Red CloudŽ wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 23:30:04 +0000 (UTC), "Soque (Enjoque) Pupette"
wrote:
Red CloudŽ wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 21:51:56 +0000 (UTC), "Soque (Enjoque) Pupette"
wrote:
Thom Stewart wrote:
JR,
Are you posting to me or the STUPID FORGER that lives in Pacific Time
Zone+3 ( EASTERN TIME ZONE) that posted the Forgery.
FORGERY: What Flonkers consider FREE SPEECH!!???
No.
For it to be a forgery, it would have to be your real address.
is not your address, but you might not catch it
unless you look closely.
Do you see the difference between "webtv.net" and "web|v.net" ?
Incorrect.
Bzzzt. It is you that is incorrect.
[...some babble about poorly counterfeiting U.S. currency...]
Why are you talking about currency? Do you think a Usenet post is
a financial instrument?
Try to follow along; we're talking about what constitutes forgery in
a Usenet post.
Okay, so now you have established that you are dumb as a post.
[...]
Hahaha! I'm not the one applying the context of a financial
instrument to a Usenet post.
Hint: On Usenet, questions of forgery are answered by
examining the _address_ portion of headers that contain
an e-mail address. Such as From:, Reply-To:, Sender:,
Approved:...
Hint 2: Those headers identify a network resource (a mailbox),
not a person. (This is an important point. I'm sure you'll
completely miss why.)
Hint 3: The examination includes the question, "Is this a
valid address?" If it's not a valid address, the examination
stops. Invalid addresses are usable by anyone; thus, they cannot
be forged. If it's a valid address the next question
becomes, "Does the user have authorization to use that
(valid) mailbox?"
web|v.net is not a valid domain name. The "vertical bar" or
"pipe symbol" ("|") is not a valid character in a domain
name. (I've read a few RFCs. Try RFC 1034 Section 3.5)
Therefore, it's an invalid address and cannot be forged.
Please, do note that the examination process is not
influenced by poorly counterfeited U.S. currency.
--
,,,
..oo
c
- Soque
|