From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 08 15:50:40 2026 Return-path: To: billy at ..on.com Subject: Re: Re: Usenet News escapes notice again, fortunately References: <+5dUqKEtlTMqFAWo@perry.uk> <5a7b3lp4ac5rg1ntvuiiknc5fl9iq86ufi@4ax.com> <13i2ZNEWvtNqFA+d@perry.uk> <3hd04lp6odq0kshvv2hldf3hd662d34ljp@4ax.com> <112l1fp$3f97a$1@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: <112l1fp$3f97a$1@dont-email.me> Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [17834990798985] reject abuse Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:50:40 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to another contributor. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed Jul 08 09:24:39 2026 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=eternal-september.org > Authentication-Results: name/271635FBFE; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=anon.com > To: uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > From: "billy bookcase" > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Usenet News escapes notice again, fortunately > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 09:22:32 +0100 > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider > Message-ID: <112l1fp$3f97a$1@dont-email.me> > References: <+5dUqKEtlTMqFAWo@perry.uk> <5a7b3lp4ac5rg1ntvuiiknc5fl9iq86ufi@4ax.com> <13i2ZNEWvtNqFA+d@perry.uk> <3hd04lp6odq0kshvv2hldf3hd662d34ljp@4ax.com> > Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 08:24:26 +0000 (UTC) > Cancel-Lock: sha1:5H/J5lLR7W+wkYXlnm0UvvKSyro= sha256:BAWPhppHlWAWPsOkYYbQzTMAhE7l10JaUpLaRfFOlDM= sha1:BEn8WIFL0GMrwNyeoRtFtQNnhfk= sha256:6HuscmaaBKMcvp7JPYSmKgrAqOJCJl3HThoACSsDP/Y= > X-Priority: 3 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 > X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX19EzdP9XXLU1Rl0UIxSscVpP5a7tNGy5eU+aA7QQIwA4A== > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on smtp > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 15 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.5 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: Received: Received: Cancel-Lock: > > > "Roland Perry" wrote in message > news:E7x6qlBiEgTqFA4u@perry.uk... > > In message , at 21:56:42 on Sun, 5 > > Jul 2026, Mark Goodge remarked: > >>On Wed, 1 Jul 2026 12:01:16 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: > >> > >>>In message , at 22:35:14 on > >>>Tue, 30 Jun 2026, Mark Goodge > >>>remarked: > >> > >>>>There are two places that the data can be. One is in the mind of a person > >>>>who looks at the customer's ID. The other is in the "mind" of an electronic > >>>>system which "looks at" the customer's ID. > >>>> > >>>>The former is not amenable to remote attack. The latter is. > >>> > >>>But your risk analysis of that attack is decades out of date. > >> > >>I haven't made any risk analysis of it. I've merely stated that the risk > >>exists. A fact which is completely irrefutable. You can argue that the risk > >>is lower than it used to be, and that's a fair comment - particlarly if > >>backed up by statistics. But you can't argue that there is zero risk. > > > > If you *were8 to do a risk analysis (something which might be helpful before > > wading in the discussion) you'd probably find it's so low as to be nothing to > > worry about. > > If you knew more about Mr Goodge, and his specific personality type, > ( something which might be helpful before making your point ) > you'd probably be better qualified to judge as to whether > of not he would be likely to worry about any specific threat; > no matter how low it was. Probably. > > > > bb > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmpOY8AACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x6aRQf/brdAeWcxX266FSwNpFuWkPHcdlXKjQ1McpftQ+N/y2u2uz6RE8tigZX3 v5hhPADdRFd8pyWjvI+PnDKJMI3crEIbzf7lN3ChE+xyb9I+OSLnTsD8L//XlPjB BJ5Q82IX7aMoUKKVHM4oR9iSY4wKaPPNrc1rSNJrFmJsUw8EXsDmh9u1vrnkBm3N dtW325HH2sZe1Vau7jAonyU6sMf5joLk2K63nIIB/4hAeob50bhci0zMEK6wwm6i EeCilT4ewRNIkMlMbS8+O08DNME0tqwWNZtX8POHpZvKNT3S0OLI1lJ16C8K+6XP MJmPwysFufJKebLxwN2p/jDCpTfN7w== =XBCn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----