"Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:1v3zbfysbc075.p6mao61g7rk2.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:45:37 +0000, hummingbird wrote:
>
>> HOSTS file is the answer but you might have to consider how
>> to handle IP addresses which are dynamic.
>
> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>
> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how ppl
> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
You know jack shit.
Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
Don't post if you don't know,
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:49:09 -0500, Nomen Nescio
<nomen.nescio@nomen.nescio> wrote:
> "Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:1v3zbfysbc075.p6mao61g7rk2.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:45:37 +0000, hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>> HOSTS file is the answer but you might have to consider how
>>> to handle IP addresses which are dynamic.
>>
>> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
>> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>>
>> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
>> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how ppl
>> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
>
> You know jack shit.
> Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
> Don't post if you don't know,
> http://jack.zunino.net/knowjack.htm
"Nomen Nescio" <nomen.nescio@nomen.nescio> wrote in message
news:fs0se3$pn7$1@aioe.org...
> "Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:1v3zbfysbc075.p6mao61g7rk2.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:45:37 +0000, hummingbird wrote:
>>
>>> HOSTS file is the answer but you might have to consider how
>>> to handle IP addresses which are dynamic.
>>
>> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
>> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>>
>> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
>> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how ppl
>> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
>
> You know jack shit.
> Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
> Don't post if you don't know,
Yes, Krazee's answer was quite wrong. But you need simply say that, and no
more.
"Jack shit" and "dummy head" are responses I'd expect from a 3-year-old.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:49:09 -0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
>> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>>
>> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
>> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how ppl
>> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
>
> You know jack shit.
> Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
> Don't post if you don't know
>>> Yes, Krazee's answer was quite wrong
>>
>> Where? Works over here.
>
> In your head? Ask hubby to knock some sense back into it.
Care to debate security systems, integrated firewalls, VPN, DoS and DDoS
protection, and traffic-management functionality in an enterprise
environment?
No, I don't mean by "enterprise" your laptop at Starbucks either.
--
See Brenda's UniWorldWare http://tinyurl.com/nm2yt
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:05:39 -0400 'Krazee Brenda'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:08:19 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, Krazee's answer was quite wrong
>>>
>>> Where? Works over here.
>>
>> In your head? Ask hubby to knock some sense back into it.
>
>Care to debate security systems, integrated firewalls, VPN, DoS and DDoS
>protection, and traffic-management functionality in an enterprise
>environment?
>
>No, I don't mean by "enterprise" your laptop at Starbucks either.
Franklin is just full of sh*t. Ask him to explain how the jewish
holocaust was affected by wavfile quantisation distortion and the
growth of pixels, and then sit back and watch him produce 1,000
website links.....and note which other groups he cross-posts to.
--
"Goodbye Franklin.
There will be no further contact."
....poster on acf 26-Nov-2007
"Too slimy to touch. Bye forever Franklin."
....poster on acf 22-Nov-2007
On Sat 22 Mar 2008 06:05:39, Krazee Brenda wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:08:19 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, Krazee's answer was quite wrong
>>>
>>> Where? Works over here.
>>
>> In your head? Ask hubby to knock some sense back into it.
>
> Care to debate security systems, integrated firewalls, VPN, DoS
> and DDoS protection, and traffic-management functionality in an
> enterprise environment?
Is that it? Is that all?
It's even less than I expected and I my expectation was low.
So YOU think you can tell Bottoms he doesn't know about computing
when you're only five pages ahead of him.
What a bluff it's been all this time.
No wonder you stuck to grunts.
>
> No, I don't mean by "enterprise" your laptop at Starbucks either.
>
> On Sat 22 Mar 2008 06:05:39, Krazee Brenda wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:08:19 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yes, Krazee's answer was quite wrong
>>>>
>>>> Where? Works over here.
>>>
>>> In your head? Ask hubby to knock some sense back into it.
>>
>> *Care to debate security systems, integrated firewalls, VPN, DoS
>> and DDoS protection, and traffic-management functionality in an
>> enterprise environment?*
>
> Is that it? Is that all?
>
> It's even less than I expected and I my expectation was low.
Can't be any higher than your capabilities and shit only stacks knee
high. Now, to the debate, you first.
