Thane was thinking very hard :
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 00:07:10 -0400, Virus Guy wrote:
>
>>  
>>> Yeah, but I didn't want to waste too many words on VG.
>> 
>> And you also didn't want to answer my other questions or comments about
>> what the original post was about - did you?
>> 
>> Or is that stuff over your heads?
>> 
>> You too - Lipman.
>
> As others have said, you don't understand the answers when you're given 
> them. It also seems you're asking questions just to start an argument. So 
> why waste time and words with you, Filtered Guy?

He once posted something about e-mail spam he received with headers 
that seemed to come from IIRC zscaler. I told him about Hurricane 
Electric at that time. He ignored my contribution as usual. Had he not 
been so dismissive then, this wouldn't be such a surprise to him now.

He (and others) were too busy dissing me and doing MX lookups while 
ignoring the *only* data in the header that can be trusted as not 
supplied by the spammer. That being the most recent "Received: " 
header's dotted quad octet. This data *has* to be genuine because it is 
the machine at that address which actually connected to his server.

As I recall, I said "By the numbers, I get..." for a clue as to why my 
results differed from all of their fruitless MX lookup results. It 
doesn't look like *we* are the ones out of our depth here.


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2