A request (and warning) to our readers

As you are probably not aware (since the only means of verifying what I am about to disclose would be to violate our Terms of Service), Adequacy.org offers up its content to our readers through a highly advanced and extremely proprietary system. Part of this system involves a top secret method of determining how our various users are accessing the site (so that we may better tailor our content to you, of course).

Without boring you with the technical details of this unique, closed-source scheme, I will say that it involves a function known as "hardware handshaking" which reveals the exact system configuration our readers use through the use of "cookies" (or "biscuits") which are stored in a remote "database", commonly referred to as a "spreadsheet". In other words, unlike most websites, we know exactly what you are doing here at all times.

These "data centers" are typically in an encrypted binary format, just like our web pages, but our advanced software provides a means for making this stream of data "human readable" by printing it out in a low level compiled language called "pearl". It was through this clear, concise, and logical display that I unearthed an ongoing and vicious "hacker" attack.

Now it is true that Adequacy.org is constantly under attack from many many people. These devious miscreants frequently pound our site with "spiders" and "robots" in order to take down our server in what is known as a "DDoS" (Destructive Demand of Services). We are prepared for them, however, and routinely block access from these sites so that any newcomer arriving from a "search engine" will not have problems loading our pages.

Blocking spiders and robots like "googlebot", "Opera", and "Konqueror" is relatively easy though since they typically only request a dozen or two pages in a month. We can deal with this threat. What we may not be able to fend off is a particular attack I just discovered, one which our very competent and closely gaurded software system identified as having a "browser type" of:

manually shorting the pins on an Ethernet cable

Seeing this sent a chill down my spine. I almost can not believe that someone would enact such a brutal attack on a Beacon of Truth like Adequacy.org. This person has attempted to "short" our "ethernet pins" (also known as "fry our motherboard") 1,329 times in the past 4 months! We simply can not stand up to this sort of attack for much longer!

In closing, not only do I plead with you people to stop "hacking" our site, but I also must remind you that doing so is in strict violation of our Terms of Service). We do not take this sort of thing lightly, and if you continue these acts you will be prosecuted under the full provisions of the DMCA and the recently passed PATRIOT act.

	What a coincidence! (none / 0) (#1)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 08:21:52 PM PST

	I just discussed this very topic in two recent posts of mine. Feel free to check them out here and here. - chuckx -

	Dear chuckx (none / 0) (#2)
	by zikzak on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 08:53:21 PM PST

	I am very well aware of your slanderous posts and your violation of our Terms of Service. Your IP has been logged and will be reported to the FBI for your actions.

	Please help me cure my ignorance. (none / 0) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 09:00:00 PM PST

	What in my posts constitutes hacking? - chuckx -

	You must really want to go to jail (none / 0) (#4)
	by zikzak on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 09:14:12 PM PST

	Protocol handshake information generated by our servers in a network transaction with your computer and client program, including but not limited to HTTP headers or SMTP handshakes, are Copyright (C) 2001 Adequacy.org; disclosure of the contents of such protocol exchanges is strictly forbidden. Not only are you clearly in violation of our Terms of Service, you are also using a "web browser" that has only recently been removed from its "beta testing" phase. Since we have not yet had opportunity to certify this browser as complaint with our Site Policy, its use is strictly forbidden. You are in fact hacking our web server, and I will not stand for it!

	Excuse me, but.... (none / 0) (#6)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 09:30:27 PM PST

	The information freely given by your server after following this link is not protocol handshake information. Nor is it an HTTP header. It is the default response by your server to a request that cannot be fulfilled. If you don't like it, you can change it because you're using an open source web server. By the way, I'm now using Netscape 6.2 to view this site. If that's against your TOS, please say so. For the benefit of your readers, I'd highly recommend the first page they should see is the TOS. Also, it would be nice if the TOS contained a list of acceptable web browsers. On second thought, it would probably be best to just go the extra mile and actively ban non-compliant browsers using your "highly advanced and extremely proprietary system". This site is such a joke. - chuckx -

