Re: WARNING: Roy Schestowitz is spreading virusses on his website, don't go there!!!!!!!!

* Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:

> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 11:45:45 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> In article <1rsjbuemti6ak$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>> I've worked for 2 days on resolving this (it took a long time to handle
>>>> 100,000+ files). Unlike probably thousands of other Web sites that still
>>>> have
>>>> this iframe problem... (it's nothing to do with the site but a leech-type
>>>> reference that get forcibly attached to it).
>>>
>>> What a wanker you are Roy.
>>>
>>> You can sit here and twist all you like, but YOUR SITE WAS COMPROMISED AND
>>> USED TO INFECT OTHERS. Yes, it was something to do with your site. Your
>>> files were infected. That makes YOUR SITE the spreader, regardless of
>>> where the malware was hosted, YOUR SITE was telling browsers to download
>>> it.
>>
>> Well, at least it isn't infecting people now. The front page now is
>> this:
>>
>> HaCkEd By LUViGARO ;D
>
> Lol.
>
> Pw3d!

So much for Erik's claim that Roy is silly in claiming his site was
specifically targeted.

Really enjoying yourselves, huh boys?

--
There are people who don't like capitalism, and people who don't like PCs.
But there's no-one who likes the PC who doesn't like Microsoft.
-- Bill Gates

* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <EzQCj.19709$r76.596@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>> > Registrant:
>> > N/A
>> > Manager (manager@home-made.tv)
>> > Wolfson 25
>> > Rishon-Le-Zion
>> > Ha Merkaz,75203
>> > IL
>> > Tel. +972.525920204
>> >
>> > Status:SUSPENDED
>> > Note: This Domain Name is Suspended. In this status the domain name is
>> > InActive and will not function.
>>
>> That entry is borked. The Zip is wrong.
>
> What would be the right Zip? I am unable to find an online, free,
> resource for Israeli zip codes that I can understand--they all seem to
> be in Hebrew.

I was stupid. Being from Illinois, that was my first (and dumbass)
thought about the meaning of IL. And I should have counted the digits
in the phone number, too.

--
One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to
be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive
things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this
and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE
capabilities.
-- Bill Gates, 1998 a memo to the Office product group[2]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:18:33 -0400, Linonut wrote:

> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> And even in that case, no, it is not paranoia. There are plenty of
>>> COLA-lurking clowns that would have a great time if they could hack
>>> Roy's sites.
>>>
>>> And you know it.
>>
>> And you think any of them are capable of it?
>
> It doesn't matter. They are only a handshake away from someone who is
> capable.
>
>> But that's irrelevant, since anyone with half a brain should know that
>> these were not deliberate attacks against him, instead I believe he chooses
>> to *PORTRAY* it as a deliberate attack, knowing that many in here will
>> believe him.
>
> I don't believe Roy on this one. But I do believe it was a deliberate
> attack, on my own evidence. Just because it is a common attack doesn't
> make it non-deliberate.
>
> It is quite possible to me that someone said, hey, see what you can do
> with this shestowitz.com site, hmm?

Personally I believe there is no doubt that Roy Schestowitz was targeted,
for whatever reason.

Roy wishes to make himself known all over the Internet and that's fine.
However, when a person takes a position of hate and lies and then tries to
fool and mislead people, they tend to make a lot of enemies and very
quickly.

It could be any topic from car parts to DVD players when you start
attracting attention, like boycott and hate sites usually do, you are going
to have people who agree with you and people who don't.

My theory is that Roy Schestowitz is angering the employees of these
companies that he is constantly attacking and they in turn are offering him
and his sites up as fresh meat to be discredited by people who take pride
in cracking the code, so to speak.

IOW when you put up a 1000 foot steel rod in the middle of a 10 acre field
with nothing else in sight for miles, you have to expect to attract
lightening.

Add in Roy's caustic personality and the ability for him to piss people off
and now you have all the trappings of a "let's get this guy" vendetta.

Is Microsoft or Novell or any of the other companies he regularly slanders
/ libels behind this?
Highly doubtful.

However you can bet your sweet bippy that those companies are building a
case against Roy Schestowitz though and at some point, if it hasn't
happened already, he will be asked to stop.

Microsoft is like the IRS or the RIAA in that they like to make an example
of high profile people in order to scare the rest of the sheep.

Time will tell and if Roy can support his claims, he will win.
Assuming his parent's bank account holds out long enough of course.



