Re: BlueSecurity/Blue Frog

"Vanguard" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]...
> "Geoffrey Hyde" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Vanguard" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Not when you are vicious and attacking someone else and 
>>> causing collateral damage in the process.  BS works through a 
>>> coordinated DOS attack from its zombied users.  They aren't 
>>> just hurting the spammer.
>>
>> I fail to see where you have offered conclusive proof that BS 
>> computers are "zombied" users.  From what I can see, the 
>> program is of a type which the user can uninstall if they 
>> choose to do so.  If you have conclusive evidence to the 
>> contrary, please post it here.
>
> Have you read BS' own FAQ on how their service works?  The user 
> installs a client program.  The user reports a spam to BS who 
> will supposedly interrogate your mail by their team of 
> specialists.  They decide who to attack, not the user.  They 
> upload a script to the BS client on your host.  BS decides what 
> the script will do, not the user.  BS decides when to attack 
> and who to attack, and the user may not even be involved. That 
> is how zombies function.  A master zombie tells slave zombies 
> what
...

Wooffff!  I seldom read posts over a few k in size, but something 
made me read yours (da devil made me do it!).  I'm almost ashamed 
yet proud to say that I've read both of your missives, I mean, 
longish, nahh, long posts!
   HOW in HELL do you DO that, and still manage to be accurate? 
I learned a hell of a lot from you, more than I knew to ask in 
fact, but still found it worth reading.
   Anyway, although this is basically a "me too" post (which is 
ver-boten, I know), and I really just wanted to say that you've 
written a most positive and apparently well thought out response, 
complete with well derived opinions and background references.
   So now, besides my pre-existing attitude that NO ONE puts 
software on MY system/s for THEM to use, regardless of benefits 
to myself, is perfectly NOT acceptable to me in any way.  Then 
add to that  the BS collateral damages, for wont of an 
encompassing term, and your missives, I feel I can now much more 
fully and clearly  explain myself to others I am discussing this 
subject with (not on a newsgroup - separate issue).  You've put 
what I "felt" into verbiage I can manage to keep track of.

If you're not a tech-writer, you should be!  Well, assuming you 
could assemble a bulleted list now and again  <[;-).

Regards,

Pop