Arno,

>> Hardly ever.
>
> See that page:

[snip list]

That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to one in
over 9.5 years.

If you remove the earliest and latest dates (as outliers) than it still 116
years, coming down to one in over 6.8 years.

I would say that both are "hardly ever"- especially as that is for the whole
world.

.... though the above would hold more weight if it could/would be compared to
one of the more popular names.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Carlos,

>> Besides, a troll normaly ends with (good-humoured or not) telling/showing
>> his opponent(s) how they fell for their goading. Instead arlen here just
>> "fades away".
>
> We would have to discuss types of trolls :-)
> I'm not an expert on that.

Luckily(!), neither am I. :-)

> He claims that he can be found by inspecting his headers and that I'm
> stupid for not finding him fast. Is that true, is there a header that
> gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?

Not that I know of. Although in this case his (chosen by himself)
"@facts.com" email addy does give a bit of a hint.

Furthermore "marion"s first post(!) containing "they're a moron" was enough
to raise my suspicion, and the complaining about "I figured you out" will
most likely have been a lighthouse signal to the one who made that remark.

Quite a while ago I asked the same to someone here who said he had
experience/knowledge with email and newsgroup headers, and even he said he
could effectivily only make guesses.

Also, being able to just extract the users identity from the newspost
headers would no go well with most of people - including arlen here - and
the newsgroup provider enabeling such a thing would be hemmoraging users
when that would come out in the open.

So no, there isn't anything in there from which you can extract a posters
identity.

However, there is a (likely) possibility that one of those headers contains
a random(sh?) number which, if you have access to the newsgroup-servers
look-up table you could find the number and next to it the identification
the person used to sign up with.

Than again, IIRC until last year I used an newgroup host which didn't ask
for a signup, so the trace would end there.

And do realize that arlen is one of the knights-of-claim-a-lot, meaning that
he seldom, if ever, supports his claims with verifyable data.

There are a few possibilities for his claim :

1) He actually is able to do what he says. Though he's way to eager to show
off what all he can do, so I think we can forget about that.

2) He thinks he noticed a constant or a pattern in those newsgroup-message
headers contents, and concluded that that identifies him - blightely
ignoring that even if we would know where that that constant would be
located in the headers, we would not be able to ascertain who that that
constant belongs to.

3) He's goading you/us with some "I know something you don't so I'm more
important than you!". Which he definitily is the person for.

Last but not least, I've not heard of anyone being able to do what arlen
there has been claiming for years now.

To recuperate :

> is there a header that gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?

Not to my knowledge.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:15:11 -0800, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2025-01-13 09:00, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>> On 11.01.25 18:32, Marion wrote:
>>> Jesus Christ Carlos.
>>>
>>> What value did you add to this thread that had any semblance of topic?
>>> All you can do is insult people by calling them trolls.
>>
>> Arlen, you are a Troll. Another brain dead identity. Using a girl's name
>> increases your suvrvivablity? *ROTFLSTC*
>>
>>
>>
>
>Now be fair!
>
>"Marion" is a name that is occasionally seen for males.

Although I know a woman named Marion, in my experience, Marion is a
name for men and Marian a name for women.

R.Wieser, 2025-01-14 16:11:

> Arno,
>
>>> Hardly ever.
>>
>> See that page:
>
> [snip list]
>
> That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to one in
> over 9.5 years.

Yes - for *known* men. Not every man called "Marion" or "Andrea" is
listed in Wikipedia. But even I know to men called "Andrea" and one man
called "Marion" personally.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-14 16:16:

> On 14.01.25 13:17, Arno Welzel wrote:
>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-14 11:41:
>>
>>> On 13.01.25 18:15, Alan wrote:
[...]
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_(given_name)>
>>>
>>> Hardly ever.
>>
>> See that page:
>
> that proves exactly nothing against *millions of female Marions*

And how many of them are on that Wikipedia page? I count 46. So what
does this mean?

Exactly - nothing. I personally know one man named "Marion" and two
named "Andrea". No, these guys are not that popular to be mentioned in
Wikipedia. But assumptions like "hardly any man is ever called Mario or
Andrea" is just plain wrong if you don't know it.