--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:18:33 -0400, Linonut wrote:
>
>> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>>> And even in that case, no, it is not paranoia. There are plenty of
>>>> COLA-lurking clowns that would have a great time if they could hack
>>>> Roy's sites.
>>>>
>>>> And you know it.
>>>
>>> And you think any of them are capable of it?
>>
>> It doesn't matter. They are only a handshake away from someone who is
>> capable.
>>
>>> But that's irrelevant, since anyone with half a brain should know that
>>> these were not deliberate attacks against him, instead I believe he chooses
>>> to *PORTRAY* it as a deliberate attack, knowing that many in here will
>>> believe him.
>>
>> I don't believe Roy on this one. But I do believe it was a deliberate
>> attack, on my own evidence. Just because it is a common attack doesn't
>> make it non-deliberate.
>>
>> It is quite possible to me that someone said, hey, see what you can do
>> with this shestowitz.com site, hmm?
>
> Personally I believe there is no doubt that Roy Schestowitz was targeted,
> for whatever reason.
>
> Roy wishes to make himself known all over the Internet and that's fine.
> However, when a person takes a position of hate and lies and then tries to
> fool and mislead people, they tend to make a lot of enemies and very
> quickly.
>
> It could be any topic from car parts to DVD players when you start
> attracting attention, like boycott and hate sites usually do, you are going
> to have people who agree with you and people who don't.
>
> My theory is that Roy Schestowitz is angering the employees of these
> companies that he is constantly attacking and they in turn are offering him
> and his sites up as fresh meat to be discredited by people who take pride
> in cracking the code, so to speak.

He puts people's jobs at risk too.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:20:29 +0100, Hadron wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:18:33 -0400, Linonut wrote:
>>
>>> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>>> And even in that case, no, it is not paranoia. There are plenty of
>>>>> COLA-lurking clowns that would have a great time if they could hack
>>>>> Roy's sites.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you know it.
>>>>
>>>> And you think any of them are capable of it?
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter. They are only a handshake away from someone who is
>>> capable.
>>>
>>>> But that's irrelevant, since anyone with half a brain should know that
>>>> these were not deliberate attacks against him, instead I believe he chooses
>>>> to *PORTRAY* it as a deliberate attack, knowing that many in here will
>>>> believe him.
>>>
>>> I don't believe Roy on this one. But I do believe it was a deliberate
>>> attack, on my own evidence. Just because it is a common attack doesn't
>>> make it non-deliberate.
>>>
>>> It is quite possible to me that someone said, hey, see what you can do
>>> with this shestowitz.com site, hmm?
>>
>> Personally I believe there is no doubt that Roy Schestowitz was targeted,
>> for whatever reason.
>>
>> Roy wishes to make himself known all over the Internet and that's fine.
>> However, when a person takes a position of hate and lies and then tries to
>> fool and mislead people, they tend to make a lot of enemies and very
>> quickly.
>>
>> It could be any topic from car parts to DVD players when you start
>> attracting attention, like boycott and hate sites usually do, you are going
>> to have people who agree with you and people who don't.
>>
>> My theory is that Roy Schestowitz is angering the employees of these
>> companies that he is constantly attacking and they in turn are offering him
>> and his sites up as fresh meat to be discredited by people who take pride
>> in cracking the code, so to speak.
>
> He puts people's jobs at risk too.

That's kind of what I am getting at although in reading my message I didn't
make it too clear :)

Unlike Schestowitz who sits in a dorm room SPAMMING 24x7 and sponging off
his parents money, the people he is indirectly attacking have families to
feed and I'm sure they are not taking his attacks and hate sites lightly.


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

In article <8WaDj.5750$Q52.2584@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> >> Well, at least it isn't infecting people now. The front page now is
> >> this:
> >>
> >> HaCkEd By LUViGARO ;D
> >
> > Lol.
> >
> > Pw3d!
>
> So much for Erik's claim that Roy is silly in claiming his site was
> specifically targeted.

Certainly LUViGARO specifically decided Roy's site would be one he
HaCkEd. But why? My guess is that LUViGARO never heard of Roy until
this thread (which is widely cross-posted), read that Roy was having
some trouble cleaning up, and went for him.

The initial attack was that iframe thing, that is getting a lot of
sites. The only thing remarkable about Roy getting it is that AFTER
getting it, he continued to post about how it was an ASP and Microsoft
problem, even though his site is on Apache on Linux.

--
--Tim Smith

Hadron wrote:
> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> writes:
>
>> Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You had me fooled for a minute.
>> Which is a piece of cake because your a fuckwit
>>
>> foad
>
> That would "you're".

The would "be" "you're"

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j.ez@virgin.net> wrote:

>> That would "you're".
>
>The would "be" "you're"

"that" would be you're.

Sorry Jez, couldn't resist. <G>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:

> In article <8WaDj.5750$Q52.2584@bignews9.bellsouth.net>,
> Linonut <linonut@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>> >> Well, at least it isn't infecting people now. The front page now is
>> >> this:
>> >>
>> >> HaCkEd By LUViGARO ;D
>> >
>> > Lol.
>> >
>> > Pw3d!
>>
>> So much for Erik's claim that Roy is silly in claiming his site was
>> specifically targeted.
>
> Certainly LUViGARO specifically decided Roy's site would be one he
> HaCkEd. But why? My guess is that LUViGARO never heard of Roy until
> this thread (which is widely cross-posted), read that Roy was having
> some trouble cleaning up, and went for him.
>
> The initial attack was that iframe thing, that is getting a lot of
> sites. The only thing remarkable about Roy getting it is that AFTER
> getting it, he continued to post about how it was an ASP and Microsoft
> problem, even though his site is on Apache on Linux.

