New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!

"kangaroo16" <kangaroo16.RemoveThis@invalid.com> wrote in message >>Going to New
Zealand?
>>
>>Check our new travel website about beautiful New Zealand and
>>Australia:
>>
>>http://www.triptouch.com/new-zealand/ni/auckland
>>
>>Please give us feedback !
>
> Sure, am pleased to offer some immediate feedback. Firstly, you
> don't offer much information in your in your initial post to this
> group.........................<shortened>

Kangaroo16, may I suggest that you set up a Gmail account. Something like
kangaroo16.RemoveThis@gmail.com. Then you'll have a legit email address and you can
safely sign up to any web site and hand your gmail address out all over the
interent and not worry about spam. Google are experts in spam filtering.

Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
site is worthless.

I suggest you get yourself a free gMail address and start signing up for a
few of these web sites. You've nothing to loose, they don't ask for your
house address or anything else personal. The internet has changed, spam
isn't the problem it once was - thanks to our friends at Google.

Regards

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

Incidently, ignore any of the stupid comments that certain people post
around here. Keep posting! You're my favourite poster in this newsgroup.

Keith
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:21:02 +1030, "Keith Manning"
<Keith.Manning.TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> wrote in <fkhjhe$8o4$1@aioe.org>
:

>Incidently, ignore any of the stupid comments that certain people post
>around here. Keep posting! You're my favourite poster in this newsgroup.
>
>Keith
>
Thank you for the compliment, but you will probably be criticised
by others for posting it.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Sydney, 3:22 PM Saturday, 22 Dec.
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

<texan....usenet DeleteThis @texas...removethisbit.usacom..> wrote in message
news:f49pm3tr46gf3n6rcmgvag5g82oidkossd@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> Look at any Usenet ng, including this one, and see where the majority
> of the spam is originating - Google.
>

The spammers may appear as having Gmail accounts but they're not necessarily
originating from Gmail.

Cheers,
George W Russell
Bangalore
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

kangaroo16 <kangaroo16 RemoveThis @invalid.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> <Keith.Manning RemoveThis @bigpond.net.au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
[...]
> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
> >site is worthless.
>
> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?

So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid about a site which looks
perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
The mind boggles.

Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.

So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.

Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
you can upload files without authentication?

> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> been fairly quickly cracked.

I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!

Boggle, boggle, ...

[...]
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this.TakeThisOut@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :

>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.TakeThisOut@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>> <Keith.Manning.TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>[...]
>> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
>> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
>> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
>> >site is worthless.
>>
>> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>
> So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid

How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
"totally paranoid"?

>about a site which looks
>perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?

It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
number and are traceable if necessary. How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?

Historically, are you aware that the US Amateur Radio service was
highly restricted during both WW1 & WW2. If you don't, check the
history of amateur radio at:

http://www.ac6v.com/history.htm

Now, Frank, do you follow the logic of this action in wartime?
Do you think that the U.S. Gov't was "Paranoid" to institute
these regulations?

Why do Governments allow the Internet if messages are not
traceable?

>The mind boggles.

Perhaps yours does.
>
> Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.

Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.

Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
name actually "Frank Slootweg"? I note that you don't bother to
provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>you can upload files without authentication?

How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
>> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>> been fairly quickly cracked.
>
> I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!

Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent"

>
> Boggle, boggle, ...

If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.

Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
Internet banking, for example?

Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Sydney, 11:14 Sunday 23 Dec.
[GMT +11 hours]
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.DeleteThis@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this.DeleteThis@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> >kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.DeleteThis@invalid.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> >> <Keith.Manning.DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
> >[...]
> >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
> >>
> >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
> >
> > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> "totally paranoid"?

I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
area.

> >about a site which looks
> >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.

It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.

> As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> number and are traceable if necessary.

Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
traceable (to a responsible person).

> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?

Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.

[irrelevant babble deleted]

> >The mind boggles.
>
> Perhaps yours does.
> >
> > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> Yes, I've already pointed this out.

*And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.

> > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
> they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
> name actually "Frank Slootweg"?

> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?

QED.

> I note that you don't bother to
> provide an actual email address, incidentally.

We note that you continue to abuse the invalid.com domain, which is an
*existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.

> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?

QED.

> > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?

<http://dictionary.reference.com>

Knock yourself out!

> >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> >> been fairly quickly cracked.
> >
> > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent"

Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?

> > Boggle, boggle, ...
>
> If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.
>
> Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
> Internet banking, for example?

No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).

