FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.

Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » haiii
Show: Today's Messages :: Unread Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
| Subscribe to topic | Bookmark topic 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
haiii [message #174375] Thu, 09 June 2011 05:57 Go to next message
MANIKANDAN KRISHNA is currently offline  MANIKANDAN KRISHNA
Messages: 12
Registered: May 2011
Karma: 0
Junior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
www.freeaddsworld.info
He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174377 is a reply to message #174375] Thu, 09 June 2011 08:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sheldonlg is currently offline  sheldonlg
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 6/9/2011 5:57 AM, MANIKANDAN KRISHNA wrote:
> www.freeaddsworld.info

Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup would actually
click on a bare link (or any untrusted link) like that has got to be a
total idiot.

--
Shelly
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174379 is a reply to message #174377] Thu, 09 June 2011 08:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Beauregard T. Shagnas is currently offline  Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
sheldonlg wrote:

> On 6/9/2011 5:57 AM, MANIKANDAN KRISHNA wrote:
>> www.<SNIP>.info
>
> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup would actually
> click on a bare link (or any untrusted link) like that has got to be
> a total idiot.

One then wonders why you quoted it... prior to your post, the spam was
hidden from my view.

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174380 is a reply to message #174377] Thu, 09 June 2011 09:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Twayne is currently offline  Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
In news:isqe6s$h8q$1(at)dont-email(dot)me,
sheldonlg <sheldonlg(at)thevillages(dot)net> typed:
> On 6/9/2011 5:57 AM, MANIKANDAN KRISHNA wrote:
>> www.freeaddsworld.info
>
> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup
> would actually click on a bare link (or any untrusted
> link) like that has got to be a total idiot.

Nah, just a total ignorant with new software it con't understand; it's worse
than a total idiot.
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174381 is a reply to message #174379] Thu, 09 June 2011 09:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Twayne is currently offline  Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
In news:isqfpr$nvd$1(at)dont-email(dot)me,
Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a(dot)nony(dot)mous(at)example(dot)invalid> typed:
> sheldonlg wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2011 5:57 AM, MANIKANDAN KRISHNA wrote:
>>> www.<SNIP>.info
>>
>> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup
>> would actually click on a bare link (or any untrusted
>> link) like that has got to be a total idiot.
>
> One then wonders why you quoted it... prior to your post,
> the spam was hidden from my view.

No matter; it's already got it spread all over the bloody place.
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174383 is a reply to message #174379] Thu, 09 June 2011 10:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sheldonlg is currently offline  sheldonlg
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 6/9/2011 8:54 AM, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> sheldonlg wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2011 5:57 AM, MANIKANDAN KRISHNA wrote:
>>> www.<SNIP>.info
>>
>> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup would actually
>> click on a bare link (or any untrusted link) like that has got to be
>> a total idiot.
>
> One then wonders why you quoted it... prior to your post, the spam was
> hidden from my view.

For reference to what I was talking about.

--
Shelly
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174385 is a reply to message #174383] Thu, 09 June 2011 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Beauregard T. Shagnas is currently offline  Beauregard T. Shagnas
Messages: 154
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
sheldonlg wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> sheldonlg wrote:
>>> MANIKANDAN KRISHNA spammed via GoogleGroups:
>>>> www.<SNIP>.info
>>>
>>> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup would actually
>>> click on a bare link (or any untrusted link) like that has got to
>>> be a total idiot.
>>
>> One then wonders why you quoted it... prior to your post, the spam
>> was hidden from my view.
>
> For reference to what I was talking about.

If anyone was truly interested, they could have checked the OP. I don't
see a need to further propagate spammers' web sites. One also wonders
why you replied to spam... :-/

--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174389 is a reply to message #174377] Thu, 09 June 2011 15:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Fesser is currently offline  Michael Fesser
Messages: 215
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
.oO(sheldonlg)

> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup would actually
> click on a bare link (or any untrusted link) like that has got to be a
> total idiot.

Why? A link is a link. If you think it could do any harm, you might want
to check your system security, the used software and review your browser
settings.

I didn't click it, simply because it's spam obviously, not because it's
"untrusted". In fact, if you're that paranoid, then any website in the
Web should be untrusted, because it might contain "malicious banners" or
hidden iframes with URLs that will kill your cat or things like that.

In my sig there's another bare and untrusted link - you can click it, if
you have the balls! SCNR

Micha

--
http://mfesser.de/blickwinkel
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174390 is a reply to message #174389] Thu, 09 June 2011 16:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sheldonlg is currently offline  sheldonlg
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 6/9/2011 3:12 PM, Michael Fesser wrote:
> .oO(sheldonlg)
>
>> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup would actually
>> click on a bare link (or any untrusted link) like that has got to be a
>> total idiot.
>
> Why? A link is a link. If you think it could do any harm, you might want
> to check your system security, the used software and review your browser
> settings.
>
> I didn't click it, simply because it's spam obviously, not because it's
> "untrusted". In fact, if you're that paranoid, then any website in the
> Web should be untrusted, because it might contain "malicious banners" or
> hidden iframes with URLs that will kill your cat or things like that.
>
> In my sig there's another bare and untrusted link - you can click it, if
> you have the balls! SCNR
>
> Micha
>

a. Its not bare since it has explanation -- part of your link
b - Its not untrusted because based upon you considerable posting here,
I trust you.
c - I don't read Dutch, but they are beautiful pictures.

