Author Topic: New Dirty Tricks Campaign ? (Read 3992 times)

GhostShip · « **on:** May 31, 2006, 02:40:39 pm »

I was directed to this post folks that seems lacking any sort of detail about the claims made.

http://www.vladd44.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=7810

I noticed someone jumps on the bandwagon as usual, wonder who that could be.

Heres the deal folks, if you make allegations you should back them up , so lets see the proof of the allegation posted here and agreed by the site operator or an apology.

I have myself checked many files over the years and make it a point of honour never to abuse any of the programmers without being rock solid on facts, something other folks are willing to gloss over as they do not have the technical expertise to do such checking.

I hope to see this matter attended to.

~¤£ôvë®¤Gï®|¤~ · « **Reply #1 on:** May 31, 2006, 02:48:57 pm »

if this post deems a problem, then why not answer the question the user has, instead of flaming the user or posters of the user's thread?

GhostShip · « **Reply #2 on:** May 31, 2006, 02:53:12 pm »

For the simple reason I along with 6 others are banned from the "free speech" site there.

I hope that answers your query.

A site operator has a duty to not publish libels or slanders they cannot support, not agree with them over a personal vendetta.

I also saw no question to be answered, more an allegation.

KM · « **Reply #3 on:** May 31, 2006, 02:57:29 pm »

as you are aware, only pie members are allowed to post on vladds forum

however i would guess that is the extremely common and well known false alarm that a couple of firewall programs give when a primary user using port 25 for UDP (common, even you tell people to use port 25) loads the channel list or does a search and everyones firewalls suddenly report winmx sending email, of course i wouldn't expect vladd to know that though... the biggest clue of that is the fact the poster made a comment about it being encrypted - as you are probably not aware SMTP (the protocol for email) is a plain text protocol...

~¤£ôvë®¤Gï®|¤~ · « **Reply #4 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:03:35 pm »

then you're the only one that didn't see the question in the users post Ghost..

reguardless if you get along with anyone on that site, one would think someone from here could explain, instead of flame, especially a flame from someone of your background Ghost

as you can see KM saw the question, and answered..no matter how above the common user's head it was, it was still an answer

Km, would you care to explain in smaller terms, maybe for someone w/no pc background would understand?

GhostShip · « **Reply #5 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:09:02 pm »

You are misusing the term "flame".

Lets see the facts to back the allegation or a post on that thread stating that it cannot be replied to due to censorship of those it mentions.

I dont expect the site operator to act correctly, but anyone else can make his wrong right with a neutral post pointing out the allegations lack of proof or detail.

KM · « **Reply #6 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:20:54 pm »

when a primary user uses port 25 for UDP, whenever they search search results are sent to them, whenever they load the channel list every room sends its details to it

it's one thing for a firewall to see a TCP connection to port 25 and assume it as email (ie. block it before it got to the point of identifying the protocol - to stop it actually sending an email), however TCP connections like that are rare (very rare to connect to a primary using port 25) more common for a primary using UDP port 25 to load a channel list, in which case certain badly implemented firewalls do not bother with the distinction between TCP and UDP and just alert to email even though it isn't possible for email to be using UDP - thankfully most firewalls treat it correctly, however some do not.

For a user to be concerned when a firewall pops up "this program is sending an email" is normal (be surprised if anyone ignored that message) however vladds reply was pure shit throwing - i doubt he can honestly claim to have not known the correct reason, although he will probably say that he's never heard of winmx being reported to send email (search on vladds forum is conveniently broken, that is the only thread i could find about a firewall reporting winmx as sending email that he posted in)

~¤£ôvë®¤Gï®|¤~ · « **Reply #7 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:25:16 pm »

Quote from: GhostShip on May 31, 2006, 02:40:39 pm

I noticed someone jumps on the bandwagon as usual, wonder who that could be.

i believe THIS is a flame to the reply poster...not misused..just fact

Ghost, plz help me understand why you wouldn't reply to the poster of that site on here?? you find that post as an attack, i find it as informative.
why would you not dispute the 'attack' instead of demand proof of the findings? (as KM has now)

KM, if you were aware of the findings, is there a post explaining them? if it's a well known effect, then where is the informative post explaining what he saw, describing it in detail, to reassure the user, and other users, that not only is it known of, but it's well known also? if there is a post, plz point it out to me, as i'd like to read it also

KM · « **Reply #8 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:31:07 pm »

the user did not post any detail other than something encrypted, so that is merely a guess as to what he is reporting, an effect that has been reported several times with both winmx and third party servers, however the search on vladds forum seems broken so the best i could find on there was him posting in a thread with winmx reported to have sent email, showing he was aware that winmx has been reported by some firewalls to send email

with further details (ie. the firewall that alerted it) you could indeed replicate the report yourself (assuming it is that) by hosting with that firewall, then getting someone else to load the channel list on port 25

of course the firewall could have been reporting a TCP connection to a primary using TCP on port 25, in which case the chances of you just happening to connect to a primary using port 25 are rare (he seems to have implied it doing it several times, which would indicate this is not the case and it was likely UDP as explained above)

of course the most obvious thing is this - why the hell would it be sending an email? if there was some form of back door, it most certainly would not be sending an email which even common AV would report (many have automatic email scanning so will intercept the connection and report it)... lol

~¤£ôvë®¤Gï®|¤~ · « **Reply #9 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:33:47 pm »

ty KM

GhostShip · « **Reply #10 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:40:42 pm »

So lets see, someone inadvertantly makes an allegation, someone else who should know better agrees with the allegation lending it credence.

Have I missed anything out ?

You yourself have posted on the thread asking KM to explain himself knowing full well he is banned from that same site, with me so far ?

You have a choice now, be honest and post KMs reply on that site to clear up the matter or be seen as someone who is helping perpetuate a lie as the site operator did.

