alt.fan.oldfartShow header Prev. Next
Ping: Wildman. Ignorance Unlimited, Ltd ..
FastmanŽ (NoW@ayJose.com) 2004/02/16 08:41

Seems as thought the good Dr. has resurfaced.
                   --=FM=--


Path:
newscene.com!newscene!newscene!novia!novia!news-hub.siol.net!newsfeeder1.noc.eunet-ag.at!news.eunet.at!anon.lcs.mit.edu!nym.alias.net!mail2news
Date: 16 Feb 2004 05:03:45 -0000
Message-ID: <20040216050345.20925.qmail@gacracker.org>
From: Beelzebub <Beelzebub@redneck.gacracker.org>
Subject: Re: Dr. Who Security Faq. Revision 17.6
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.ll-series
References: <Xns948F5F5862ACAnonymous@63.218.45.20>
<hess20pg5atp5hkuciithsqfl6n78012qa@4ax.com>
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Administrative-Comment: Send comments to <admin@redneck.gacracker.org>
Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Xref: newscene.com alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.ll-series:275404


>On 14 Feb 2004 06:32:02 GMT, Eggplant <vegetables@theguarden.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>May I?  Thank you.
>This "revision" has always been suspect.
>When it first appeared in abpep-t, we attempted to contact the good
>doctor, to verify it's authenticity, but strangely, were unable to do
>so.
>That inability to contact him was very unusual, and to this very date,
>we have never been able to contact him, as we had done so often, in
>the past.
>So, I wouldn't trust version 17.6, as having been authored by Dr. Who.
>That is not to say that it wasn't, just that it cannot be verified, as
>having come from him.
>I'll stick with the previous versions, as I know for a fact, that he
>wrote them.
>HTH


Dr.Who has recently posted in alt.security.scramdisk, discussing DCPP.
His post's were signed and the sig is valid, so I think it is
verifiable that v17.6 is authored by Dr. Who. The FAQ itself is signed
and verifiable, so what's not to trust?














Next Prev. Article List         Favorite