>
> So YOU think you can tell Bottoms he doesn't know about computing
> when you're only five pages ahead of him.
The debate,the debate.
> What a bluff it's been all this time.
Focus, debate, debate, debate.
>
> No wonder you stuck to grunts.
This is something you and Bare have in common. Your talk to performance
ratios are waaaay out of whack.
On Sat 22 Mar 2008 20:34:59, Krazee Brenda ecrit:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:08:32 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>> On Sat 22 Mar 2008 06:05:39, Krazee Brenda wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:08:19 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Yes, Krazee's answer was quite wrong
>>>>>
>>>>> Where? Works over here.
>>>>
>>>> In your head? Ask hubby to knock some sense back into it.
>>>
>>> *Care to debate security systems, integrated firewalls, VPN, DoS
>>> and DDoS protection, and traffic-management functionality in an
>>> enterprise environment?*
>>
>> Is that it? Is that all?
>>
>> It's even less than I expected and I my expectation was low.
>
> Can't be any higher than your capabilities and shit only stacks
> knee high. Now, to the debate, you first.
You have offered to debate some specific topics because you are half-
way through the O'Reilly book or some equivalent text.
You talk like the hero of the IT world but all you know is intruder
security and denial of service along with network ops. It's not
exactly a tall order for the self-proclaimed greatest computer expert
that ever lived, is it?
There are plenty of people who specialise in those topics if you need
more help. Just ask. I'm not even faintly inclined to help or debate
with someone who keeps throwing tantrums.
>> So YOU think you can tell Bottoms he doesn't know about computing
>> when you're only five pages ahead of him.
>
> The debate,the debate.
>
You're panting "The debate, the debate" like a breathless hound. Why
don't you use the time to answer my two questions about when you were a
major in the Delta Force.
I'm waiting to hear the answers.
>> What a bluff it's been all this time.
>
> Focus, debate, debate, debate.
Oh my! Do you think you are in the college yard or something?
You're supposed to be pretending you're a computer hero so don't behave
like some young dummy.
On Sun 23 Mar 2008 01:26:56, Krazee Brenda <brendaroguska@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:30:24 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>
>>> Focus, debate, debate, debate.
>>
>> Oh my! Do you think you are in the college yard or something?
>
>>> Focus, debate, debate, debate.
>
>> You're supposed to be pretending you're a computer hero so don't
>> behave like some young dummy.
>
> No debate. I called you out, you ran.
>
> <eom>
Maybe in your dreams.
Must say you're more unfocussed than Hummingbird and that's something.
Snipping out short messages just because you want to hide their
contents etc. Have you got PTSD? No straight thinking with that.
"Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ek017lye46kr.1ka8y6xahhrbo.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:49:09 -0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>>> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
>>> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>>>
>>> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
>>> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how ppl
>>> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
>>
>> You know jack shit.
>> Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
>> Don't post if you don't know
>
> All this from an Outlook Express user.
Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
"Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
Don't post if you don't know anything
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:46:34 -0500, Nomen Nescio
<nomen.nescio@nomen.nescio> wrote:
> "Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1ek017lye46kr.1ka8y6xahhrbo.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:49:09 -0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>>> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
>>>> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>>>>
>>>> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
>>>> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how
>>>> ppl
>>>> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
>>>
>>> You know jack shit.
>>> Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
>>> Don't post if you don't know
>>
>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>
>
> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
> Don't post if you don't know anything
>
This might help http://jack.zunino.net/knowjack.htm
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:46:34 -0000 'Nomen Nescio'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>"Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1ek017lye46kr.1ka8y6xahhrbo.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:49:09 -0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>>> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
>>>> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>>>>
>>>> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
>>>> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how ppl
>>>> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
>>>
>>> You know jack shit.
>>> Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
>>> Don't post if you don't know
>>
>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
>"Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
>Don't post if you don't know anything
[NB: I do not include KB in my comments below, because she really
*is* knowledgeable about what's possible]
....but the others...well...