--
Shelly
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174391 is a reply to message #174390] Thu, 09 June 2011 16:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sheldonlg is currently offline  sheldonlg
Messages: 166
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
On 6/9/2011 4:14 PM, sheldonlg wrote:
> On 6/9/2011 3:12 PM, Michael Fesser wrote:
>> .oO(sheldonlg)
>>
>>> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup would actually
>>> click on a bare link (or any untrusted link) like that has got to be a
>>> total idiot.
>>
>> Why? A link is a link. If you think it could do any harm, you might want
>> to check your system security, the used software and review your browser
>> settings.
>>
>> I didn't click it, simply because it's spam obviously, not because it's
>> "untrusted". In fact, if you're that paranoid, then any website in the
>> Web should be untrusted, because it might contain "malicious banners" or
>> hidden iframes with URLs that will kill your cat or things like that.
>>
>> In my sig there's another bare and untrusted link - you can click it, if
>> you have the balls! SCNR
>>
>> Micha
>>
>
> a. Its not bare since it has explanation -- part of your link
> b - Its not untrusted because based upon you considerable posting here,
> I trust you.
> c - I don't read Dutch, but they are beautiful pictures.
>

I meant "sig", not "link".

--
Shelly
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174394 is a reply to message #174389] Thu, 09 June 2011 19:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Twayne is currently offline  Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
In news:bn52v651iom5pmsjr54g42rtri1bll025f(at)mfesser(dot)de,
Michael Fesser <netizen(at)gmx(dot)de> typed:
> .oO(sheldonlg)
>
>> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup
>> would actually click on a bare link (or any untrusted
>> link) like that has got to be a total idiot.
>
> Why? A link is a link. If you think it could do any harm,
> you might want to check your system security, the used
> software and review your browser settings.

I don't click any strange lnks without looking at a reputaton and RBL first.
Secret links such as that one could be anythng but one thing they always are
is useless and of no use, so why click?

>
> I didn't click it, simply because it's spam obviously,
> not because it's "untrusted". In fact, if you're that
> paranoid, then any website in the Web should be
> untrusted, because it might contain "malicious banners"
> or hidden iframes with URLs that will kill your cat or
> things like that.

Good luck with that.
>
> In my sig there's another bare and untrusted link - you
> can click it, if you have the balls! SCNR

More importantly, your sig is spam.

HTH,

Twayne`


> Micha
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174397 is a reply to message #174394] Thu, 09 June 2011 20:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Fesser is currently offline  Michael Fesser
Messages: 215
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
.oO(Twayne)

> In news:bn52v651iom5pmsjr54g42rtri1bll025f(at)mfesser(dot)de,
> Michael Fesser <netizen(at)gmx(dot)de> typed:
>> .oO(sheldonlg)
>>
>>> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup
>>> would actually click on a bare link (or any untrusted
>>> link) like that has got to be a total idiot.
>>
>> Why? A link is a link. If you think it could do any harm,
>> you might want to check your system security, the used
>> software and review your browser settings.
>
> I don't click any strange lnks without looking at a reputaton and RBL first.

Sure. And before kissing a woman you ask their parents about some known
sexually transmitted diseases she might have? Just in case.

> Secret links such as that one could be anythng but one thing they always are
> is useless and of no use, so why click?

On a properly configured and maintained system just opening a URL in a
browser can't do any harm. After all it's just about displaying some
textual content in a web browser! If you're paranoid, the Web is the
wrong place for you.

>> In my sig there's another bare and untrusted link - you
>> can click it, if you have the balls! SCNR
>
> More importantly, your sig is spam.

Wrong. Obviously you don't know what 'spam' means. And even if I wanted
to advertise something - in my sig I can do whatever I want, it just
should be beneath an on-topic posting if possible.

Micha

--
np: Emmylou Harris - Tulsa Queen
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174439 is a reply to message #174397] Sat, 11 June 2011 14:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Twayne is currently offline  Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
In news:8on2v61mjtbu2ja2oqshhjvf39fclrdjie(at)mfesser(dot)de,
Michael Fesser <netizen(at)gmx(dot)de> typed:
> .oO(Twayne)
>
>> In news:bn52v651iom5pmsjr54g42rtri1bll025f(at)mfesser(dot)de,
>> Michael Fesser <netizen(at)gmx(dot)de> typed:
>>> .oO(sheldonlg)
>>>
>>>> Anyone who thinks that someone in computer newsgroup
>>>> would actually click on a bare link (or any untrusted
>>>> link) like that has got to be a total idiot.
>>>
>>> Why? A link is a link. If you think it could do any
>>> harm, you might want to check your system security, the
>>> used software and review your browser settings.
>>
>> I don't click any strange lnks without looking at a
>> reputaton and RBL first.
>
> Sure. And before kissing a woman you ask their parents
> about some known sexually transmitted diseases she might
> have? Just in case.