	An idea (none / 0) (#8)
	by nx01 on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 09:43:53 PM PST

	Why not have a warning at the top of each page if you are using an illegal browser? Something along the lines of: WARNING! We have detected that you are using an unauthorized web browser! Please cease and desist at once! For more information, refer to our Terms of Service. That way, if people are using dangerous "browsers" (read: hacking tools) then they will be warned at once and have no excuse for their insolence. "Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it." -- James Gosling

	You're not going far enough! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by chuckx on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 09:52:17 PM PST

	Using Adequacy.org's "highly advanced and extremely proprietary system", it should be no problem detecting who is using an "illegal" browser. Why let them access the site at all? I say, turn them away before they bring harm to the precious Adequacy! - chuckx - - chuckx -

	Internet morality strikes again (none / 0) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 10:01:48 PM PST

	So, if I leave the keys to my car in the ignition and turn my back for a second, that gives you the right to steal it? This is effectively what you are doing to adequacy. The fact that something can be done easily does not justify doing it. I expect you are one of those so-called "white hat" hackers, who breaks into other peoples' systems and publishes their credit card information to "prove" that MS makes insecure operation systems. As if this were a demonstration of anything at all! Everyone knows that most hacking results from the use of open source trojan horse programs, such as apache. It's no surprise that you have been hurling allegations that adequacy is using these insidious open source programs without a shred of proof.

	Your analogy is weak. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
	by chuckx on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 10:21:58 PM PST

	So, if I leave the keys to my car in... Oh, please. Quit babbling. In case you don't remember, let me paste a wee bit from elenchos's article. If you haven't followed the first link in this article, go back and click on it now. Can you see the traffic stats? Or did you get a 404? I don't know about you, but I believe this is more akin to you giving me your car keys and saying, "Take it for a spin!" I expect... Once again, quit babbling. This is pure speculation. It's also grossly incorrect. I don't consider myself a hacker or cracker. I've never cracked a system in my life, much less a corporate credit card database. Everyone knows that most hacking results from the use of open source trojan horse programs, such as apache. Apache is not a an "open source trojan horse program". It happens to be web server software. It also happens to be the web server software powering Adequacy.org. This brings us to the next point... ....without a shred of proof. Cure your ignorance. Like I've said multiple times, refer to my previous posts. In them, I provide links backing up all of my allegations. If you don't want to discuss intelligently, it doens't seem like the famed Adequacy.org is right for you. - chuckx - - chuckx -

	Mr. X... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
	by hauntedattics on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 05:08:25 PM PST

	As a regular adequacy reader who is not a programming expert but who logs onto this site for its content, I have to ask you, why are you doing this? Why do you care? It seems that your only purpose in pointing out the site's security weaknesses is to show everyone how clever a hacker you are. Or whatever. In any event, could you please have some respect for people who read, contribute to, and enjoy this site? Stop breaking into the site and then making inane 'letter of the law' arguments to those who would prefer you didn't. Thanks ever so.

	give the man a break (none / 0) (#26)
	by alprazolam on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 06:20:58 PM PST

	Man when is the mainstream finally going to understand and accept the hacker culture. Those hardOCP people are crackers, not hackers. Hackers like chuckx aren't malicious evildoers attempting to spread crucial intellectual property to competitors in order to drive down corporate profits. It's his duty as a hacker to be curious about this site. No wonder he's learned all he can about project "scoop" and followed links he probably shouldn't have. Obviously, you're not understanding him, which is common when hackers try to make contact with non hackers regarding things they are naturally curious about. Issues like security and source code are central themes to the hacker identity, and cutting him off from exploration is like taking pro bono case work away from lawyers. He's doing it out of love, to make society better for everybody. You'd probably be best off employing him. Although hackers do what they do for the fun of it, paying them money to hack things is an obvious business descision. All we need is a little bit of communication. Isn't that what Adequacy's all about anyway?

	don't trust (1.00 / 1) (#38)
	by NAWL on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 02:26:48 AM PST