--
Arno Welzel
https://arnowelzel.de

Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
> R.Wieser, 2025-01-14 16:11:
>
> > Arno,
> >
> >>> Hardly ever.
> >>
> >> See that page:
> >
> > [snip list]
> >
> > That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to one in
> > over 9.5 years.
>
> Yes - for *known* men. Not every man called "Marion" or "Andrea" is
> listed in Wikipedia. But even I know to men called "Andrea" and one man
> called "Marion" personally.

And then there's a boy named Sue.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_Named_Sue>

On 2025-01-14 11:55, Arno Welzel wrote:
> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-14 16:16:
>
>> On 14.01.25 13:17, Arno Welzel wrote:
>>> Jörg Lorenz, 2025-01-14 11:41:
>>>
>>>> On 13.01.25 18:15, Alan wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_(given_name)>
>>>>
>>>> Hardly ever.
>>>
>>> See that page:
>>
>> that proves exactly nothing against *millions of female Marions*
>
> And how many of them are on that Wikipedia page? I count 46. So what
> does this mean?
>
> Exactly - nothing. I personally know one man named "Marion" and two
> named "Andrea". No, these guys are not that popular to be mentioned in
> Wikipedia. But assumptions like "hardly any man is ever called Mario or
> Andrea" is just plain wrong if you don't know it.
>
>

Exactly.

And in a context where there are so many much more relevant criticisms
to level at "Marion"/Andrew/.../Arlen (the earliest I can remember), why
bring it up at all?

On 2025-01-14 17:54, R.Wieser wrote:
> Carlos,
>
>>> Besides, a troll normaly ends with (good-humoured or not) telling/showing
>>> his opponent(s) how they fell for their goading. Instead arlen here just
>>> "fades away".
>>
>> We would have to discuss types of trolls :-)
>> I'm not an expert on that.
>
> Luckily(!), neither am I. :-)
>
>> He claims that he can be found by inspecting his headers and that I'm
>> stupid for not finding him fast. Is that true, is there a header that
>> gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
>
> Not that I know of. Although in this case his (chosen by himself)
> "@facts.com" email addy does give a bit of a hint.

Right! That's in the name I use for his filter.

>
> Furthermore "marion"s first post(!) containing "they're a moron" was enough
> to raise my suspicion, and the complaining about "I figured you out" will
> most likely have been a lighthouse signal to the one who made that remark.

That's true.

>
> Quite a while ago I asked the same to someone here who said he had
> experience/knowledge with email and newsgroup headers, and even he said he
> could effectivily only make guesses.
>
> Also, being able to just extract the users identity from the newspost
> headers would no go well with most of people - including arlen here - and
> the newsgroup provider enabeling such a thing would be hemmoraging users
> when that would come out in the open.
>
> So no, there isn't anything in there from which you can extract a posters
> identity.
>
> However, there is a (likely) possibility that one of those headers contains
> a random(sh?) number which, if you have access to the newsgroup-servers
> look-up table you could find the number and next to it the identification
> the person used to sign up with.

Yes, of course.

>
> Than again, IIRC until last year I used an newgroup host which didn't ask
> for a signup, so the trace would end there.
>
> And do realize that arlen is one of the knights-of-claim-a-lot, meaning that
> he seldom, if ever, supports his claims with verifyable data.

Right.

>
> There are a few possibilities for his claim :
>
> 1) He actually is able to do what he says. Though he's way to eager to show
> off what all he can do, so I think we can forget about that.
>
> 2) He thinks he noticed a constant or a pattern in those newsgroup-message
> headers contents, and concluded that that identifies him - blightely
> ignoring that even if we would know where that that constant would be
> located in the headers, we would not be able to ascertain who that that
> constant belongs to.
>
> 3) He's goading you/us with some "I know something you don't so I'm more
> important than you!". Which he definitily is the person for.
>
> Last but not least, I've not heard of anyone being able to do what arlen
> there has been claiming for years now.

Right.

