|
|
Posted by AlmostBob on 12/10/06 21:08
software, programmed to respond positive to all searches for any file or
hash code,
to tie up the network searching for files that arent there
to send 2k of file that doesnt match the hash code so download fails and
cannot be resumed, from these sources its easy to get started and the dl
stops almost immediately
to harvest IPs for later prosecution
--
If at first you dont succeed
try try try again
If at first you do succeed
try not to look surprised
_
"DB_Story" <DB_Story@att.net> wrote in message
news:goadnXT-dZfIJubYnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Don M." <newsreader@nospam4fineartsnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:9fidneQA19Kx6ebYnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> > "Terry" <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:1165672434.822283.230880@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > > I keep a lookout for pre 1990 adult films. It is rare that you find
> > > more than one version of the same title. Almost every time you do
find
> > > a source, you will be 100 in the Q.
> > >
> > > These guys just popped up.
> > >
> > > http://i11.tinypic.com/4fuxct3.jpg
> > >
> > > Anyone know if I am right to suspect this?
> > >
> > ===========
> >
> > Yes, Kilo. Transfer status in Whois being different from status on
> transfer pane, at
> > least in regards to total slots open, should raise a flag. I'd bet all
> those users
> > "share" from a similar pathname and all have 3000 files.
> >
> >
> > Don
>
> In addition, all of them having *exactly* the same filename, although with
> different lengths, defies coincidence.
>
> But why would someone be spoofing such an otherwise obscure item? That
> seems more than a little strange.
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|