More zero-day attacks plague Microsoft users

[imhotep]

If you can't follow posting/reply standard, and appear to not understand
how to reply, then you should put your reply settings back to default -
if you want to include the security group then do so, in the main list,
but don't set follow-ups to a single group and then leave out the
others.

You are not fooling anyone.

I am *not* trying to fool anyone. I have not idea what you are implying. In
either case why don't you read up on cross-postings news articles.

Again, for the very last time, let's start sticking to the topic "More
zero-day attacks plague Microsoft users"

Im

 

[imhotep]

I believe our attempts to assist Im in correct use of NNTP threading
so that the discussion does reach the "MULTIPLE security" NGs in
a meaningful, useful form will come to naught.

As I also believe that trying to advise you that sharing critical
information about a critical security hole with *ALL* users is important...

As I also believe that you have adding nothing meaningfull to help the
aforementioned users in protecting themselves...

Again, Roger, if you have anything to add to help people with this lastest
security hole (Active-X/Shell) I challenge you to add your comment. If
instead you are going to waste everyones time with worthless whining, then
whine on another thread...this lastest security hole is even more serious
than the previous secure hole that was discovered three weeks ago....

If you don't you are the one that *is* becoming the *troll* here, not I...

-- Imhotep

 

[Leythos]

It is called cross-posting. It is allowed via the protocols.

Except you are not cross-posting, you are setting a follow-up to a group
not part of the initial group or to a single group that is not part of
the cross-posted list where the message started.

Your method is bad, and your continuation of it is improper.

 

[Leythos]

As I also believe that trying to advise you that sharing critical
information about a critical security hole with *ALL* users is important...

Then why are you limiting the replies to ONE group when your stupid
"Follow-up" directing all following comments to that group ONLY.

 

[Leythos]

I am *not* trying to fool anyone. I have not idea what you are implying. In
either case why don't you read up on cross-postings news articles.

I was doing this before you had even read about the internet, since the
early 80's I've been posting to usenet.

Your method limits all following replies to a single Usenet group - this
means that instead of reaching multiple groups, that anyone that replies
to you, unless they manually include the source groups, will only reply
in the single group you set as a "Follow-Ups to".

Read this slowly:

This message is posted to the following groups, without a follow-up set:
microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security,
microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security, microsoft.public.security,
microsoft.public.security.homeusers,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin

So, when anyone replies, the reply will be sent to all of those groups,
seen by anyone in those groups.

When you post, you set the follow-up to
microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security

This means that anyone replying to your post will only have their post
sent to microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security and that limits the
scope of what people see to that single group, as their reply will not
be seen in any of the source groups.

Again, for the very last time, let's start sticking to the topic "More
zero-day attacks plague Microsoft users"

When you learn to properly reply I will address it.

 

[Roger Abell [MVP]]

It is called cross-posting. It is allowed via the protocols.

No, use of "follow-up" header is not x-posting and needs not be
conjoined with use of x-posting.

Having trouble accepting criticism Imhotep ? even when it is clearly
constructive, attempting to assist you in your objectives?

This really could have ended with the initial post were you not either
so stubborn or blind.

 

[imhotep]

Then why are you limiting the replies to ONE group when your stupid
"Follow-up" directing all following comments to that group ONLY.

Alright for the very last time. I will try to explain with very small words
so as not to confuse you....

Problem. You have a critical piece of information (say a critical security
hole) to disseminate on multiple newsgroups because the critical piece of
information (say a critical security hole) clearly deserves to be posted
across multiple newsgroups. After all, information sharing *is* what the
newsgroups are for (although some behave differently) and the information
is important enough.

So, how do you disseminate your critical piece of information? You pick one
newsgroup for you "Followup-To" header field and "cc" the other appropriate
newsgroups by placing them within the "Groups" header field. Now this
allows the replier two options:


OPTION ONE, I am replying but do not have anything serious to add (say you):

You would send your post to the newsgroup in the "Followup-To" (this is the
newsgroup I chose to be the parent and as such is probably the one I check
the most) and in the "Groups" field you would put the group you are using
(But you do not send your post to all of the newsgroups in the "Groups"
header as, well, you are not adding anything of importance). When the OP
sees your reply, remember he is using a different newsgroup than you are,
he can reply back to your question/comment but while using a different
newsgroup.


