I had written,
> ... it came from an IP address whose assignment I can't track
> down [208.227.152.2] and which certainly is not that of v2music.com nor
> mail0.v2music.com.
Andrew Hobgood answered,
| Wrong-oh.
Wrong about which part? That I had not managed to find out whose address
that was? That's the truth. That v2music.com and mail0.v2music.com are
at addresses different from that one (in fact, outside the block)? That's
the truth as well.
Nowhere did I say that the address definitely did not belong to V2, only that
I could not find out.
| schizo:~$ whois -h rs.arin.net 208.227.152.2
| UUNET Technologies, Inc. (NETBLK-UUNET1996B) UUNET1996B
| 208.192.0.0 - 208.249.255.255
| V2 Records (NETBLK-UU-208-227-152) UU-208-227-152
| 208.227.152.0 - 208.227.152.255
Thank you (for the information, not for the attack). I tried the same com-
mand here and got the same results.
| That IP is most definitely inside of V2's IP allocation.
Yes, so you've shown. The only addresses of theirs that I knew about or
could find on my own were outside that block, but I never said they couldn't
possibly have another block or other individual addresses.
> Why did the post come from somewhere else? My guess is that someone who
> received it in email posted it, and it was not posted by anyone at V2.
| No. You're being an uninformed paranoiac.
Uninformed, yes, though that's a very harsh word to use for this situation.
Paranoid, no. I said "my guess" and nothing more. There is nothing inher-
ently paranoid about guessing wrong. It depends on where one goes from that
guess. I went no farther than saying that I didn't know.
In fact, I'm the one who reported the IP address from which the post came and
who gave you the evidence to prove the source. I was also one of the people
who noted that MD-L accepts posts only from members, so nothing could be de-
duced from V2's not having posted to MD-L. That's twice I've come in with
information that helped their case. Yet you call me paranoid?
| V2 has shown good faith in this matter for well over a month now.
It has not been a month since the post to the MiniDiscussion board. To say
that they've been showing good faith for over a month means you count their
privately mailed assurances as good faith. Now that you've shown that the
post did come from their IP address block, I agree. But until it was deter-
mined that something had come straight from V2 to a public forum, the matter
was indeterminate, and the private mail seemed just the way Mark described
it.
You appear to agree that some of their earlier actions were not in good
faith, or you'd have said "from the beginning" instead of "for well over a
month now."
| Stop bashing them without the proper information.
"Bashing"? Like "paranoiac," that's another ridiculous exaggeration of my
post. You wouldn't even have that "proper information" if I hadn't posted
the IP address here to MD-L.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