>
> To recuperate :
>
>> is there a header that gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
>
> Not to my knowledge.

Ok, so I was not missing anything.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2025-01-14 15:26, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
>
> [About 'Arlen':]
>
>> He claims that he can be found by inspecting his headers and that I'm
>> stupid for not finding him fast. Is that true, is there a header that
>> gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
>
> He changes his story/excuses over the years, but for quite some time
> he has been claiming that it should be evident from the *body* (not the
> headers) that it's him and that anyone who can not do that within one or
> two posts is stupid, etc..
>
> Of course that argument is invalid and also invalidates most other
> claims/arguments he makes about his so-called "tutorials".
>
> Identifying him via the headers of his posts is not practical. The
> only common factor is that he mostly uses news servers which are
> considered more or less rogue, but other people are also using those
> servers.
>
> That leaves us with identifying his hundred or so nyms one-by-one and
> putting them in our (software or/and mental) filters.

Right. Confirms my thoughts.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2025-01-14 21:00, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote:
>> R.Wieser, 2025-01-14 16:11:
>>
>>> Arno,
>>>
>>>>> Hardly ever.
>>>>
>>>> See that page:
>>>
>>> [snip list]
>>>
>>> That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to one in
>>> over 9.5 years.
>>
>> Yes - for *known* men. Not every man called "Marion" or "Andrea" is
>> listed in Wikipedia. But even I know to men called "Andrea" and one man
>> called "Marion" personally.
>
> And then there's a boy named Sue.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Boy_Named_Sue>

"The song tells the tale of a young man's quest for revenge on a father
who abandoned him at three years of age and whose only contribution to
his entire life was giving him a guitar and naming him Sue, commonly a
feminine name, which results in the young man suffering from ridicule
and harassment by everyone he meets. Ashamed of his name, he becomes a
hard-hearted nomad as a young man; he swears that he will find and kill
his father for giving him "that awful name". "

Couldn't he just change his name? Or his mother do it? Why did his
mother not oppose that name? Why did he not hate his mother?

Argh, me trying to make sense of a song.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Arno,

>> That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to
>> one in over 9.5 years.
>
> Yes - for *known* men. Not every man called "Marion" or "Andrea" is
> listed in Wikipedia.

Agreed. But as you have not shown any correlation between known and unknown
"Marion"s and "Andrea"s you can't extrapolate the "hardly ever" to anything
more.

Heck, if I would apply the iceberg assumption (10% visible, 90% not) than it
still looks to be a rather small number.

Though again, having some other, more popular name to compare against would
be usefull.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> wrote:
> Arno,
>
>>> That list shows 17 male "marion"s in 164 years. That comes down to
>>> one in over 9.5 years.
>>
>> Yes - for *known* men. Not every man called "Marion" or "Andrea" is
>> listed in Wikipedia.
>
> Agreed. But as you have not shown any correlation between known and unknown
> "Marion"s and "Andrea"s you can't extrapolate the "hardly ever" to anything
> more.
>
> Heck, if I would apply the iceberg assumption (10% visible, 90% not) than it
> still looks to be a rather small number.
>
> Though again, having some other, more popular name to compare against would
> be usefull.

Fortunately, someone's built an interactive browser:
https://engaging-data.com/baby-name-visualizer/

Marion for a boy peaked in the 1910s with a rate of 763/million.

Contrast with Andrew which peaked in the 1980s with 10x more
(7749/million).

However, note that the overall trend is for all names (in the US) to appear
less frequently as more and more non-traditional names are used.

Chris,

> Marion for a boy peaked in the 1910s with a rate of 763/million.
>
> Contrast with Andrew which peaked in the 1980s with 10x more
> (7749/million).

In that case, 1 on 10, its not what I would call "hardly ever" either.

Thanks.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Carlos,

>>> is there a header that gives him away, or at least rise the suspicions?
>>
>> Not to my knowledge.
>
> Ok, so I was not missing anything.

That, or all of us here past and present, as well as security-oriented
researchers* are.

* like "Krebs on Security"

Regards,
Rudy Wieser