OPTION TWO, You are replying with some critical piece of information that is
important and should be shared (say....well someone else, as you don't seem
to be adding anything of substance to this thread. But perhaps someone
heard that you can midigate this hole by doing X,Y and Z).

You would reply to all of the newsgroups in the "Group" header field.


This is very helpful especially when you consider most newsgroups servers
only carry a subset of the total newsgroups available.

Honestly, it is *not* *rocket* *science*....

So, now that *we* have a full tummy of information, can we get back to the
serious issue of this highly critical security hole if not, bother someone
else as recess is done for the day.

Imhotep

 

[imhotep]

No, use of "follow-up" header is not x-posting and needs not be
conjoined with use of x-posting.

Having trouble accepting criticism Imhotep ? even when it is clearly
constructive, attempting to assist you in your objectives?

This really could have ended with the initial post were you not either
so stubborn or blind.

Alright for the very last time. I will try to explain with very small words
so as not to confuse you....

Problem. You have a critical piece of information (say a critical security
hole) to disseminate on multiple newsgroups because the critical piece of
information (say a critical security hole) clearly deserves to be posted
across multiple newsgroups. After all, information sharing *is* what the
newsgroups are for (although some behave differently) and the information
is important enough.

So, how do you disseminate your critical piece of information? You pick one
newsgroup for you "Followup-To" header field and "cc" the other appropriate
newsgroups by placing them within the "Groups" header field. Now this
allows the replier two options:


OPTION ONE, I am replying but do not have anything serious to add (say you):

You would send your post to the newsgroup in the "Followup-To" (this is the
newsgroup I chose to be the parent and as such is probably the one I check
the most) and in the "Groups" field you would put the group you are using
(But you do not send your post to all of the newsgroups in the "Groups"
header as, well, you are not adding anything of importance). When the OP
sees your reply, remember he is using a different newsgroup than you are,
he can reply back to your question/comment but while using a different
newsgroup.


OPTION TWO, You are replying with some critical piece of information that is
important and should be shared (say....well someone else, as you don't seem
to be adding anything of substance to this thread. But perhaps someone
heard that you can midigate this hole by doing X,Y and Z).

You would reply to all of the newsgroups in the "Group" header field.


This is very helpful especially when you consider most newsgroups servers
only carry a subset of the total newsgroups available.

Honestly, it is *not* *rocket* *science*....

So, now that *we* have a full tummy of information, can we get back to the
serious issue of this highly critical security hole if not, bother someone
else as recess is done for the day.

Imhotep

 

[imhotep]

Except you are not cross-posting, you are setting a follow-up to a group
not part of the initial group or to a single group that is not part of
the cross-posted list where the message started.

Your method is bad, and your continuation of it is improper.

Alright for the very last time. I will try to explain with very small words
so as not to confuse you....

Problem. You have a critical piece of information (say a critical security
hole) to disseminate on multiple newsgroups because the critical piece of
information (say a critical security hole) clearly deserves to be posted
across multiple newsgroups. After all, information sharing *is* what the
newsgroups are for (although some behave differently) and the information
is important enough.

So, how do you disseminate your critical piece of information? You pick one
newsgroup for you "Followup-To" header field and "cc" the other appropriate
newsgroups by placing them within the "Groups" header field. Now this
allows the replier two options:


OPTION ONE, I am replying but do not have anything serious to add (say you):

You would send your post to the newsgroup in the "Followup-To" (this is the
newsgroup I chose to be the parent and as such is probably the one I check
the most) and in the "Groups" field you would put the group you are using
(But you do not send your post to all of the newsgroups in the "Groups"
header as, well, you are not adding anything of importance). When the OP
sees your reply, remember he is using a different newsgroup than you are,
he can reply back to your question/comment but while using a different
newsgroup.


OPTION TWO, You are replying with some critical piece of information that is
important and should be shared (say....well someone else, as you don't seem
to be adding anything of substance to this thread. But perhaps someone
heard that you can midigate this hole by doing X,Y and Z).

You would reply to all of the newsgroups in the "Group" header field.


This is very helpful especially when you consider most newsgroups servers
only carry a subset of the total newsgroups available.