And your *point* is?
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

On Dec 23, 6:02 am, Frank Slootweg <t... RemoveThis @ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> kangaroo16 <kangaro... RemoveThis @invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> > <t... RemoveThis @ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> > <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43...@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> > >kangaroo16 <kangaro... RemoveThis @invalid.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> > >> <Keith.Mann... RemoveThis @bigpond.net.au> wrote in  <fkhjc3$86...@aioe.org>
> > >[...]
> > >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> > >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> > >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> > >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>
> > >> If their  internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> > >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> > >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?  
>
> > >  So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> > How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> > "totally paranoid"?  
>
>   I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
> area.
>
> > >about a site which looks
> > >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> > It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>
>   It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
>
> > As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> > number and are traceable if necessary.
>
>   Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
> is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
> traceable (to a responsible person).
>
> >                                      How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
>   Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
> because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
>
> [irrelevant babble deleted]
>
> > >The mind boggles.
>
> > Perhaps yours does.
>
> > >  Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> > >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> > Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
>   *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
>
> > >  So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> > >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> > >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> > Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway.   Firstly, how would
> > they know that the name and address is correct anyway.  Is your
> > name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
> >                                      How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
>   QED.
>
> >                               I note that you don't bother to
> > provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
>   We note that you continue to abuse the invalid.com domain, which is an
> *existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
> to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
>
> >                                      How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
>   QED.
>
> > >  Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> > >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> > How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
>   <http://dictionary.reference.com>
>
>   Knock yourself out!
>
> > >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> > >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> > >> been fairly quickly cracked.  
>
> > >  I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> > Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent"
>
>   Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
> Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
>
> > >  Boggle, boggle, ...  
>
> > If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.
>
> > Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> > your computer as absolutely secure?  Would you use it for
> > Internet banking, for example?  
>
>   No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
>
>   And your *point* is?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The original poster asked for feedback on his new travel website. So
why this interminable gobbledygook on almost anything else?

I went to the site, and registering is NOT REQUIRED to see what is
there, so what is the complaint?

What I want to know is: Is this a travel site? or is it an attempt to
create yet another Web 2.0 social networking mess? A travel site
imparts information, and maybe offers advertisements about items
usefully related to the topic. It does not need to introduce the
notion of "friends", or of a "my travel". Surely you don't want to
become the next My Space or Facebook. (In my opinion both blights on
the universe.)
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

"ustoparadise" <Mike.Greenawalt.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e7ce3319-f910-4bf7-8b91-d24590604c40@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 6:02 am, Frank Slootweg <t....TakeThisOut@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> kangaroo16 <kangaro....TakeThisOut@invalid.com> wrote:
> > On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> > <t....TakeThisOut@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> > <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43...@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> > >kangaroo16 <kangaro....TakeThisOut@invalid.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> > >> <Keith.Mann....TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> wrote in <fkhjc3$86...@aioe.org>
> > >[...]
> > >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> > >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> > >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> > >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>
> > >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> > >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> > >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>
> > > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> > How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> > "totally paranoid"?
>
> I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
> area.
>
> > >about a site which looks
> > >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> > It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>
> It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
>
> > As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> > number and are traceable if necessary.
>
> Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
> is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
> traceable (to a responsible person).
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
> because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
>
> [irrelevant babble deleted]
>
> > >The mind boggles.
>
> > Perhaps yours does.
>
> > > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> > >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> > Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
>
> > > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> > >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> > >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> > Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
> > they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
> > name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > I note that you don't bother to
> > provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> We note that you continue to abuse the invalid.com domain, which is an
> *existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
> to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> > >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> > How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com>
>
> Knock yourself out!
>
> > >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> > >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> > >> been fairly quickly cracked.
>
> > > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> > Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent"
>
> Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
> Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
>
> > > Boggle, boggle, ...
>
> > If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.
>
> > Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> > your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
> > Internet banking, for example?
>
> No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
>
> And your *point* is?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The original poster asked for feedback on his new travel website. So
why this interminable gobbledygook on almost anything else?

I went to the site, and registering is NOT REQUIRED to see what is
there, so what is the complaint?

What I want to know is: Is this a travel site? or is it an attempt to
create yet another Web 2.0 social networking mess? A travel site
imparts information, and maybe offers advertisements about items
usefully related to the topic. It does not need to introduce the
notion of "friends", or of a "my travel". Surely you don't want to
become the next My Space or Facebook. (In my opinion both blights on
the universe.)

>>>>>>Keiths rave begins,<<<<<<<<<

They should have called the site something like MyTravel or TravelFace. It's
basically a travel portal with links to other sites. The hope is someone
will book a flight or book some accom. and the site owners will recieve a
commission.

