peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/26/89)
In article <8911210433.AA00399@uunet.uu.net>, peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) writes: > This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will > be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: Sigh. Another forgery. Not only is it a stupid idea, but it violates the guideline that states once a vote has failed, it cannot be brought up again for six months. Then again, maybe it does not violate that guideline, because the vote is being brought up again when in fact the vote passed. This is another of those things that have caused me to decide to chuck it all in. My duties at work require me to keep news and mail running; they *do not* require me to post to the net. This is the last posting you will see from peter@ficc.uu.net. Anything else you see from this account will also be a forgery. `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
ptgarvin@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Patrick T. Garvin) (11/27/89)
In article <8023@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: {In article <8911210433.AA00399@uunet.uu.net>, peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) writes: {{ This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will {{ be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: { {Sigh. Another forgery. Yes, but I think the forgery is the message that claims that the first message is a forgery. Two reasons: 1) Where is the "Have you hugged your wolf" saying that we all know (and some of us dislike slightly, as if one could say that one owned a wolf!). 2) The above forgery says to disregard all future postings. This is a classic trick of the crypto-Illuminati (who are not to be confused with Illuminati. The latter are a hoax. 8)) {`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net{ <peter@sugar.lonestar.org{. { 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. {"The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." { -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM -- "Sometimes, even a blind pig finds an acorn." -- stolen from STella ptgarvin@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu / ptgarvin@uokmax.UUCP | Eris loves you. in the Society: Padraig Cosfhota o Ulad / Barony of Namron, Ansteorra Disclaimer: Fragile. Contents inflammable. Do not use near open flame.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (11/27/89)
The subject says it all, I think. The call for votes on *.aquaria is real.
I'm beginning to feel some slight interest in who might be perpetrating this.
But given the lack of security in usenet, I don't think it's likely I'll
ever find out.
When I get in to work in the morning, I'll check on what the *real* message
<8023@ficc.uu.net> is.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "Really, a video game is nothing more than a Skinner box."
-- Peter Merel <pete@basser.oz>peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (11/27/89)
If there's any question as to whether <8023@ficc.uu.net> is a forgery, consider
that it's posted to groups that are not in the active file at ficc.uu.net.
To verify this, call Ferranti and ask to speak to me. It's in the phone book.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "Really, a video game is nothing more than a Skinner box."
-- Peter Merel <pete@basser.oz>amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (11/27/89)
In article <1989Nov26.220624.28057@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu>, ptgarvin@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Patrick T. Garvin) writes: > Yes, but I think the forgery is the message that claims that the first > message is a forgery. > > Two reasons: > > 1) Where is the "Have you hugged your wolf" saying that we all know > (and some of us dislike slightly, as if one could say that one owned a wolf!). > > 2) The above forgery says to disregard all future postings. Time will tell. From the evidence I can see (the articles themselves, coming from only two hops away, as news flies), either there have been two people posting from FICC as "peter", someone is forging articles on UUNET, or Peter has devloped Multiple Personality Disorder. I'd lay my money on the first of these three, and I can see how it could piss him off (or anyone, for that matter) enough to just leave. We'll see what happens, but I smell Richard Sexton in here somewhere :-). On the other hand, breaking into FICC doesn't seem quite his style (?). Bleah. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation amanda@intercon.com --
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (11/28/89)
Actually, it's probably someone on the Internet, or a customer of uunet. It's
not anyone at FICC, because FICC doesn't get several of the groups this was
posted to. And there's no need for it to have been anyone on uunet itself.
It's probably easier to do the fakery from outside.
It's awfully easy to forge an article through NNTP or UUCP.
Oh, and my wife is unhappy with this activity. She wants me to tell you that
(a) she's a computer nerd too, and (b) she's pissed off at being cast as the
heavy. She doesn't read usenet... too many flames... but you can mail her at
73767.2044@compuserve.com.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "Really, a video game is nothing more than a Skinner box."
-- Peter Merel <pete@basser.oz>" Maynard) (11/29/89)
In article <8023@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: }In article <8911210433.AA00399@uunet.uu.net>, peter%ficc@uunet.UU.NET (Peter da Silva) writes: }> This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will }> be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: } }Sigh. Another forgery. } }Not only is it a stupid idea, but it violates the guideline that states }once a vote has failed, it cannot be brought up again for six months. } }Then again, maybe it does not violate that guideline, because the vote }is being brought up again when in fact the vote passed. } }This is another of those things that have caused me to decide to chuck it }all in. My duties at work require me to keep news and mail running; they }*do not* require me to post to the net. } }This is the last posting you will see from peter@ficc.uu.net. Anything }else you see from this account will also be a forgery. } }`-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. } 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. }"The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." } -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM The message quoted above is a forgery. I spoke to Peter on the phone a few minutes ago, and he assured me that: 1) The STV vote for an aquaria group is legitimate, votes are coming in, and he is counting them. 2) He has no intention of leaving the net any time soon, and will continue to post from both ficc and sugar. 3) Current message-IDs at ficc.uu.net are in the 7100 range. It says something about the Richard Sexton Sycophants that they have to stoop to this level to discredit Peter; that must mean that they have given up on their feeble arguments. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com
amolitor@eagle.wesleyan.edu (11/29/89)
These forgeries are coming in at uunet (unless they are from ficc, which seems a little far fetched, uunet is so much more well connected). They are absolutely perfect, except for the sequence number in the message ID field. The first posting I noticed got this almost right too (the time of day did not quite jive), but in doing so bumped a legitimate ficc posting from the net. The forger has since changed his/her ways, and seems not to be doing this anymore, the sequence numbers being used now ought not to show up at ficc until the forged postings are long gone. Probably, to be quite sure, the forger should be using SMALLER sequence numbers, say around 1000 or so, since these have been used at ficc, and won't ever appear again. The technical skill required is not very great however, and the joke is no longer very amusing. Andrew