Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!pullnews.sonic-news.com!news.astraweb.com!border1.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-05.inet.qwest.net!195.114.241.41.MISMATCH!feeder.news-service.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!209.197.12.246.MISMATCH!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.21.MISMATCH!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:03:38 -0500
From: jorj <jorj@hea.ven>
Subject: Re: Seems that a Tori-Model RP is in order. Here's my csv. RP to
start soon. - "Tori-Model_n_8012.csv" 510.2 KBytes yEnc
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.webeweb
References: <hjc1c5p9mpmbnmjlge9ahkepv11k163n92@4ax.com>
<rLCdnYVQRJOCaF3XnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
<ztedna36xsPOul_XnZ2dnUVZ8t6dnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <y4CdnXq-34yXx1_XnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:03:38 -0500
Lines: 68
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-7OLkCTPRq8oyvXF+xyeu9EIPHgnWh5m7W8gIdOagEMp6iOz/Y+5TScOfUxoY0yVhK838Nqmh5q9t7CT!LAYbWuaHcSMOqdEjlQGpU9ubmUj7m37itaGE2PSThM4s/r7lwCoRRgvH4tg9RcuT8Dpn/TKpD4o=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.webeweb:1076
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:27:59 +0000, NottyBrother wrote:
> On 28-Sep-2009, jorj <jorj@hea.ven> wrote:
>
>> What good are checksums with webe pics?
>
> I download the the full post, run hunter or the checker and get the
> collection sorted. Good enough.
>
>> Every set was watermarked with downloader info
>
> Sorry, wrong.
>
>> so unless you got around that (it was possible with theirs but you had
>> to know how to do it)
>
> Sorry, wrong again. After a digital watermark, it is not possible to
> remove it.
>
>> the odds of someone else having the same crc are pretty slim.
>
> Sorry, wrong again. Most pictures were modified some way by people that
> just doesn't know or doesn't care about preserving the files as they got
> them.
>
> My best regards
Dude you're being an idiot.
A) I never said you could remove the watermark. I said it was possible to
get around the watermarking. If you want to know how, jsut ask - I did it
dozens of times.
B) No, "most pictures" were not modified in some mysterious way. ALL
pictures were watermarked. ALL. Unless you knew how to get around the
process. Which I did. The ones that were not watermarked still have the
jpeg text fields in them - all the rest, that were watermarked, will have
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS....0123456789abcdef.... and so forth through this
part of the file.
What amazes me is how utterly clueless most (like yourself) seem to be
about this. I shared a bunch of "clear" files back when they were fresh
and most folks just complained about how I did it. I was able to get
around the watermark process by swamping the server with requests; this
would make it "dump" requested files until it could catch up, at which
point it would deliver the rest of the requested files watermarked. Thus,
by requesting 10 files all at once one could get 5-7 "clear" files. It
was easy to tell which were clear, because they were not watermarked.
Once the first few hundred bytes of each file were downloaded I'd simply
cancel the transactions for all but the clear files and add the rest back
into the queue...
Look for the "kleenx" files. There were "kleenx" sets for bunny, whitney,
and Karen. These were sets I downloaded without watermarks, carefully
cataloged and renamed, then shared - only to find most folks just
bitching about the fact I had renamed them rather than praising the much
improved quality without all that noisy mud. Incredible.
So, unless you have "kleenx" sets or you got them from someone else who
knew what they were doing, they are watermarked unique to the person who
downloaded them from webe. Given the number of subscribers and posters
there were back then the odds of getting the same files from two
different sources are pretty slim.
The newstar and tinymodel sets are also watermarked like this. Not every
pic, just certain ones in each set. That's why few are sharing them
anymore - share a set, get banned for life... or at least until you go
buy another prepaid debit card at the walgreens.
|
|