Maybe you do, but I don't screw strange women. Why the zeal for asking
parents? Are you young enough that every gal you've ever met had parents who
were alive?
When I was in the Philippines I befriended a lot of "bar-girls" and even
got to go with them a few times for their monthly physical and checkups for
diseases. It was interesting but I never screwed any of them.
You apparently wouldn't know how to protect yourself if you did get a
chance to screw a woman, whore or not.

>
>> Secret links such as that one could be anythng but one
>> thing they always are is useless and of no use, so why
>> click?
>
> On a properly configured and maintained system just
> opening a URL in a browser can't do any harm.

Oh, it definitely could do you harm. Once you log onto a web site, it has
all it needs to send youi whatever it wants to. You need some more education
there, too.

After all
> it's just about displaying some textual content in a web
> browser! If you're paranoid, the Web is the wrong place
> for you.

Actually, it's the wrong place for you by the sound of it. Yes, I'm paranoid
about hidden sites. It's easier to post a functional Fully Qualified URL
than it is to go get it shortened, come back and post it to the site. For
the user it's just a click either way if you posted the URL properly and it
didn't get caught/separated apart by line breaks; that would be your fault,
not anyone elses in not knowing how to properly place URLs in a mail or a
post.

>
>>> In my sig there's another bare and untrusted link - you
>>> can click it, if you have the balls! SCNR

You couldn't possibly have anything I would be interested in so I'll never
bother to click on YOUR links, no matter what. Do YOU click on links that
have nothing of interest to you?

>>
>> More importantly, your sig is spam.
>
> Wrong. Obviously you don't know what 'spam' means. And
> even if I wanted to advertise something - in my sig I can
> do whatever I want, it just should be beneath an on-topic
> posting if possible.

No, that's correct and in several definitions plus the netiquette RFC you'll
find that it can indeed be considered spam. It's "bulk" (sent to anyone who
opens your post), nothing I want, not relevant to me, and in general useless
to me. That meets the definitions of UCE and UBE.

HTH,

Twayne`

> Micha
Re: He must be an idiot (Was: haiii) [message #174444 is a reply to message #174439] Sat, 11 June 2011 16:50 Go to previous message
Michael Fesser is currently offline  Michael Fesser
Messages: 215
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
.oO(Twayne)

> Michael Fesser <netizen(at)gmx(dot)de> typed:
>> .oO(Twayne)
>>
>>> Secret links such as that one could be anythng but one
>>> thing they always are is useless and of no use, so why
>>> click?
>>
>> On a properly configured and maintained system just
>> opening a URL in a browser can't do any harm.
>
> Oh, it definitely could do you harm. Once you log onto a web site, it has
> all it needs to send youi whatever it wants to. You need some more education
> there, too.

First, I don't log onto anything just by opening a website. Second, of
course it can send me anything it wants - every website can do that!
Even your "trusted" sites may send you garbage.

The question is what your browser does with the received data and if it
may become a hazard for your machine. But this would require several
things: A broken browser with known security holes, a malicious site
with an exploit for exactly that hole, an improperly configured system
(e.g. admin account for the daily work) and maybe even more.

I consider my system pretty safe, so I don't have to worry about
clicking on unknown links.

>> After all
>> it's just about displaying some textual content in a web
>> browser! If you're paranoid, the Web is the wrong place
>> for you.
>
> Actually, it's the wrong place for you by the sound of it. Yes, I'm paranoid
> about hidden sites.

And you consider "not hidden" sites more safe? Never heard about
malicious ads, injected invisible iframes and such stuff? You can't
really trust any site at all (unless you use a text browser or so).

>>>> In my sig there's another bare and untrusted link - you
>>>> can click it, if you have the balls! SCNR
>
> You couldn't possibly have anything I would be interested in so I'll never
> bother to click on YOUR links, no matter what.

That's why it was in my sig, it was not part of the posting's content.

> Do YOU click on links that
> have nothing of interest to you?

Sometimes, because how should I know what the URL has to offer before I
open it?

>>> More importantly, your sig is spam.
>>
>> Wrong. Obviously you don't know what 'spam' means. And
>> even if I wanted to advertise something - in my sig I can
>> do whatever I want, it just should be beneath an on-topic
>> posting if possible.
>
> No, that's correct and in several definitions plus the netiquette RFC you'll
> find that it can indeed be considered spam. It's "bulk" (sent to anyone who
> opens your post),

Given that, every sig is "bulk".

> nothing I want, not relevant to me, and in general useless
> to me.

Most sigs are not what you want, not relevant to you, and in general
useless to you. That's why they're sigs!

> That meets the definitions of UCE and UBE.

The netiquette just defines the recommended format of a sig (max. 4x72
chars and a '-- ' delimiter), it says nothing about the content (except
maybe for not being rude and such things). But it's exactly the right
place for stuff like personal information, a daily joke, a link to the
own website etc.

Micha
Quick Reply
Formatting Tools:   
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic
Previous Topic: Joining two arrays?
Next Topic: delete multiple records code
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Mon Oct 23 16:47:09 EDT 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00727 seconds