By users registering, they offer you a place to put your pics and travel
stories, but your pics and stories actually help to build content for the
site. This content helps attract users who could book a trip or click on
the Google advert at the bottom of the page - more commissions for the site
owners.

When the site has millions of members/users the owners will then sell it to
Google or MySpace or someone like that for a few million bucks

It all sounds like a good businness plan. The only problem is there are
thousands of sites just like this one that appear on the internet everyday.

K
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

On 23 Dec 2007 11:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this.DeleteThis@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<476e4037$0$3255$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :

>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.DeleteThis@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> <this.DeleteThis@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>> <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>
>> >kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.DeleteThis@invalid.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>> >> <Keith.Manning.DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>> >[...]
>> >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
>> >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
>> >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
>> >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>> >>
>> >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>> >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>> >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>> >
>> > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>>
>> How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
>> "totally paranoid"?
>
> I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
>area.
>
In other words, you cannot define _your_ definition, as
requested? Not that this surprises me, considering that you
would be hard pressed to come up with a known definition of the
"word" _ahum_.

You wouldn't mean _ahem_ by any chance? Can you find any
English definition of the word? Or do you intend _ahum_ as
acronym? If so, it should be _AHUM_.

>> >about a site which looks
>> >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>>
>> It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>
> It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.

Logically, you cannot determine this. I doubt that you can do it
statistically either. All I would have to do is find one other
human who doesn't consider the site as "perfectly fine".

Do you consider your reply to my post as "perfectly fine"? Your
misspelling of "ahem" proves that it isn't.

It would be interesting to readers just what you would
define as "perfectly fine". Yourself, perhaps? The human race?
Our world in general? The known universe?

In passing, would you consider the statement that
"All crows are black" as being "true"?

It isn't, and all that is needed to refute it is the existence of
a single white crow. To save you worrying about it, albino crows
do exist.

>> As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
>> number and are traceable if necessary.
>
> Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
>is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
>traceable (to a responsible person).

Your reply to this post will do as an example. Are you going to
try to convince us that the following message number is not
traceable? I hope that you wouldn't want to bet any reader much
money on that statement.
476e4037$0$3255$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl

I'm not claiming that I could trace it down to you, but
Interpol certainly could.


>> How much do you claim to
>> know about computer and Internet security?
>
> Compared to you?

This is answering a question with another question, but the
answer is that neither of us is in a position to assess the
knowledge and expertise of the other.

Can you even establish that I am a fellow human being?
Computer programs have passed the "Turing Test" before,
after all.

>Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
>because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.

You couldn't say with any reasonable precision if it
had greater capacity.

>
>[irrelevant babble deleted]

Whether or not it is "irrelevant" babble is a value
judgment on your part, not a verifiable fact.

Actually, am more interested as to why you feel the need to
delete portions of any post you reply to.
>
>> >The mind boggles.
>>
>> Perhaps yours does.
>> >
>> > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>> >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>>
>> Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.

Where do you see the "opposition"?
>
>> > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>> >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>> >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>>
>> Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
>> they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
>> name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
>
>> How much do you claim to
>> know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
>> I note that you don't bother to
>> provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> We note that you continue to abuse the invalid.com domain, which is an
>*existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
>to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.

Sorry about that, just checked. Changing.
>
>> How much do you claim to
>> know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.

Not demonstrated to me.
>
>> > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>> >you can upload files without authentication?
>>
>> How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
> <http://dictionary.reference.com>

Nope. Requires a log in. In any case, didn't ask for their
definition, I asked for your definition.

> Knock yourself out!

?????
>
>> >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>> >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>> >> been fairly quickly cracked.
>> >
>> > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>>
>> Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent"
>
> Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
>Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?

Quote where I "said" or "wrote" any such thing. Do always get
upset when someone disagrees with you?
>
>> > Boggle, boggle, ...
>>
>> If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.
>>
>> Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
>> your computer as absolutely secure?
>
> No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).

I assume you are trying to say here that you don't consider your
computer as absolutely secure, but that you do use Internet
banking with HTTPS and a crypto device.

If I'm correct here, then I would still point out that if you
don't consider your computer is "absolutely secure", why
do you consider Internet banking as "secure"?

Of course, I don't know the nature of your "crypto device". A
"crypto device" can be a password, fingerprint reader, etc.

If so, do you consider these as sufficient security? I wouldn't,
and, like others, don't consider the advantages of Internet
banking to be worth the risk.

