From: Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 23:27:39 +0800
To: mail2news@basement.replay.com
Subject: Re: Gary Burnore Caught in own Trap (Long)
In-Reply-To: <6617oi$c0f@examiner.concentric.net>
Message-ID: <75878341ed9bfcd7e352e4319bf91e47@anonymous.poster>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Belinda Bryan <eridani@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> X-No-Archive: yes
     
> What those who are capable of looking at this with an open mind might
> notice is that there is much more to this story than you and Mr.
> Know-it-All Sam are telling.  Excuse me while I rain on your parade and
> repost some SERIOUS ANALYSIS from someone with a clue:

What motive would Sam have for being part of the mythical "Spam baiting/
forgery/libel/teenager-abusing/cyber-stalking conspiracy" you've concocted?
Could it be that Gary is now searching for another person to falsely accuse
of doing all of these things, now that he and the first person he accused
sem to have declared a de facto truce?  Is Sam going to be your next victim?

> > What seems to have happened here is that someone telnetted to the SMTP
> > port of myriad.alias.net and forged E-mail from your address.  If
> > these are full headers, then this forgery did not involve remailers at
> > all.  The perpetrator has therefore run the risk of being traced.

Which blows a huge hole in Gary's own theory that some evil "anon asshole"
used a remailer to do it, thus justifying his anti-remailer witch hunt.
And since you've chosen to quote that opinion, what were the results of
that trace he mentioned?

> Oh, my.  Looks like that shoots yours and Sam's theories right straight
> to hell, doesn't it?  On to the next lie:
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

How many do you plan to tell?
  
> In case you missed it, let me repeat: "looks like somebody sent you a  
> message with a Return-Receipt-To: header set to
> alt.revenge@myriad.alias.net.

To which the broken, mis-configured mail server at DataBasix autoresponded.
Why would Gary have claimed he was going to fix it if it weren't broken?
 
> >What would be the point in trying to forge a Usenet post to make it look
> >like it came from "mmdf@databasix.com", anyway?
>  
> You're the one with all the fricking "answers", why don't you tell us?

You might start with asking yourself who stood to benefit from this
happening.  You and Gary are the ones who keep bringing it up, because
it's the only "evidence" you have to support your grand conspiracy theory.
Thus far, all of your alleged "evidence" has proven nothing because it's
all (conveniently) had truncated path headers.
 
> >Gary Burnore's forgery allegations against Mailmasher are similarly
> >suspect.
>  
> Methinks you are confusing your alleged villains.  Usually Wotan gets
> the blame for closing Mailmasher and Gary and I get the blame for
> huge.cajones.  While I have a lot of respect for Jeff Burchell (and I've
> met him personally, can you say the same?), I disagree with the
> allegations he made against Wotan re: the Mailmasher attack.  Do try to
> recall that even Jeff said he was *speculating* as to what happened with
> MailMasher and the software piracy fiasco.

And you've got a better explanation of what happened?  Right after Billy
McClatchie went on his campaign to get Mailmasher shut down, someone 
signs up for a Mailmasher account, puts out a fake post advertising some
"warez", then dutifully turns himself into the SPA to get Mailmasher in
trouble.  Just a "coincidence", right?

And just because you, Billy McClatchie (Wotan), and Gary Burnore are all 
staff members at DataBasix, and the two servers that you three attacked in 
sequence were both run by the same person, we're not supposed to make the
conncection?  As Gary himself once said "There are far too many 
coincidences".  He was at least right about that.
 
> And if you think Jeff closed huge.cajones because of Gary and me, you
> obviously don't know the whole story.  But what's new?  What you don't
> know, you just make up.

I've read Jeff's account, and you, Gary, and Bill "Wotan" McClatchie are the 
only attackers he mentioned.
 
