Re: Action Plan!

for myself only....
i lost my Mom in early 2006. she was an active member and owner of
support.cancer on Annexcafe. she slapped me all the time.

your comment, that she should have slapped me harder was uncalled for and
downright rude.
you are not a nice man, BD. not at all. in fact, you are cruel.

i lost my Dad in late 2006, do you have some comments about him, as well?

you want your own group? go to Usenet and search around for someone to give
you an alt.boater.dave group.
search your Usenet group list for admin.

you will not get one on either AnnexCafe nor DogAgent.
those are my homes away from home. you are not welcome in either of my
homes.


"BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:On6DHQq2HHA.5316@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello Dave

Taking your last sentence of your post first, you said in your message here
on 29 July at 1849 - "You are the intruder/virus/Trojan, with your
"Crusading", attacking good people". I therefore consider that there *is* a
place for me here! <g>

I will willingly make a public apology if necessary, but I cannot do so
until I have been told exactly what it is for which you wish me to
apologise. Perhaps you could start by explaining how *you* can tell the good
guys from the bad here on the Internet, especially those posting in
newsgroups. Then, perhaps, tell me which good guys I have maligned and, of
course, exactly how you *know* that they are good guys. Are you *absolutely*
sure - or just pre-supposing?

Should you prefer to take the subject matter of my quest (to identify the
bad guys) away from the public gaze here, and you are in no way affiliated
with Cybercrime and malware propergation, perhaps you will re-open a
'boater.dave' group on your server which is NOT moderated by anyone at all.
Debate and discussion could then continue in private. Some folk from /this/
group might even come over and join in any discussion which transpires,
especially when I advertise any such new group here on the Microsoft groups.

The ball is in your court.

David

***************************************************************************************

"Dave H" <spambox7@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OoTah4n2HHA.4476@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David,
that is an old message, but you probably got my attention for the last
time.
Should have really ignored it.
I can't be 'bothered' with you any more, nor can my team of 'good guys'.
'Them' that I gave the group to, can't be bothered either and wanted the
group deleted, fed up with patiently explaining to you and for you keep
maligning good people.
Nothing less than an apology from you, which can be made public, will be
considered.

None of this has anything to do with security or virus.

Dave H

"BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OXe1Uee2HHA.1208@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now why on earth would people want to 'bother' you Dave?

Perhaps because you gave them a newsgroup on your server ....... and then
removed it without notice or warning?
It seems to me, right now, that you are *not* the 'good guy' I had
(vaguely) hoped you might be. :(

David

*****************************************************************************
"Dave H" <spambox7@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23SuYBGe0HHA.5884@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David,
Occasionally I have to look for people who might cause me bother.
The tool I use for identifying such persons is freeware, called My Nose.
I would steer away from that newsgroup, they obviously have found
something about you that has rubbed them up the wrong way.

Dave H

"BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23RSl$MJ0HHA.3400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hello again Phil - slight misunderstanding I fear!

I'm actually using the McAfee Internet Security Suite supplied (at
extra
cost!) with my AOL (UK) subscription
+ Windows Defender, AVG Anti-Spyware 7.5 and Ad-Aware 2007 - all up to
date
on Windows XP Home, SP2 and all updates.

I was referring in my comment to those on another newsgroup who seem
adamant
that they can identify me regardless of my selected 'nick' for posting
purposes. If my IP doesn't give me away, I was wondering what other
'spy'
might be being used to identify me.

David

*************************************************************************************************
"Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uRsqi.11417$rR.9799@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
'BoaterDave' wrote:
| So it seems that they are lying - or I have malware (again!) on my
PC!
| Now I've got to determine which it is!
_____

No, not lying - 'Beta' is a warning label that the software may not
work
as
intended. You should not depend on 'Beta' software for critical
operations
(and keeping your system free of malware is a critical operation.)
And
even
antimalware in production can give false alerts. If you are going to
use
an
on-line scan, pick one that is NOT 'beta' and that is more thorough
than
'Nanoscan'. Symantec and other antimalware publishers have more
thorough
on-line scans

As a comparison, the Symantec on-line virus scanner will scan every
file
on
a system and take 20 minutes or more (fast system with > 100,000
files)
while 'Nanoscan' checks, on the same system in 20 seconds, well, who
knows?
( I would imagine 'Nanoscan' checks memory, the registry, and whatever
else
it can in 20 seconds. Something like 'Nanoscan' might eventually be
an
quick supplement to other malware detectors, but only a minor
supplement.