Nor, for that matter, do I really understand the motivations
of my bank in urging customers to use Internet banking.
Obviously, it is cheaper for them, but it also makes it very easy
for customers to switch to any other bank on the net.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16.DeleteThis@example.invalid






> And your *point* is?
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

"Kangaroo16" <Kangaroo16.TakeThisOut@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:lv1um3h3esc8b8f5ccop0c2v2r3gq2un6s@4ax.com...
> On 23 Dec 2007 11:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this.TakeThisOut@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <476e4037$0$3255$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
>>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.TakeThisOut@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>>> <this.TakeThisOut@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>>> <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>>
>>> >kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.TakeThisOut@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>>> >> <Keith.Manning.TakeThisOut@bigpond.net.au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>>> >[...]
>>> >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
>>> >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
>>> >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
>>> >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>>> >>
>>> >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>>> >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>>> >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>>> >
>>> > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>>>
>>> How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
>>> "totally paranoid"?
>>
>> I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
>>area.
>>
> In other words, you cannot define _your_ definition, as
> requested? Not that this surprises me, considering that you
> would be hard pressed to come up with a known definition of the
> "word" _ahum_.
>
> You wouldn't mean _ahem_ by any chance? Can you find any
> English definition of the word? Or do you intend _ahum_ as
> acronym? If so, it should be _AHUM_.
>
>>> >about a site which looks
>>> >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>>>
>>> It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>>
>> It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
>
> Logically, you cannot determine this. I doubt that you can do it
> statistically either. All I would have to do is find one other
> human who doesn't consider the site as "perfectly fine".
>
> Do you consider your reply to my post as "perfectly fine"? Your
> misspelling of "ahem" proves that it isn't.
>
> It would be interesting to readers just what you would
> define as "perfectly fine". Yourself, perhaps? The human race?
> Our world in general? The known universe?
>
> In passing, would you consider the statement that
> "All crows are black" as being "true"?
>
> It isn't, and all that is needed to refute it is the existence of
> a single white crow. To save you worrying about it, albino crows
> do exist.
>
>>> As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
>>> number and are traceable if necessary.
>>
>> Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
>>is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
>>traceable (to a responsible person).
>
> Your reply to this post will do as an example. Are you going to
> try to convince us that the following message number is not
> traceable? I hope that you wouldn't want to bet any reader much
> money on that statement.
> 476e4037$0$3255$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl
>
> I'm not claiming that I could trace it down to you, but
> Interpol certainly could.
>
>
>>> How much do you claim to
>>> know about computer and Internet security?
>>
>> Compared to you?
>
> This is answering a question with another question, but the
> answer is that neither of us is in a position to assess the
> knowledge and expertise of the other.
>
> Can you even establish that I am a fellow human being?
> Computer programs have passed the "Turing Test" before,
> after all.
>
>>Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
>>because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
>
> You couldn't say with any reasonable precision if it
> had greater capacity.
>
>>
>>[irrelevant babble deleted]
>
> Whether or not it is "irrelevant" babble is a value
> judgment on your part, not a verifiable fact.
>
> Actually, am more interested as to why you feel the need to
> delete portions of any post you reply to.
>>
>>> >The mind boggles.
>>>
>>> Perhaps yours does.
>>> >
>>> > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>>> >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>>>
>>> Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>>
>> *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
>
> Where do you see the "opposition"?
>>
>>> > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>>> >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>>> >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>>>
>>> Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
>>> they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
>>> name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
>>
>>> How much do you claim to
>>> know about computer and Internet security?
>>
>> QED.
>>
>>> I note that you don't bother to
>>> provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>>
>> We note that you continue to abuse the invalid.com domain, which is an
>>*existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
>>to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
>
> Sorry about that, just checked. Changing.
>>
>>> How much do you claim to
>>> know about computer and Internet security?
>>
>> QED.
>
> Not demonstrated to me.
>>
>>> > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>>> >you can upload files without authentication?
>>>
>>> How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>>
>> <http://dictionary.reference.com>
>
> Nope. Requires a log in. In any case, didn't ask for their
> definition, I asked for your definition.
>
>> Knock yourself out!
>
> ?????
>>
>>> >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>>> >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>>> >> been fairly quickly cracked.
>>> >
>>> > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>>>
>>> Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent"
>>
>> Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
>>Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
>
> Quote where I "said" or "wrote" any such thing. Do always get
> upset when someone disagrees with you?
>>
>>> > Boggle, boggle, ...
>>>
>>> If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
>>> your computer as absolutely secure?
>>
>> No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
>
> I assume you are trying to say here that you don't consider your
> computer as absolutely secure, but that you do use Internet
> banking with HTTPS and a crypto device.
>
> If I'm correct here, then I would still point out that if you
> don't consider your computer is "absolutely secure", why
> do you consider Internet banking as "secure"?
>
> Of course, I don't know the nature of your "crypto device". A
> "crypto device" can be a password, fingerprint reader, etc.
>
> If so, do you consider these as sufficient security? I wouldn't,
> and, like others, don't consider the advantages of Internet
> banking to be worth the risk.
>
> Nor, for that matter, do I really understand the motivations
> of my bank in urging customers to use Internet banking.
> Obviously, it is cheaper for them, but it also makes it very easy
> for customers to switch to any other bank on the net.
>
> Cheers,
> Kangaroo16.TakeThisOut@example.invalid
>
What a boring, boring, self-centred person you are.
 >> Stay informed about: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed! 