The world experts on this newsgroup are just that. We have experts
on ACF who can analyse headers and tell everything about the poster,
even what you had for lunch. Ron May's one example. Franklin (rotfl)
is another, iNcReduLoUs (rotfl x 10) is another. They do it all the
time to prove to their satisfaction who the spoofers/sockpuppets are
Here's a few of your headers which they would swear until death,
reveal what s/w you use to post, what server you posted through
etc etc etc.
<snigger> I mean it's all there. Right? lol. </snigger>
Message-ID: <fs6fiq$b70$2@aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: MIEBwHLCrtFAk+V28gEmRw.user.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
That it can all be easily manipulated for security reasons or to
imply that a post was made by another person goes completely
over their heads.
>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>
>
> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
Leaves only two possibilities:
- The headers are correct, you're a dump, you're actually using Outlook
Express, means that you don't have any clue about security.
- You're intentionally faking headers to make it appear as Outlook Express,
for no apparent reason. Which means you're dumb as well.
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:55:54 -0500, Sebastian G. <seppi@seppig.de> wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>
>>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
>> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
>
>
> Leaves only two possibilities:
>
> - The headers are correct, you're a dump, you're actually using Outlook
> Express, means that you don't have any clue about security.
>
> - You're intentionally faking headers to make it appear as Outlook
> Express, for no apparent reason. Which means you're dumb as well.
Good grief...WTF is wrong with you guys. Sebastian...you speak what you
are.
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:55:54 -0500, Sebastian G. <seppi@seppig.de> wrote:
>
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>>> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
>>> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
>>
>> Leaves only two possibilities:
>>
>> - The headers are correct, you're a dump, you're actually using Outlook
>> Express, means that you don't have any clue about security.
>>
>> - You're intentionally faking headers to make it appear as Outlook
>> Express, for no apparent reason. Which means you're dumb as well.
>
> Good grief...WTF is wrong with you guys.
Nothing. This is alt.computer.security, so we're discussing about security,
and someone who either uses Outlook Express or does some security by
obscurity (while also breaking compatibility) shouldn't give advise.
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:31:03 -0500, Sebastian G. <seppi@seppig.de> wrote:
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 16:55:54 -0500, Sebastian G. <seppi@seppig.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>>>> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
>>>> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
>>>
>>> Leaves only two possibilities:
>>>
>>> - The headers are correct, you're a dump, you're actually using
>>> Outlook Express, means that you don't have any clue about security.
>>>
>>> - You're intentionally faking headers to make it appear as Outlook
>>> Express, for no apparent reason. Which means you're dumb as well.
>> Good grief...WTF is wrong with you guys.
>
>
> Nothing. This is alt.computer.security, so we're discussing about
> security, and someone who either uses Outlook Express or does some
> security by obscurity (while also breaking compatibility) shouldn't give
> advise.
Well crap...I also didn't notice he had cross-posted....my apologies.
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:55:54 +0100 'Sebastian G.'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>
>>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>>
>>
>> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
>> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
>
>
>Leaves only two possibilities:
>
>- The headers are correct, you're a dump, you're actually using Outlook
>Express, means that you don't have any clue about security.
>
>- You're intentionally faking headers to make it appear as Outlook Express,
>for no apparent reason. Which means you're dumb as well.
You're being presumptuous. The poster may have a good reason to fake
his headers ... wait until he responds.
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:55:54 +0100 'Sebastian G.'
> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>>>
>>> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
>>> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
>>
>> Leaves only two possibilities:
>>
>> - The headers are correct, you're a dump, you're actually using Outlook
>> Express, means that you don't have any clue about security.
>>
>> - You're intentionally faking headers to make it appear as Outlook Express,
>> for no apparent reason. Which means you're dumb as well.
>
> You're being presumptuous. The poster may have a good reason to fake
> his headers ... wait until he responds.
There is no good reason to fake headers, especially if it introduces
compatibility problems. Even further, why should anyone choose "Outlook
Express"?
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:05:41 +0100 'Sebastian G.'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 22:55:54 +0100 'Sebastian G.'
>> wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>>
>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>>>>
>>>> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
>>>> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
>>>
>>> Leaves only two possibilities:
>>>
>>> - The headers are correct, you're a dump, you're actually using Outlook
>>> Express, means that you don't have any clue about security.