What antimalware protection do you use, and is it up-to-date (an in
either
the very latest definitions or definitions updated within the last two
days)?

Phil Weldon


Phil Weldon

"BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eXSXPTI0HHA.3940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| So it seems that they are lying - or I have malware (again!) on my
PC!
| Now I've got to determine which it is!
|
| Thanks for your coments, Phil.
|
| BD
| ******************************************************
| "Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:EBrqi.11448$tj6.10470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > 'BoaterDave' wrote, in part:
| > | When posting to a newsgroup on a private server, it seems that
| > | anyone/everyone can identify me, regardless of user name
employed.
| > Whilst
| > I
| > | fully appreciate that an individual has a certain style (which
can
be
| > | 'fudged' - obfuscated, if you will) if the IP address changes as
you
say
| > | (and I believe you!) can you suggest an alternate way they can
identify
| > | someone without having installed some form of 'reporting'
malware on
| > one's
| > | PC?
| > _____
| >
| > In the USA be George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, or *** Cheney,
bribe
the
| > ISP, or actually get a court order B^)
| >
| > Phil Weldon
| >
| > "BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:e8TIJCI0HHA.1188@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Phew! Thanks for all that, Phil! I really appreciate the time
and
| > trouble
| > | you have taken to respond so comprehensively.
| > |
| > | Dare I ask you for further comment? <g> I will anyway!
| > |
| > | When posting to a newsgroup on a private server, it seems that
| > | anyone/everyone can identify me, regardless of user name
employed.
| > Whilst
| > I
| > | fully appreciate that an individual has a certain style (which
can
be
| > | 'fudged' - obfuscated, if you will) if the IP address changes as
you
say
| > | (and I believe you!) can you suggest an alternate way they can
identify
| > | someone without having installed some form of 'reporting'
malware on
| > one's
| > | PC?
| > |
| > | I'd value your advice. TIA.
| > |
| > | David
| > |
| > |
| >
******************************************************************************************************
| > | "Phil Weldon" <not.disclosed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | news:Wwqqi.12398$Od7.11531@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > 'BoaterDave' wrote, in part:
| > | > | **Indeed - your memory serves you well (this time!) However,
that
| > does
| > | > *not*
| > | > | explain why posts from you here invariably have different IP
| > addresses
| > | > when
| > | > | the day changes. You cannot, surely, be suggesting that when
folk
| > visit
| > | > | /this/ group and see the name of Peter Foldes that it isn't
really
| > you?
| > | > | People tend to see a name they trust and follow the advice
given -
| > how
| > | > easy
| > | > | it would be to mislead vulnerable folk in such a scenario.
So I
ask
| > you
| > | > once
| > | > | again, politely., the reason for the constant change in your
IP
| > address.
| > | > _____
| > | >
| > | > In the main, for DSL, an IP address is assigned dynamically to
a
| > customer.
| > | > Each time a system (or for some setups the modem) connects to
the
ISP,
| > the
| > | > ISP assigns a new IP address from the block allocated to the
ISP.
A
| > | > static
| > | > IP address costs extra. If, for example, you were to examine
the
| > headers
| > | > for my posts to this newsgroup, you would usually see a
different
IP
| > | > address
| > | > on posts from different days. Each IP address would be picked
more
or
| > | > less
| > | > at random from the block assigned to the ISP. With a large IP
like
| > mine,
| > | > that would be from a address space of millions. If you look
at my
| > posts
| > | > with time stamps more than a few days apart the IP address is
| > different.
| > | > The IP address associated with your post is from the block
assigned
to
| > AOL
| > | > (172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255), an IP address space of just
over
| > | > 1,500,000.
| > | > My current IP address is as I make this post is
208.187.80.135.
If
I
| > | > disconnect my DSL modem, and post again, the IP address in
that
second
| > | > post
| > | > will be different. So newsgroup identities are exactly as you
| > thought.
| > | >
| > | > There is no way to identify a newsgroup poster from the IP
address
in
| > the
| > | > post headers, even if the headers are completely legitimate
without
| > the
| > | > cooperation of the ISP because you need the records the ISP
keeps
to
| > match
| > | > an IP address with the customer AT THE TIME THE POST WAS MADE.
Even
| > if
| > | > the
| > | > customers IP address is static, though you might assume the
identity
| > of
| > | > the
| > | > poster, you'd still need the account records. This should
take a
| > court
| > | > order or a 'national security letter' these days.
| > | >
| > | > Some naive trolls who use different sock puppet posting names
are
| > exposed
| > | > when [they post from a small ISP (because the pool of ISP
addresses
is
| > | > small) or when they post from a static IP address] AND the
style
is
| > | > suspiciously similar. But that is just exposure of sock
puppets,
NOT
| > | > actually matching a real identity to a post.