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:19:54 GMT, "Julie" <joliffe.DeleteThis@gmail.com>
wrote in <uzFbj.27234$CN4.23665@news-server.bigpond.net.au> :

>
>"Kangaroo16" <Kangaroo16.DeleteThis@example.invalid> wrote in message
>news:lv1um3h3esc8b8f5ccop0c2v2r3gq2un6s@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Dec 2007 11:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> <this.DeleteThis@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>> <476e4037$0$3255$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>
>>>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.DeleteThis@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>>>> <this.DeleteThis@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>>>> <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>>>
>>>> >kangaroo16 <kangaroo16.DeleteThis@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>>>> >> <Keith.Manning.DeleteThis@bigpond.net.au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>>>> >[...]
>>>> >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
>>>> >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
>>>> >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
>>>> >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>>>> >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>>>> >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>>>> >
>>>> > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>>>>
>>>> How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
>>>> "totally paranoid"?
>>>
>>> I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
>>>area.
>>>
>> In other words, you cannot define _your_ definition, as
>> requested? Not that this surprises me, considering that you
>> would be hard pressed to come up with a known definition of the
>> "word" _ahum_.
>>
>> You wouldn't mean _ahem_ by any chance? Can you find any
>> English definition of the word? Or do you intend _ahum_ as
>> acronym? If so, it should be _AHUM_.
>>
>>>> >about a site which looks
>>>> >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>>>>
>>>> It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>>>
>>> It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
>>
>> Logically, you cannot determine this. I doubt that you can do it
>> statistically either. All I would have to do is find one other
>> human who doesn't consider the site as "perfectly fine".
>>
>> Do you consider your reply to my post as "perfectly fine"? Your
>> misspelling of "ahem" proves that it isn't.
>>
>> It would be interesting to readers just what you would
>> define as "perfectly fine". Yourself, perhaps? The human race?
>> Our world in general? The known universe?
>>
>> In passing, would you consider the statement that
>> "All crows are black" as being "true"?
>>
>> It isn't, and all that is needed to refute it is the existence of
>> a single white crow. To save you worrying about it, albino crows
>> do exist.
>>
>>>> As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
>>>> number and are traceable if necessary.
>>>
>>> Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
>>>is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
>>>traceable (to a responsible person).
>>
>> Your reply to this post will do as an example. Are you going to
>> try to convince us that the following message number is not
>> traceable? I hope that you wouldn't want to bet any reader much
>> money on that statement.
>> 476e4037$0$3255$dbd4f001@news.wanadoo.nl
>>
>> I'm not claiming that I could trace it down to you, but
>> Interpol certainly could.
>>
>>
>>>> How much do you claim to
>>>> know about computer and Internet security?
>>>
>>> Compared to you?
>>
>> This is answering a question with another question, but the
>> answer is that neither of us is in a position to assess the
>> knowledge and expertise of the other.
>>
>> Can you even establish that I am a fellow human being?
>> Computer programs have passed the "Turing Test" before,
>> after all.
>>
>>>Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
>>>because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
>>
>> You couldn't say with any reasonable precision if it
>> had greater capacity.
>>
>>>
>>>[irrelevant babble deleted]
>>
>> Whether or not it is "irrelevant" babble is a value
>> judgment on your part, not a verifiable fact.
>>
>> Actually, am more interested as to why you feel the need to
>> delete portions of any post you reply to.
>>>
>>>> >The mind boggles.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps yours does.
>>>> >
>>>> > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>>>> >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>>>
>>> *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
>>
>> Where do you see the "opposition"?
>>>
>>>> > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>>>> >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>>>> >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>>>>