	You have already stated that you lack complex computer knowledge yet you trust Zikzak, em and jsm? I'm sorry to inform you but as far as even besic computer and networking knowledge...these guys don't know shit. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	I think perhaps... (none / 0) (#35)
	by because it isnt on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 10:00:39 PM PST

	I remember the lst time we went down for ages, it was horrible. Please don't make that happen again? Please? I am deeply ashamed of the immaturity of my fellow open-source brethren, and I in no way would accept their actions as a valid or reasonable form of debate. But what you, and all the other editors need to realise, is that not every visitor to adequacy.org is going to 'get' the technical articles that humourosly contain nothing but factual errors, designed to tempt visitors to point out the factual errors. These people might then realise at a later date that you knew about these factual errors in advance, and intentionally placed them there to incite a response. What I'm basically saying here is don't be the boy who crys 'wolf'. There is a vast wealth of controversial topics to discuss without the need to resort to cheap and dangerous provocation tactics. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Has your lawyer recommended this strategy? (none / 0) (#20)
	by elenchos on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 11:57:26 AM PST

	We can all see that this is headed straight to court. You blatantly violate the Terms of Service of a web site that doesn't want you around and has said so in no uncertain terms, and then plan on telling the judge "elenchos made me do it"! How? By asking the question "Did you get a 404?" Your attorney is going to argue that "Did you get a 404?" means "Please directly violate the convenant in effect between us by viewing our site with a 'Web Browser' which you know full well is not supposed to be used to view this site, in total disregard to our standing Terms of Service." Is this lawer you have good? Ours is, you know. At any rate, it will be interesting as a test case. Our Legal War Chest is full and we have made it clear that we shall defend our rights and enforce all contracts vigorously. It's too bad you feel the need to try us, and of course we shall continue to insist that you cease all "hacking" forthwith and remain within the terms of the TOS henceforth. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	This is sad. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
	by chuckx on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 05:28:46 PM PST

	why are you doing this? Why do you care? I too read Adequacy.org for it's content. While I may not post too often, when I see something that is blatently absurd that I can intelligently comment on, I take the oppurtunity. Most of the time, I'm just a passive observer. It's interesting to see the diverse and somewhat over the top viewpoints that are expressed here. Mostly, I enjoy the site for it's (unintentional?) humor. Don't take that the wrong way. I'm not claiming this site is a joke, I just happen to find a lot of it's content funny. Stop breaking into the site... This is exactly what I'm talking about. I never "broke into the site". All I did was follow a link posted by elenchos in his article and read what he intended his audience to read. It's funny how this simple fact seems to be flying over everyone's head. Nothing I did took skill, programming or otherwise. I say that over and over, but it's one of those things nobody seems to be grasping. It's just funny that the tireless defenders of Adequacy will not admit to their hyprocrisy. How can you claim open source software is worthless and degenerative when this entire site relies upon it? I guess mostly I want to see an editor quit their pointless posturing and admit the truth. This is a site for grown-ups, right? - chuckx -

	I agree with hauntedattics (none / 0) (#25)
	by bc on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 05:35:29 PM PST

	I'd like to state my total agreement with hauntedattics' maternal wisdom in her 'appeal to reason' post. That out of the way, I am glad you enjoy the site, but can't you enjoy it within the bounds of the law, instead of constantly attempting to discover security flaws and exploits? We have had problems before, with HardOCP hackers, and your enthusiasm for hacking like this and trying to expose weaknesses really makes me scared. I'm sure you are a nice chap, but other people aren't and the information you are illegally exposing could be used maliciously by one of them. It just makes some of us frightened and scared for the future of this website we have worked so hard for, that's all. Thanks :-) ♥, bc.

	As I said in my other post (none / 0) (#30)
	by bc on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 07:07:58 PM PST

	I don't really understand what this argument is about, I'm just trusting the judgement of our editors Zikzak, em and jsm in this matter. It really scares me that this chuckx and 'NAWL' have come here and are doing things that make some editors concerned, after the dos thing ages ago. I really don't want that to happen again, that's why this recent flare up of hackers boasting of information they have found (after we thought they were gone for good!) has been so utterly frightening for us. I would love to communicate with them and build bridges, but they must agree to stop whatever it is that is winding up em & zikzak first. We shouldn't have to do it under blackmail. ♥, bc.

