From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 02:51:14 +0800
To: m2n@alpha.jpunix.com
Subject: Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
In-Reply-To: <3498e982.168339945@nntp.best.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199712171836.TAA19120@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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

> Yes, I take that back.  It is somewhat difficult to find a kernel of truth
> amidst all the dreck in Gary Burnore's posts.  However, you still have not
> elaborated how you've come into posession of some information that,
> apparently, only someone with access to Databasix's inside information
> would know.

[...]

> >>> If I don't know him, how could he be a "DataBasix employee"?
> >>
> >>I see no other reason how he can be privvy to so much inside information.
> >>I am not aware that he ever stated the source for his information.
> >
> > Go back and read my posts from the past weekend.  Slowly this time.
> 
> Still, no explanation for how you could confidently state that "all"
> accounts at Databasix were spambaited.

Or why, if Rashid's explanation of the alleged "spam baiter's" access to the
list of account-holders at DataBasix is to be believed, *ALL* accounts at
DataBasix would be published on a publicly-accessible web page.  (Why worry 
about a spammer getting them from a usenet post when they're just sitting on 
the web, ripe for harvesting?  If the alleged "spam baiter" supposedly found
them there, then the UCE address harvesters could have done the same.)  Thus,
even if Gary's unsubstantiated claims of an increase in UCE at DataBasix are
true,  it could as easily be attributable to Gary's "spam baiting" of those
addresses himself on a public web page as to a hypothetical SECONDARY "spam 
baiter" reposting that same information to usenet.

Had there been an outside "spam baiter" snarfing addresses from one of
DataBasix' own web pages, and Rashid knew which page was the source of this
information leak, I'm curious why Gary didn't check his httpd logs and find
out who the culprit was.  Assuming the alleged spam baiting was the work of
an outside attacker, then Gary's own logs would have proven more useful than
Jeff Burchell's remailer logs.  Since the page doesn't show up in any of the
search engines I know about, it would likely have had a very low hit count,
and probably all from a single suspect.  OTOH, if Rashid Kaman is not
telling the truth about this mystery web page, then Gary's logs would have
yielded nothing and there would be no plausible way to explain how an outside
attacker supposedly obtained the addresses in the first place.

I also notice that Rashid Kaman was the one who publicly accused rfg of
harassing an unnamed "teenage girl" who had a web page on the DataBasix site.
Did this mysterious spam bait web page at DataBasix also include the AGE of
each employee and customer?  Was this mystery "teenage girl" an employee or
a customer of DataBasix?  How did Rashid find out about her alleged
harassment?

It gets curioser and curioser...

> >>Therefore, when I see evidence that someone is lying through his teeth, and
> >>manufacturing evidence, I would very much like to discuss it.
> >  
> > You are seeing demons where there are none.   If your contributions
> > are cross examinations rather that research, you are about to become
> > one more rehashing ignorant bore.
> 
> There aren't any demons.  I've asked Gary Burnore to elaborate why was he
> lying when he claimed in July that a certain post that came out of a
> remailer, which had a return address at databasix.com, did not come from
> his machine.  He was using that as an excuse for harassing Jeff Burchell.
> 
> I pointed out something that Gary Burnore hoped that nobody would notice:
> that post DID, in fact, come from databasix.com, due to a buggy mail
> server.  It would've been one thing for Mr. Burnore to complain about
> someone exploiting a security hole in his machine, but that's not what he
> was doing.

Other than one of the "spam baits" showing up with Gary Burnore's .sig still
attached to the post, and that message being posted when the finger daemon
at databasix.com showed Gary Burnore being remotely logged into databasix.com
from his work account at wellsfargo.com at about the same time the post was
made, this is the most direct evidence of phony "evidence" being fabricated
at DataBasix itself intended to implicate a remailer in alleged "abuse".

> I pointed this out to Mr. Burnore back in July, which he ignored, and once
> again, last week, in a way that he could not ignore.  Instead of explaining
> the reason for his misrepresentation, instead of explaining why he was  
> lying back in July (since I find it hard to believe that someone who is
> supposed to be in charge of administering the software on a machine would
> not recognize a return receipt that's issued by his own system), his only
> response was, and I quote: "Plonk".

No one has ever accused Gary Burnore of being particular clever or meticulous
in fabricating evidence.

> Since you apparently have access to inside information at Databasix, I am
> wondering that perhaps you may be able to come up with an explanation,
> instead of Mr. Burnore.  Apparently, he's somewhat at a loss for words,
> right now.

If Rashid doesn't know, perhaps he can consult his unnamed "unimpeachable
source" who seems to know everything about the antics of DataBasix.