| > | >
| > | > As for your original question, which I think is about Panda
nanoscan
| > (ALL
| > | > the information for a newsgroup post should be in the BODY of
the
| > | > message -
| > | > the 'Subject' line should be a short phrase to indicate the
content
of
| > the
| > | > message). My thoughts on Panda nanoscan: there is no
compelling
| > reason
| > | > to
| > | > try it. On the down side it is 'Beta' (may have bugs, is not
ready
| > for
| > | > release, is at present for Panda's benefit, not the user's
benefit),
| > it
| > | > can't be very thorough in 20 seconds, requires installing
active-x
| > | > controls,
| > | > really gives no assurance that the scanned system is clean,
and
| > requires
| > | > an
| > | > active connection to the internet. On the up side, it is very
quick.
| > | >
| > | > Phil Weldon
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > "BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:uj8F0CF0HHA.5644@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | In-line responses
| > | > |
| > | > | "Peter Foldes" <okf22@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | news:OCx$NTE0HHA.1184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | Sorry Dave . But I cannot comment on your request since I am
not
| > | > familiar
| > | > at
| > | > | all with the Panda software. Maybe someone will come along
soon
that
| > can
| > | > | comment on your question.
| > | > |
| > | > | **Thanks for your straight-forward reply, Peter. I'll wait
| > patiently!
| > :)
| > | > |
| > | > | As far as IP addresses go you do know that they can be
spoofed
and
| > some
| > | > | people do it .
| > | > | You have been in a similar situation yourself when you had
your
ID
| > | > stolen
| > | > in
| > | > | the past so you know what kind of situation it can create
| > | > |
| > | > | **Indeed - your memory serves you well (this time!) However,
that
| > does
| > | > *not*
| > | > | explain why posts from you here invariably have different IP
| > addresses
| > | > when
| > | > | the day changes. You cannot, surely, be suggesting that when
folk
| > visit
| > | > | /this/ group and see the name of Peter Foldes that it isn't
really
| > you?
| > | > | People tend to see a name they trust and follow the advice
given -
| > how
| > | > easy
| > | > | it would be to mislead vulnerable folk in such a scenario.
So I
ask
| > you
| > | > once
| > | > | again, politely., the reason for the constant change in your
IP
| > address.
| > | > |
| > | > | BD
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| >
______________________________________________________________________________________
| > | > |
| > | > | "BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | news:%23%23FF5pA0HHA.484@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > Hello Peter! Thank you for the reminder.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > It would, though, have been even more helpful had you also
given
| > your
| > | > view
| > | > | > on the new facility from Panda as I'd requested.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Whilst I'm here I noted that your IP address is currently
| > | > 64.228.81.234
| > | > | > Having checked your other posts on this group since 31
May,
each
| > IP
| > | > | > address
| > | > | > is different (save for on 5 July when 3 replies were made
on
the
| > same
| > | > | > day).
| > | > | > The previous training given by you - to me - suggested
that an
IP
| > | > address
| > | > | > may be used to identify a particular poster. Others
posting
here
| > *do*
| > | > | > maintain the same IP address. Will you, please, explain
why
yours
| > | > changes?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > An additional query. On a separate newsgroup, on a private
server,
| > the
| > | > IP
| > | > | > address of a poster is shown as 127.0.0.1, viz:-
| > | > | >
| > | > | > X-Trace: dogagent.com 1185373384 26976 127.0.0.1 (25 Jul
2007
| > 14:23:04
| > | > | > GMT)
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I'd be grateful if you, or anyone else knowledgeable on
such
| > matters,
| > | > | > would
| > | > | > comment on this. Thank you.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > David
| > | > | >
| > | > | > ***************************************
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "Peter Foldes" <okf22@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:%23e7LSG$zHHA.5152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > multiposted not crossposted. Even worse
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > Peter
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
| > | > | > Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be
| > acknowledged.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "BoaterDave" <BoaterDave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:uRDXih8zHHA.4004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | >> Forgive the cross-post but, on reflection, I felt this
might
be
a
| > | > more
| > | > | >> appropriate place to ask this question!
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> Hi - just wondering is any of the gurus here have tried
it
and
| > might
| > | > wish
| > | > | >> to
| > | > | >> comment: See: http://www.nanoscan.com/
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> David
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|












.