Honestly, it is *not* *rocket* *science*....

So, now that *we* have a full tummy of information, can we get back to the
serious issue of this highly critical security hole if not, bother someone
else as recess is done for the day.

Imhotep

 

[imhotep]

I was doing this before you had even read about the internet, since the
early 80's I've been posting to usenet.

Your method limits all following replies to a single Usenet group - this
means that instead of reaching multiple groups, that anyone that replies
to you, unless they manually include the source groups, will only reply
in the single group you set as a "Follow-Ups to".

Read this slowly:

This message is posted to the following groups, without a follow-up set:
microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security,
microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security, microsoft.public.security,
microsoft.public.security.homeusers,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin

So, when anyone replies, the reply will be sent to all of those groups,
seen by anyone in those groups.

When you post, you set the follow-up to
microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security

This means that anyone replying to your post will only have their post
sent to microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security and that limits the
scope of what people see to that single group, as their reply will not
be seen in any of the source groups.


When you learn to properly reply I will address it.

Alright for the very last time. I will try to explain with very small words
so as not to confuse you....

Problem. You have a critical piece of information (say a critical security
hole) to disseminate on multiple newsgroups because the critical piece of
information (say a critical security hole) clearly deserves to be posted
across multiple newsgroups. After all, information sharing *is* what the
newsgroups are for (although some behave differently) and the information
is important enough.

So, how do you disseminate your critical piece of information? You pick one
newsgroup for you "Followup-To" header field and "cc" the other appropriate
newsgroups by placing them within the "Groups" header field. Now this
allows the replier two options:


OPTION ONE, I am replying but do not have anything serious to add (say you):

You would send your post to the newsgroup in the "Followup-To" (this is the
newsgroup I chose to be the parent and as such is probably the one I check
the most) and in the "Groups" field you would put the group you are using
(But you do not send your post to all of the newsgroups in the "Groups"
header as, well, you are not adding anything of importance). When the OP
sees your reply, remember he is using a different newsgroup than you are,
he can reply back to your question/comment but while using a different
newsgroup.


OPTION TWO, You are replying with some critical piece of information that is
important and should be shared (say....well someone else, as you don't seem
to be adding anything of substance to this thread. But perhaps someone
heard that you can midigate this hole by doing X,Y and Z).

You would reply to all of the newsgroups in the "Group" header field.


This is very helpful especially when you consider most newsgroups servers
only carry a subset of the total newsgroups available.

Honestly, it is *not* *rocket* *science*....

So, now that *we* have a full tummy of information, can we get back to the
serious issue of this highly critical security hole if not, bother someone
else as recess is done for the day.

Imhotep

 

[Leythos]

So, now that *we* have a full tummy of information, can we get back to the
serious issue of this highly critical security hole if not, bother someone
else as recess is done for the day.

No, because you are not properly posting. You don't need to specify a
follow-up because when properly cross posted it works across all groups.
All you are doing is screwing with people that reply to you.

 

[Leythos]

Honestly, it is *not* *rocket* *science*....

Proper posting/reply methods seem to be rocket science for you, as every
post you make prevents readers of the groups you posted the first
message to from seeing replies, unless the person making the reply takes
the time to edit the groups back into the thread.

Understand, you are wrong, you are not getting your message out because
you fail to post properly.

If you cross post properly you don't need a follow-up setting.

 

[imhotep]

Proper posting/reply methods seem to be rocket science for you, as every
post you make prevents readers of the groups you posted the first
message to from seeing replies, unless the person making the reply takes
the time to edit the groups back into the thread.


Understand, you are wrong, you are not getting your message out because
you fail to post properly.

You are failing because you don't have a freak'n clue...let's be honest
here.

If you cross post properly you don't need a follow-up setting.

The only thing failing is my patience with you and your knowledge (or lack
thereof)...

Now do you have ANYTHING relevant to post??? ANYTHING??? Any information
about this security hole???

Grow up. Stop acting like a troll and post something related to the
thread...

Imhotep

 

[Roger Abell [MVP]]

Alright for the very last time. I will try to explain with very small
words
so as not to confuse you....

Previously I had believed that lost sheep could be recovered.

Your methodology is clearly intentional.