> >First of all, before planning the attack, somebody apparently
> >didn't do his homework, or he'd have realized that Mailmasher was a
> >web-based 'nymserver, not a remailer.
>  
> I'll freely admit I don't really understand the difference between the
> two.  But I distinctly recall seeing dozens of messages with a from line
> with *my* email address and a message ID of mailmasher.com.  Like so:
>    
> ------
>  
> Path:
> ix.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!super.zippo.com!zdc!news1.mpcs.com!anon.lcs.mit.edu!
> nym.alias.net!mail2news
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 22:22:07 -0800
> Message-ID: <199702060622.WAA09539@mailmasher.com>
> From: eridani@ix.netcom.com (Mailbomb^me)
> Comments: Please report misuse of this automated remailing service to
> <remailer-admin@cajones.com>
> Subject: Nuke Your Local Junk Mailer!
> Newsgroups: misc.entrepreneurs,biz.mlm,alt.sex.erotica.marketplace,
>             alt.sex.erotica.marketplace,alt.sex.erotica.marketplace
> X-No-Archive: yes
> Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net  
> Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
> Lines: 5
>  
> This message is not intended for humans to read.

Other than a Message-ID and a Comments line (both forgeable), what indicates 
this came from Mailmasher?  Why was Mailmasher not in the path header?  You 
still haven't produced a single shred of evidence that this came from 
Mailmasher.  You haven't even shown from any of the Mailmasher help files 
that Mailmasher even had this capability.  In someone's haste to point the 
blame at the remailers' ability to paste From: headers, they chose the wrong 
target -- since Mailmasher was not a remailer and had no header pasting 
capability.  Mail coming from Mailmasher accounts all contained a
pseudonym followed by "@mailmasher.com".  Access was via a web-based
interface, and there was no place to specify a From: line.

> You're an idiot and a liar.  

Engaging in ad hominem is an obvious attempt to divert attention from your
lack of evidence.

> First of all, Gary stubbornly didn't start
> X-No-Archiving his headers until a couple of months ago. You should
> know, Mr.Whining About Not Being Able to Track Gary Through Deja News
> Anymore.

Actually, in the beginning it was YOU, McClatchie, and the so-called 
"spam baiter" that used the No-Archive header.  Gary didn't use it until 
later when he became worried that people could actually read his old posts 
and see how his story changed over time.  Gary has apparently gone back and
even had his old posts nuked from the archives, as well. Apparently
Gary "I have nothing to hide" Burnore has reconsidered that stance.

If someone wanted to forge a post to embarass you, would it make sense to
hide it with a No-Archive header?  Why limit the readership like that?
 
> Secondly, it's not possible to forge message IDs with a piddly
> Netcruiser GUI account.

Netcruiser accounts can't telnet into an SMTP server, which is your theory of
how the "forgery" was done?  Also, you, Gary, and Wotan have shell accounts
that are quite capable of doing many of the things you claim that your
mythical "spam-baiting/forging/libelling/cyber-stalking/child-molesting"
mega-villain is guilty of.  You also once claimed that this person had spam 
baited "every known email address of DataBasix staff and customers".  Who but 
a DataBasix insider would have access to that kind of information?
 
> Lastly, it certainly is convenient that every single spam bait
> posted--thousands between 4/97 and 11/97--contained the X-No-Archive:
> yes header.  Makes it really easy for someone with a vendetta to say,
> 'oh no, they don't exist, because we can't verify them!'

Conveniently similar to the posts of Wotan and yourself.  And that quote
is obviously the reason that you, Gary, and Wotan also utilize that
same header, right?  So that you can later claim that anything you post
and later regret was "forged"?
 
> That's an insane theory cooked up by someone with a very twisted mind.

As are most of Gary's theories.

> How many people posting anonymously have
> been inadvertently denied an audience because of one IDIOT ruining it
> for everyone?

When have you EVER had a decent thing to say about anonymous posters?  Can
you cite even one instance?  Are you suddenly trying to polish up
DataBasix' image?  Polish that turd all you want, and it still won't smell
any better!
 
> Have we "harassed" any
> other remailers since then?  Hhm?  Why don't you _ask them_, mouth?

Jeff didn't reveal your harassment of him until AFTER he had shut down
his remailer and had no further retribution to fear.  And we didn't learn
of your attacks on Jeff's machines until Gary made a similar taunt back in
June.

> <cue follow up consisting of selective snipping in order to post more
> lies and distortions>

Stop your pitiful whining about "selective snipping".  Anyone who missed
it the first time can read your epic whine-fest by following the 
reference headers.  That's what they're there for. And if they're reading 
this thread via DejaNews and can't, well that was YOUR choice, not mine.
My posts are archived for all to read.

--