Your choice, honesty or muck throwing.

KM · « **Reply #11 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:54:28 pm »

Just figured no thread is complete without a few screen shots, so I figured why not some screen shots showing fxserver sending an email? oh, and also a nice pie one that i couldn't resist posting

btw, to replicate this, install zonealarm pro on a computer (i'd advise against one you actually plan to use...), run any chat server on it (obviously set to connect to the WPN), then get someone on primary (in this case another of my test systems) to use UDP port 25, and to load the channel list...

~¤£ôvë®¤Gï®|¤~ · « **Reply #12 on:** May 31, 2006, 03:58:30 pm »

http://www.vladd44.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=42539

feel better Ghost? or will you flame more now?

you could very easily have asked the moderator of the forum to post this link...or maybe a reply from you, as you've done before, would that have been too easy? or would doing that not suit your need to flame more?

KM · « **Reply #13 on:** May 31, 2006, 04:00:15 pm »

no comment on the pie screen shot?

Edit: (yes we mark our edits) i see you have edited your post on the vladd forum to query the screen shot of fxserver.. the same reason i used the pie hosts file on that system, it seems from your post that you are unable to see why i used only software that had nothing to do with me in demonstrating that this alert is not related to my software?

GhostShip · « **Reply #14 on:** May 31, 2006, 04:08:26 pm »

Call it flaming if you wish but making untrue comments is a lot more of an issue than the methods or words I use to call those making the comments to account.

You have posted the thread notice only I see so folks will have to do a lot of reading to get to KM,s reply, do you feel that is helpful to users ?
Also I am not in contact with any of the offending sites moderators and nor can I post there due to censorship so please do not suggest otherwise.

I suppose the matter is resolved as best as its going to be, thank you for at least making some effort to address the important concerns raised.

~¤£ôvë®¤Gï®|¤~ · « **Reply #15 on:** May 31, 2006, 04:23:18 pm »

oh...were you wanting flame? how very adult like of you...

why did you bother with the pie flame? considering the user of the post never mentioned pie or the dll? considering I've been trying to stop the flaming this morning, that was idiocy on your part..and for that I'm sorry i bothered

but..one question KM, why not use wcs for screen shots?? why fx? lol i could have sworn the issue here was the WCS program..not Fx..or was that more idiocy?

Quote from: GhostShip

Call it flaming if you wish but making untrue comments is a lot more of an issue than the methods or words I use to call those making the comments to account.

how were the comments untrue, when KM has already acknowledged them?

Quote from: GhostShip

You have posted the thread notice only I see so folks will have to do a lot of reading to get to KM,s reply, do you feel that is helpful to users ?

yes..i do feel that it was helpful, considering if they wanted an answer, they'll read...users aren't stupid Ghost, and for you to imply that they are, is insulting. if you didn't want them reading all your flaming, perhaps you should not have flamed period.

Quote from: GhostShip

Also I am not in contact with any of the offending sites moderators and nor can I post there due to censorship so please do not suggest otherwise.

I'll suggest what i feel is the truth, just as you do Ghost, if you don't approve, then I'm sorry you feel that way, what have you done in the past? oh yes, you were able to get in contact with the moderator of that site ..you even thanked him for allowing you to post..need the link? I'll have to find it..I'll get back with you on that if you need me to.

Quote from: GhostShip

I suppose the matter is resolved as best as its going to be, thank you for at least making some effort to address the important concerns raised.

yes, so everyone plz disregard all of Ghost's flaming, i hope KM's replies help with the question at hand.

KM · « **Reply #16 on:** May 31, 2006, 04:29:14 pm »

Quote from: KM on May 31, 2006, 04:00:15 pm

Edit: (yes we mark our edits) i see you have edited your post on the vladd forum to query the screen shot of fxserver.. the same reason i used the pie hosts file on that system, it seems from your post that you are unable to see why i used only software that had nothing to do with me in demonstrating that this alert is not related to my software?

perhaps you missed the edit? oh well, at least i marked it as an edit, something that is rarely done on the vladd forum when they edit posts

~¤£ôvë®¤Gï®|¤~ · « **Reply #17 on:** May 31, 2006, 04:30:45 pm »

no censorship? here? says who? where's my post KM? do you know Ghost?

~¤£ôvë®¤Gï®|¤~ · « **Reply #18 on:** May 31, 2006, 04:32:26 pm »

nvm...human error on my part... (oops)

GhostShip · « **Reply #19 on:** May 31, 2006, 04:52:26 pm »

Quote

no censorship? here? says who? where's my post KM? do you know Ghost?

Yes one of two times you have made the same allegation and been proved wrong on both ocassions, none of your posts are tampered or deleted here.

Lets move on to your allegations now as they seem to be parting with the posted facts here.

Quote

why did you bother with the pie flame? considering the user of the post never mentioned pie or the dll? considering I've been trying to stop the flaming this morning, that was idiocy on your part..and for that I'm sorry i bothered

Please show where in this thread any such information was posted by me ?

Quote

if you didn't want them reading all your flaming, perhaps you should not have flamed period.

Asking for a lie to be put right is flaming now ? Where do you come from that you are blind to the sense of asking such a thing.

Quote

oh yes, you were able to get in contact with the moderator of that site ..you even thanked him for allowing you to post..need the link? I'll have to find it..I'll get back with you on that if you need me to.

Yes indeed last time an allegation was made it was resolved in an amicable manner, this time its the site operator who has put his approval to the allegation and the post you refer to was in the pie section where no non team members cannot post and at a time when I was still able to post on the rest of the site.

I suggest you stop acting childishly and attempting to distort what has been said, as far as I am concerned the matter is at an end as you graciously posted some sort of "right of reply" in the form of the link to this thread.