Fuck off Tim. Even Roy is not so stupid to claim that.

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:07:06 +0000, Paul
<customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j.ez@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>> That would "you're".
>>
>>The would "be" "you're"
>
>"that" would be you're.
>

"That" would "be" "you're".

Please note the capital T.

Unlike some groups, you see, we here at AISE only have time to debate
the important issues.

BB
--

http://www.kruse.co.uk/
http://www.fat-odin.com/
http://www.here-be-posters.co.uk/

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:39:42 GMT, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:07:06 +0000, Paul
><customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j.ez@virgin.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> That would "you're".
>>>
>>>The would "be" "you're"
>>
>>"that" would be you're.
>>
>
>"That" would "be" "you're".
>
>Please note the capital T.

Yes Bill, that happens at the beginning of sentances. Just like mine
was :)

>Unlike some groups, you see, we here at AISE only have time to debate
>the important issues.
>
>BB


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dr.Hal0nf1r£$ wrote:

>Isn't that a standard

*plonk*

Paul <customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> writes:

> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:39:42 GMT, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:07:06 +0000, Paul
>><customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j.ez@virgin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That would "you're".
>>>>
>>>>The would "be" "you're"
>>>
>>>"that" would be you're.
>>>
>>
>>"That" would "be" "you're".
>>
>>Please note the capital T.
>
> Yes Bill, that happens at the beginning of sentances. Just like mine
> was :)
>

What's a "sentance"?

:-;

Hadron wrote:
> Paul <customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:39:42 GMT, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:07:06 +0000, Paul
>>> <customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j.ez@virgin.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> That would "you're".
>>>>> The would "be" "you're"
>>>> "that" would be you're.
>>>>
>>> "That" would "be" "you're".
>>>
>>> Please note the capital T.
>> Yes Bill, that happens at the beginning of sentances. Just like mine
>> was :)
>>
>
> What's a "sentance"?
>

You can generate a sentance here
http://www.antirom.com/sophie/html/minigen.html ;)

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:55:11 +0100, Hadron
<hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Paul <customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:39:42 GMT, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:07:06 +0000, Paul
>>><customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j.ez@virgin.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> That would "you're".
>>>>>
>>>>>The would "be" "you're"
>>>>
>>>>"that" would be you're.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"That" would "be" "you're".
>>>
>>>Please note the capital T.
>>
>> Yes Bill, that happens at the beginning of sentances. Just like mine
>> was :)
>>
>
>What's a "sentance"?

a typo :)

>:-;


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Paul" <customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote in message
news:3cnst3lgs6inum9coqakodd1thk49t1qk6@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:39:42 GMT, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:07:06 +0000, Paul
>><customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j.ez@virgin.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> That would "you're".
>>>>
>>>>The would "be" "you're"
>>>
>>>"that" would be you're.
>>>
>>
>>"That" would "be" "you're".
>>
>>Please note the capital T.
>
> Yes Bill, that happens at the beginning of sentances. Just like mine
> was :)

<snip>

-"that" would be you're.-

Hmm, the above is what you wrote. I don't see a capital "T" at the beginning
of the "sentence".:-)

"Hadron" <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:frlpnk$8fb$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Paul <customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:39:42 GMT, Big Bill <bill@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:07:06 +0000, Paul
>>><customerservices@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j.ez@virgin.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> That would "you're".
>>>>>
>>>>>The would "be" "you're"
>>>>
>>>>"that" would be you're.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"That" would "be" "you're".
>>>
>>>Please note the capital T.
>>
>> Yes Bill, that happens at the beginning of sentances. Just like mine
>> was :)
>>
>
> What's a "sentance"?
>
Anything more than time served.

On Mar 17, 5:17*pm, "dick blisters" <dickblist...@telenut.net> wrote:
> "Hadron" <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:frlpnk$8fb$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
> > Paul <customerservi...@houstoncrafts.com> writes:
>
> >> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:39:42 GMT, Big Bill <b...@kruse.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:07:06 +0000, Paul
> >>><customerservi...@houstoncrafts.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:25 +0000, Jez <j...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> That would "you're".
>
> >>>>>The would "be" "you're"
>
> >>>>"that" would be you're.
>
> >>>"That" would "be" "you're".
>
> >>>Please note the capital T.
>
> >> Yes Bill, that happens at the beginning of sentances. Just like mine
> >> was :)
>
> > What's a "sentance"?
>
> Anything more than time served.

dick blisters...classy.