On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:15:10 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ 7 on Sunday 08 February 2009 11:46 : \____
>
>>
>>
>> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Erik Funkenbusch
>> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:45:12 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> OpenDNS rolls out Conficker tracking, blocking
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| With an estimated 10 million PCs infected by the stealthy worm known as
>>>>| Conficker, it's a good bet that plenty of administrators are blissfully
>>>>| unaware that their networks are playing host to the pest. Now, a free
>>>>| service called OpenDNS is offering a new feature designed to alert
>>>>| administrators to the damage and help them contain it.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/07/opendns_conficker_protection/
>>>
>>> As is typical with Roy's lack of reading what he spams, he totally gets
>>> this one wrong.
>>
>> Only if you happen to be doing drugs.
>>
>>
>>> His title "Openness Save DNS from Microsoft Windows Botnets" means
>>> something entirely different from what the article actually says.
>>>
>>> The correct title would be "OpenDNS saves Windows from Botnets with DNS".
>>> Nothing is "saving DNS" here, OpenDNS is using it's DNS servers to block
>>> conficker DNS queries.
>>
>>
>> The two statements both convey the same information.
>>
>>
>>> But, since Roy can't be bothered to actually read and understand his spam,
>>> he gets it wrong.
>>
>>
>> As you are wrong, you are unable to see who saved who and from who's
>> perspective.
>
> The OP is correct. Look back at news from the past fortnight. Our DNS server
> too was a victim of Microsoft's attack on DNS (its negligence).
No, it's not. The article has nothing to do with what you claim it does.
You didn't *READ* it, and now you're going to sit there and beligerantly
say "is too!", again without having read it.
Just read the fucking article, Roy. Then admit you were wrong.
|
|