It allows you to entrap replies to be posted to but one newsgroup, and then
your replies to them, having cut all but what you believe worth tearing down
from your interlocutor's post is disseminated to all as your retort.

Again, you should NOT be replying to something posted respecting your
use of follow-ups, but instead replying to all initial xpost groups.

 

[imhotep]

Previously I had believed that lost sheep could be recovered.

Your methodology is clearly intentional.

It allows you to entrap replies to be posted to but one newsgroup, and
then your replies to them, having cut all but what you believe worth
tearing down from your interlocutor's post is disseminated to all as your
retort.

Roger I have no control on where *your* replies go. I only control mine.

Again, you should NOT be replying to something posted respecting your
use of follow-ups, but instead replying to all initial xpost groups.

Look, I am sorry if you feel there is some hidden agenda. There isn't any at
least on my side...

Now, can we start posting information that actually helps people or what???

There are several critical security holes that currently exist. Now, if
something does not get done soon we *all* will be receiving extra spam from
even bigger bot `nets in the next couple of days...so what do you say we
drop this crap and get back to what is the most important thing here. What
do you say?

Imhotep

 

[Roger Abell [MVP]]

Can you *not* read?

This thread is about the second highly critical security hole in
Microsoft's

One last time Im.

There is an entire thread on the subject.

You replied to a post by Karl, partially including what you desired of his
reply.
That post by Karl does not appear in the newsgroup where I and many others
read this thread.

I posted in reply to your reply to a non-existing (in this NG) post
(Karl's).

I pointed out to you that you are abusing the readship of the NGs to which
you initially xposted due to your use of follow-up (and then not keeping
with the narrowed newsgroup scope when in turn replying to replies)

I would willingly have left this entire subthread at that, with my one reply
to you indicating that your posting etiquette leaves something to be
desired.

You however seem to insist that this is a good form.

You even go so far as to claim that this subthread is irrelevant as it is
not keeping to your stated topic/subject.

Your pracitce with follow-up use made your prior thread of last week
riddled with partial subthreads, in a partially disjointed mess.

You seem not to care.

Therefore, I will remember the uselessness of attempting to meaningfully
communicate with you in a manner intended to improve everyone's experience.

I have thus one only thing further to say.

plonk

 

[imhotep]

Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:

< A Mindless Roger Rant >

Roger, as an MVP can't you do anything positive to help people protect
themselves from this the latelest Microsoft security hole? It seems all you
are good for is trolling about posting....

Is that the *best* an MVP can do?

I have thus one only thing further to say.

I have nothing further to say until you have something worth while to
read...

plonk

I counted 30+ posts from you and NOT ONE POST (0%) was realted to this
thread by a highly critical security hole...YOU ARE THE TROLL...

< PLONK >

bye roger...

Imhotep

 

[Leythos]

Roger I have no control on where *your* replies go. I only control mine.

Actually, you set the default reply group for when people reply to your
messages. Most people don't do that, they just reply to all groups that
messages are posted to - you violate the norm in FORCING the reply to go
to a different group unless the poster changes it back to all groups it
was posted too.

Your message, the reply that you actually typed was posted to:
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security,
microsoft.public.security, microsoft.public.security.homeusers,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin


but YOU set the follow-up so that anyone making a reply would only post
to "Followup-To: microsoft.public.internetexplorer.security"

This means that because of your failure to understand what you are
doing, because of your failure to want to do it normally, that you are
forcing replies to be in a single group instead of the groups that
thread was posted too.

Why do you want to hide the replies?

 

[Leythos]

I have nothing further to say until you have something worth while to
read...


I counted 30+ posts from you and NOT ONE POST (0%) was realted to this
thread by a highly critical security hole...YOU ARE THE TROLL...

< PLONK >

LOL, plonked by a Trolling little kid that abuses the reply system.

Grow up and learn how to properly reply instead of perverting the
message flow - you seem to be wanting to hijack message replies for some
reason.

 

[Stephen Howe]

Ah Imhotep, another incorrect-followup post by you.

You have TRANGRESSED basic newsgroup Netiquette and therefore thrown away
your right to a reply on your subject. When will you learn to post
correctly?

Netiquette COMES FIRST, before subject matter.

Stephen Howe