	You just don't get it, do you? (none / 0) (#27)
	by chuckx on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 06:24:59 PM PST

	but can't you enjoy it within the bounds of the law, instead of constantly attempting to discover security flaws and exploits? I'm within the bounds of the law. I've stated this time and time again, and nobody has really refuted it. All I've heard is, "Really, it is illegal, it's against our TOS." All I did was follow a link posted by an editor. A link he expressly posted for people to use. I'm using Internet Explorer, a web browser accepted by many here to be 'the standard'. If that violates Adequacy's TOS, the article should be deleted. instead of constantly attempting to discover security flaws and exploits? I am not pointing out security flaws and exploits. I'm pointing out logic flaws and hypocrisy. In the beginning of his article, elenchos derides Kuro5hin for relying upon open source software. The fact is, Adequacy.org relies upon the same open source software. In no way did I imply that this was a security flaw, and in actuality it's not. If Adequacy.org is relying on security via obscurity, once again, that's piss poor security practice. On top of that, it's incredibly obvious that open source software is in use. Just look on the bottom of every page rendered where it openly displays "Powered by Scoop". I just don't get how the editors can claim open source software is a nuiscance when they reply on it for their site. I'm also at a loss to explain their childish behavior. "You'll be hearing from our lawyers, blah blaah blah". Really? All I did was read an article and follow the links posted on it. All the information was given to me. No hacking nor effort was involved on my part. - chuckx -

	I don't know (none / 0) (#29)
	by bc on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 06:56:37 PM PST

	Can I be honest with you and say I'm not a programmer or really computer literate in any way? I don't really know what a lot of the argument is about, in this thread. However, I do trust (implicitly) em, jsm and zikzak, who between them know all about the legal and computer angles. All I'm really saying is that what you are doing is scaring me and others and we wish you would stop. Em and zikzak have asked you to stop whatever it is, I just wish you would so we can all have peace again. I remember the lst time we went down for ages, it was horrible. Please don't make that happen again? Please? ♥, bc.

	huh? (none / 0) (#39)
	by NAWL on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 02:27:02 AM PST

	Where is he pointing out security weaknesses? I'm sorry but you people have a poor undertanding of networking. Also he did not break into the site. I had the same experience that X did. If I would have "broken into this site" you'd know it. This site would go bye bye. Why should I waste MY time? Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	bad analogy (1.00 / 1) (#36)
	by NAWL on Thu Nov 29th, 2001 at 02:16:09 AM PST

	If you leave your keys in the car and someone steals it that person cannot go to jail. This is considered entrapment. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	*duh read* the TOS** (none / 0) (#13)
	by em on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 08:41:25 AM PST

	The information freely given by your server after following this link is not protocol handshake information. Nor is it an HTTP header. It is the default response by your server to a request that cannot be fulfilled. It is protocol handshake information. It is the indication that a request has failed-- that is, that you have made an illegal HTTP request. Gee, the case against you mounts. By the way, I'm now using Netscape 6.2 to view this site. If that's against your TOS, please say so. The TOS is clear enough. Is this a client designed to recognize the logical structure of an HTML document and render it in a manner suitable for the end-user? This use is clearly permitted. What's not permitted is the use of client software or client software features that don't meet this standard. The "View Page Source" option is one such feature. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	This site is a riot! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by chuckx on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 08:52:05 AM PST

	It is the indication that a request has failed-- that is, that you have made an illegal HTTP request. Hahahaha! An Adequacy editor made the request that reader's of his article follow a broken link. A link provided by him. And then when the readers follow that link and read the response provided by your web server (even in Internet Explorer, which seems to be Adequacy's browser of choice) we're told we're breaking the TOS. I'm not using any features of Internet Explorer. I'm using it's most basic and intended purpose, looking at HTML formatted content provided to me by a web server. If you don't like what your web server is providing to it's clients, you need to fix it. This is just ridiculous. - chuckx -

