Stephenson : HeyPete.com Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it, too. Long's he doesn't hit the really big-time it's not even a load on the servers since everything has such a short lifespan there. The forum he's running there gave it a lot of credibility, I think. I'm still curious -why- he's doing it though; there has to be a reason that's a benefit to the owners. I thought about scraping addresses from incoming emails, but it's over a year old and squeaky clean, near's I can tell. I'll have to keep it in mind. Maybe there ARE 3 good people left in the world! ;-) Best! Pop From nobody at nowhere.invalid Sat Nov 12 11:39:05 2005 From: nobody at nowhere.invalid (Steven Maesslein) Date: Sat Nov 12 05:40:04 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Mailinator? References: Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:23:06 -0500, Pop coughed into spamcop.geeks and left this in : > I wasn't sure just where to post this, so me, myself and I held > an election and me and I both voted for geeks, so ... Didn't Joan have anything to add? (let's see who catches that reference) -- Steve Q: Why is Christmas just like a day at the office? A: You do all of the work and the fat guy in the suit gets all the credit. From pete+usenet at heypete.com Sat Nov 12 12:59:42 2005 From: pete+usenet at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Sat Nov 12 16:00:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Mailinator? References: Message-ID: In article , "Pop" wrote: > I'm still curious -why- he's doing it though; there has to be > a reason that's a benefit to the owners. I thought about > scraping addresses from incoming emails, but it's over a year old > and squeaky clean, near's I can tell. I'll have to keep it in > mind. Maybe there ARE 3 good people left in the world! ;-) Well, there *are* the Google ads on the top. I would imagine that he makes some money (maybe not enough, but some) by running those ads. There's also some of the referral stuff on the right side to his web hosting company and so on. Mailinator and Sneakemail.com are some of the more useful sites I've found over the years. -- Pete Stephenson HeyPete.com From dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com Sat Nov 12 18:27:54 2005 From: dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com (D.F. Manno) Date: Sat Nov 12 18:30:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Mailinator? References: Message-ID: In article , Pete Stephenson wrote: > When asked for an email address, I generally put in me@privacy.net. If > that doesn't work, or they need a confirmation address, then I just make > up something @mailinator.com. Take, for example, donut@mailinator.com. > Message gets sent to that address, I go to the website, enter "donut" > into the proper field, then can read any messages sent to it. > > No need to pre-register or anything. > > It's a remarkably useful site. :) It would be if it worked. I tried using it for the first time this week. I never got the confirmation email that was to be sent. I even sent a test email to the address I made up. That never arrived, either. -- D.F. Manno | dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com I'm a thief in the house of love And I can't be trusted. -Bruce Springsteen From Kilgallen at SpamCop.net Sun Nov 13 07:33:28 2005 From: Kilgallen at SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Date: Sun Nov 13 08:35:10 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Mailinator? References: Message-ID: In article , "D.F. Manno" writes: >> It's a remarkably useful site. :) > > It would be if it worked. I tried using it for the first time this week. I never > got the confirmation email that was to be sent. I even sent a test email to the > address I made up. That never arrived, either. What subject did you use ? >From http://www.mailinator.com/mailinator/map.html > Do NOT send an email with a subject of test - it will likely bounce! > See the forums for an explanation of why. But that page does not really work for me. Looking at the source of the page, they seem to expect that JavaScript is enabled. Why they think someone concerned about spam would enable JavaScript I cannot understand. From dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com Sun Nov 13 16:04:26 2005 From: dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com (D.F. Manno) Date: Sun Nov 13 16:05:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Mailinator? References: Message-ID: In article , Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote: > "D.F. Manno" writes: > > > It would be if it worked. I tried using it for the first time > > this week. I never got the confirmation email that was to be > > sent. I even sent a test email to the address I made up. That > > never arrived, either. > > What subject did you use ? > From http://www.mailinator.com/mailinator/map.html > > > Do NOT send an email with a subject of test - it will likely bounce! > > See the forums for an explanation of why. The subject wasn't "test." It was just the first three words from the random text I grabbed for the message (IIRC, "the extra assistance"). The email didn't bounce, either. It just vanished. -- D.F. Manno | dfm2a3l0t2@spymac.com I'm a thief in the house of love And I can't be trusted. -Bruce Springsteen From me at privacy.net Mon Nov 14 23:03:07 2005 From: me at privacy.net (Tom Cumming) Date: Mon Nov 14 18:05:03 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Strange Google error Message-ID: I was doing a search on Google today, and instead of getting the results, I got to a page with this message: "We're sorry... ... but we can't process your request right now. A computer virus or spyware application is sending us automated requests, and it appears that your computer or network has been infected. We'll restore your access as quickly as possible, so try again soon. In the meantime, you might want to run a virus checker or spyware remover to make sure that your computer is free of viruses and other spurious software. We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope we'll see you again on Google." It then gave a box where you have to type in the characters in a picture, and then once I did that, it allowed me to my search results. I was using a regularly-updated Linux box, so I would think the likelihood I am infected with anything is pretty remote, and the only other computer on the network was turned off at the time. Should I be worried? Many thanks. From post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com Mon Nov 14 17:10:10 2005 From: post.please.this.email.is.not.valid at example.com (DougW) Date: Mon Nov 14 18:15:02 2005 Subject: [SpamCop-Geeks] Re: Strange Google error References: Message-ID: Tom Cumming did pass the time by typing: > I was doing a search on Google today, and instead of getting the > results, I got to a page with this message: > > "We're sorry... > ... but we can't process your request right now. A computer virus > or spyware application is sending us automated requests, and it > appears that your computer or network has been infected. > We'll restore your ac