>>>
>>> - You're intentionally faking headers to make it appear as Outlook Express,
>>> for no apparent reason. Which means you're dumb as well.
>>
>> You're being presumptuous. The poster may have a good reason to fake
>> his headers ... wait until he responds.
>
>
>There is no good reason to fake headers, especially if it introduces
>compatibility problems. Even further, why should anyone choose "Outlook
>Express"?
There are reasons to fake headers to hide from public view what
posting s/w he uses to deter stalkers, and the poster may have
chosen OE for no particular reason (ie a random choice). I'm not
aware of the compatibility problems you refer to.
"Nomen Nescio" <nomen.nescio@nomen.nescio> wrote in message
news:fs6fiq$b70$2@aioe.org...
> "Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1ek017lye46kr.1ka8y6xahhrbo.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:49:09 -0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>>> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
>>>> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>>>>
>>>> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
>>>> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how ppl
>>>> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
>>>
>>> You know jack shit.
>>> Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
>>> Don't post if you don't know
>>
>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>
>
> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
> Don't post if you don't know anything
Hi "Unknown Name":
MID Xns9A18D83EF64ABHummingbirdisak00k@0.0.0.0
seems to have the same aioe NNTP Posting Host as this post. Since you place
such confidence in tracking Hunmingbird's sock puppets this way, you'll
probably want to confess that this is actually you, Franklin.
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 04:10:59 +0100 'Sebastian G.'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>
>> There are reasons to fake headers to hide from public view what
>> posting s/w he uses to deter stalkers,
>
>Nonsense.
That response from you sure is.
I refer you to my previous comments.
> > and the poster may have
>> chosen OE for no particular reason (ie a random choice).
>
>
>A static header means that the posting still has always the same
>characteristic. The only sane choice would be to randomize it for each posting.
Maybe the other poster does that. Do you know otherwise?
>Then again, one can simply omit all irrelevant headers.
.... ... ...
> > I'm not aware of the compatibility problems you refer to.
>
>I am. Various servers detect OE by the header and then apply protocol
>changes to make it work, which in turn break the real clients.
>>> There are reasons to fake headers to hide from public view what
>>> posting s/w he uses to deter stalkers,
>> Nonsense.
>
> That response from you sure is.
> I refer you to my previous comments.
If you can tell me any logical connection between header faking and detering
stalkers... but well, you can't, since there is none.
>> A static header means that the posting still has always the same
>> characteristic. The only sane choice would be to randomize it for each posting.
>
> Maybe the other poster does that. Do you know otherwise?
Obviously "Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138" is not a random string,
especially not if it's repeated among two postings.
"5-cfpsl4io7roUHp4FlfX4evXS4RHA6wudmVnB-qKISihnjUHFIUBz1Pn5MGX5FC" would be one.
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:46:34 -0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> "Krazee Brenda" <brendaroguska@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1ek017lye46kr.1ka8y6xahhrbo.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:49:09 -0000, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>>> Only two ways. Look up the range of IP addresses from the IP-ISP and
>>>> block them by wildcards or grab them one by one as they come in.
>>>>
>>>> The other way is to switch and *allow* only certain IP and port combos
>>>> incoming, snapin remote access and add a third credential as to how ppl
>>>> are trying to get in (e.g. logins a SysAdmin).
>>>
>>> You know jack shit.
>>> Whitelists and SORBS-RBL. Dummy head.
>>> Don't post if you don't know
>>
>> All this from an Outlook Express user.
>
> Dummy head. You don't know what I post with.
> "Outlook Express". You know jack shit about my headers/newsreader.
> Don't post if you don't know anything
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:37:04 +0100 'Sebastian G.'
wrote this on alt.comp.freeware:
>hummingbird wrote:
>
>
>>>> There are reasons to fake headers to hide from public view what
>>>> posting s/w he uses to deter stalkers,
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> That response from you sure is.
>> I refer you to my previous comments.
>
>
>If you can tell me any logical connection between header faking and detering
>stalkers... but well, you can't, since there is none.
I never used the term "detering", you did. Anyway ....
If you don't know then you obviously haven't been around for very
long -or- you haven't been paying attention.
