98 Guy "98"@guy . com wrote:
On Wednesday, December 3, 2003 12:52:19 AM UTC+8, Roland wrote:

(some question)

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014, " spammed this reply:

You can recover deleted files or formatted files with (bull****)
data recovery software, see this tutorial

To which Computer Dork Kev wrote:

I wonder how Google has made it so easy to miss the fact that a
post is 11 years old.

I'm going to give you a klue Kev.

First, look at this:

NNTP-Posting-Host: 103.224.164.18 (SINGAPORE)

Do you really think that someone from Singapore, going by the handle
"rachelholas", posted a real, organic reply to an 11 year-old post about
how to recover deleted files?

Here's your klue: Those are spamvertized posts, made robotically or
programmatically by hackers that want you to think their "helpful" reply
(and link to software) is genuine.

Fair enough, it's often hard to tell stupid posters from spam-bots (that's
the idea isn't it?). You can't deny there's a lot of old post replying
going on, Spam and otherwise.

No need to get heated about it.

And you went on to quote this:

http://(insert.garbage.link.here)/ar...cover-bull****...

How very smart of you to help the spammers by repeating the link to
their garbage-ware.

Do you not think before you post replies?

I'll quote what I like. If someone has blocked posts from this bloke,
they'll have the sense of mind to avoid the link anyway.

Not my job to decide what people can see or follow links to and what they
can't.

Now you have your klue about these replies to ancient posts and why they
are made.

Some of them, yes.

Next time, perhaps you won't help propagate links to garbage-ware when
you mindlessly re-post them in your replies.

Nope, I'll quote what I like, as long as a post isn't x-noarchived.

A link on its own can't infect a computer, just what someone else decides
to do with it based on their own judgement of risk.

--
__ __
#_ |\| | _#