	Have fun in prison. (none / 0) (#16)
	by em on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 09:54:32 AM PST

	An Adequacy editor made the request that reader's of his article follow a broken link. A link provided by him. I'm sorry, but at Adequacy.org we expect our readers to show higher standards of behavior than what you seem to show. There were several obvious clues to why you shouldn't have clicked that in the first place: The nature of the content described for that link. Traffic information is private. Do you think we were really intending to provide our private business information? If you're walking by a suburban neighborhood, and somebody comes out of their house and says "Hey, my house is unlocked, you can steal anything inside you want", would you go inside and steal, and then hold that you were given "permission" to do so? The fact that the article itself said that the page was only accessible to Adequacy.org staff. This clearly meant the following: (a) you were not authorised to see that page, in case it were possible, and thus would have been tresspassing; (b) if the information were inaccessible, as it indeed is, you then are guilty of attempting unauthorized access, and in addition of sending our servers and illegal HTTP request. You should be hearing from our lawyers soon. Have fun in prison. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	Hey Em... (none / 0) (#17)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 10:01:41 AM PST

	Do not read this sentence. It is my private property. If you do in fact read it, my lawyers will be calling in the morning. Have a nice day.

	Why don't you try reading the article? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by chuckx on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 10:40:08 AM PST

	There were several obvious clues to why you shouldn't have clicked that in the first place It seems you haven't actually read elenchos's article. Is this one of those "obvious clues"? If you haven't followed the first link in this article, go back and click on it now. Can you see the traffic stats? Or did you get a 404? That link was posted expressly for non-staff to try out. It is there to illustrate that we the little people do not have access to that information. In addition to illustrating that, it also prominently displays that Adequacy.org is run on Apache. Like I said before, if you don't like that, you can fix it. If anybody is at fault here, I would say it is elenchos. He is the one who originally posted the link and openly encouraged non-staff to use it. Also, your theft analogy is weak. What happened is more like a homeowner saying, "Hey try opening my door to see if you can get in!?" After trying, I realize it's locked, but I also happen to notice what brand of lock the homeowner is using. If that's illegal, like I said before, your sense of law skewed. - chuckx -

	You don't get it. (3.33 / 3) (#21)
	by chuckx on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 12:25:16 PM PST

	I'm not hacking. I just followed a link that you posted and asked everyone to try out. If you need another reminder, here are your exact words. go back and click on it now Refer to this post for further explanation. - chuckx -

	Some thoughts. (none / 0) (#31)
	by Winter on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 07:46:33 PM PST

	As far as your first comment goes, you are correct: There was no consent given. However, if the person gives you written permission there would be a much stronger justification. The actual language used (Specifically: "...you can steal anything you want..." (emphasis mine)) still leaves an interesting defense, but then again: i am sure most decent people won't deprive this obviously delusional person of his or her belongings. However, i am not entirely convinced by your metaphors. Additionally, while this Chuckx person is not being terribly mature he has a point: your case against him would be weak. Specifically, i would place money on it not being upheld by any courts in the world- save perhaps those that might be swayed by illicit means. I am faced, however, with a genuine difficulty here. On the one hand, my knowledge would indicate that your legal grounds are shaky. On the other, i am certain you have contacted a real lawyer when drafting up your Terms of Service. I'm sure you see my struggle here. With that in mind, i would suggest that you re-evaluate the strength of your claims.

	language (5.00 / 1) (#34)
	by em on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 09:49:51 PM PST

	The actual language used (Specifically: "...you can steal anything you want..." (emphasis mine)) still leaves an interesting defense, but then again: i am sure most decent people won't deprive this obviously delusional person of his or her belongings. I pick my words very carefully. The actual language I used leaves a much bigger defense than you seem to acknowledge: "...you can steal anything you want..." does not in any way imply he is allowed to; it only says he has the means to do so. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	friggin rediculous (0.90 / 0) (#40)
	by NAWL on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:32:08 AM PST