Suffice it for me to say that the contents of one's headers can be
used by stalkers and troublemakers against you. It therefore makes
some sense to prevent them from doing that. I realised that many
years ago and took action to protect myself early on in Usenet.
>>> A static header means that the posting still has always the same
>>> characteristic. The only sane choice would be to randomize it for each posting.
>>
>> Maybe the other poster does that. Do you know otherwise?
>
>
>Obviously "Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138" is not a random string,
>especially not if it's repeated among two postings.
I meant that the other poster may insert a random news client string
into his header each time he posts (or whenever he wants to) to help
anonymise himself better.
So today he might insert OE and tomorrow he might use Thunderbird.
The day after tomorrow he might insert some other news client.
Get the picture?
HOWEVER, it has come to my attention that in this particular case,
the person posting as Nomen Nescio is none other than the village
idiot called ***Franklin*** who hangs out on alt.comp.freeware.
Somebody has examined his headers and caught him red-handed.
Can you believe it................
Here's a list of Franklin's sockpuppets and nyms used since
July 2007 on <alt.comp.freeware>:
--
Franklin's whopping BIG LIE of 2007:
"I do not post with deliberate and misleading errors"
<Franklin>, ACF, 23-Nov-2007
....but...but...but...
Here's the complete(?) list of Franklin's sockpuppets used on ACF
since July 2007 (65+ and rising) to deliberately deceive people:
-Mar/2008-:
Franklin <no-user@nntp.invalid>
Bare Bosoms <Bare.Bosoms.2008@gmail.com>
Nomen Nescio <nomen.nescio@nomen.nescio>
-Feb/2008-:
Franklin <no_user@www.invalid>
-Jan/2008-:
Franklin-post7
-Dec/2007-:
cc to Hummy <franklin.says@no.mail.invalid>
"Franklin (ACF)" <franklin@nomail.invalid>
Frank to Humbug <frank@mail.invalid>
"carbon copy -> Chris" <franklin.says@no.mail.invalid>
carbon copy to Humbug <franklin.says@no.mail.invalid>
"Frank (inc Humbug)" <franklin@nomail.invalid>
cc T0 Hummingberk <franklin.says@no.mail.invalid>
Poppinjay <noone@nowhere.invalid> (unconfirmed)
Cecil SeaSerpent <cecil@beanyland.net>
FrankIin writes <frankIin@nomail.invalid>
4Hummingbird
The Angel of Evil <franklin.says@no.mail.invalid>
Franklin-post1
Franklin-post2
Franklin-post3
Franklin-post4
Franklin-post5
Franklin-post6
Humming brain <franklin.says@no.mail.invalid>
-Oct/2007-:
The Angel of Evil
-July 2007-:
Franklin .
Franklin.
Frankli n
To Laurie
Franklin to hummingbird
coco
Franklin ZORG
<frank.says@no.mail.please>
<frank.says@no.mail>
[each of the above used one of the e-mail addies]
Franklin Smith <frank.saiys@no.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <frank.says@no.no.to.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <frank.says@no.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <fran.k.says@no.spam.please>
[note the extra space added]
Franklin Smith <frank.says@nope.to.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <frank.sais@no.spam.please>
Franklin Srnith <frnk.says@no.spam.please>
[note letters rn used to look like m]
Franklin Smith <frank.says@onspam.please>
Franklin Smith <franksays@no.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <frank.says@no.sparm.please>
Franklin Smith <frahk.says@no.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <frank.says@smith.spam.please>
Franklin Srnith <frank.says@no.to.all.spam.please>
[note letters rn used to look like m]
Franklin Smith <ffrraannkk.says@no.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <frank.smith@no.spam.please>
Franklin S <frank.speaks@his.PC.invalid>
Franklin Smith <franno.says@no.to.spam.please>
Franklin <frank.says.so@no.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <frank.says.its.ok@no.spam.please>
Franklin Smith <frank.ontime@no.place>
Franklin Smith <frank.says@only.spam.is.killed>
Franklin likes freeware <frank.says@no.mail.please>
Franklin <franklin.asks@no.mail.please>
Franklin <franklinsays@gmail.com>
Franklin <frank.says@no.mail.please>
Re: Firewall that blocks specified IP's 
Linear Mode
