Solomon you are a poet my friend ! jm
On 6/24/05, S. Kevin Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My first impression was that one of our members had > his box pwn3d or zombified into a spam relay, and it > was adding all his Outlook Contacts into its own > comprehensive list of spam-to-be victims, which in > turn, would add this list. > > In the meantime, yes, I should be looking for someone > who wants me to RIP off her TCP Wrappers and fondle > her TTLs while sniffing her packets. Maybe something > kinky, like my own chroot jail, where I'd brute-force > her buffer and bash the shell out of her. She'd take > a huge coredump on me while IP in her hair before we'd > wipe off with so many rolls of FTP that you wouldn't > be able to flush it. > We would make compile for, like, four hours straight, > and after spoofing her headers with my SQL injection, > I might be left with nothing but an empty string. > Hello World, I say. > > The traditional "unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, > mount, fsck, more, yes, umount, sleep" has nothing on > this. Hope I wasn't too graphical. > > > Solomon Chang > > --- Tom Emerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'd imagine that since Frank moved the list after > > his server died, we're a > > bit more "exposed" to things such as this. When > > this list was on his > > system, the only way you knew about it was > > word-of-mouth or by visiting the > > socalwug site itself. Now that it is a > > "googlegroup", there is much higher > > visibility -- anyone can do a "drive-by-spamming" by > > simply joining the list > > [since the interface is now through google and not > > under Frank's direct > > control] and firing off a message with questionable > > content. > > > > (actually, they could have done the same when Frank > > was in direct control as > > he did not scrutinize each and every subscription > > request, but as I said, > > "this list" simply didn't have enough visibility to > > be considered a viable > > target until now...) > > > > Also, the spamassassin report my system added > > indicated that the Yahoo part > > may have been forged, so it is possible that "kitty" > > never actually > > "subscribed", but rather faked enough of the headers > > to cause the google > > mail/group server to think it was a legit message. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > jo3 > > > Subject: [SOCALWUG] Re: Looking for sexy adults > > contacts? > > > > > > How did this happen? > > > > > > kitty wrote: > > [something wholly inappropriate for this list -- no > > need to keep repeating > > it] > > > > > >