	What's not permitted is the use of client software or client software features that don't meet this standard. The "View Page Source" option is one such feature. Screw you! You can't tell me what I can and cannot do with the legitimate faetures of my browser and computer while at your site. Nextyou'llbetellingmethatIcan'tusethespacebarwhileI'mhere. Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

	Help! Help! (none / 0) (#7)
	by RobotSlave on Mon Nov 26th, 2001 at 09:41:10 PM PST

	Please, zikzak, please! You have Editorial Powers! Why on God's green earth are you not using them? Is there some nefarious substance sapping your strength? Do you need a can of spinach? Or perhaps something to make you Angry, like Hulk? Here, let me help: zikzak smells like poo-poo! © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	A minor clarification (5.00 / 1) (#22)
	by because it isnt on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 01:14:41 PM PST

	As you are probably not aware (since the only means of verifying what I am about to disclose would be to violate our Terms of Service), Adequacy.org offers up its content to our readers through a highly advanced and extremely proprietary system. Would this highly advanced and extremely proprietary system be Scoop, by any chance? If that is the case, you are quite accurate about the former quality, but I must clarify that Scoop is not extremely proprietary. It's not even slightly proprietary. It is in fact open source software. I did not need to violate the Terms of Service to discover that Adequacy uses Scoop, as it is handily advertised at the bottom of every page on adequacy.org. Perhaps the Terms of Service should include the requirement that we avert our eyes from this promotional graphic, or use a retina-scanning web browser that blinds us if we accidently glimpse the logo. By the way, your fellow editor elby has been promoting open source software recently. I imagine this is probably against the Terms of Service, and I would recommend his immediate dismissal. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	I think you've answered your own question. (none / 0) (#28)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 06:44:44 PM PST

	See, the point here is that no-one but a few editors knows what sort of soft-ware lurks behind the adequacy. The reason that no-one knows is simple-- the software is proprietary, and only a select few have access to it. Do you see a link anywhere on this site that says "here are the codex-sourcings for the adequacy, you greedy Marxist monster?" No. Because the soft-ware is proprietary. The "evidence" you've "discovered" strewn about that leads you to believe that the "Scoop" soft-ware is somehow involved is quite likely part of a "honeypot" designed to mislead and entrap guileless "script-kiddos" who might seek to violate the Terms Of Service or "DDoS" the adequacy. I think the same can safely be said of any "information" an evildoer might dig up while violating the Terms Of Service, or of any false trail planted by elby at other worldly-net addresses. Your confusion is understandable; after all, these things are supposed to be misleading. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	How wrong I must be. (none / 0) (#32)
	by because it isnt on Tue Nov 27th, 2001 at 08:31:34 PM PST

	Do you see a link anywhere on this site that says "here are the codex-sourcings for the adequacy, you greedy Marxist monster?" I do, in fact, see such a link. I however would not confuse software with data. Data, in this instance, would include all personalisation materials, comments and stories. Being knowledgeable about such matters, I understand this requires a "data" "base". Unless you care to provide compelling evidence of Adequacy having access to huge cash reserves, I shall assume you are running either an open source database, or an illegal, unlicensed instance of a commercial database. Despite how much you may wave a limp-wristed "toss" in my face, you cannot deny that brave freedom fighters have revealed you are totally dependant on key non-proprietary components. Deny it publically all you wish, but I have no wish to share the inner torment of unspeakable guilt that you suffer. The "evidence" you've "discovered" strewn about that leads you to believe that the "Scoop" soft-ware is somehow involved is quite likely part of a "honeypot" Well! I am pleased to know that you have wasted the time of a talented (and preferably licensed) proprietary software company, and wasted your own money, in creating a proprietary implementation of a web log system that just happens to be functionally identical to Scoop. I do hope that you and the Adequacy team are men and women of actions, not words, and I look forward to your confirmation to me, by the end of the week, verifiably by a third party, that adequacy is proudly running on a Microsoft IIS web server. adequacy.org -- because it isn't