An email apparently leaked from SCO suggests that SCO is far more
dependent on Microsoft financial backing than previously thought. If
genuine, it means that the company has already received something
approaching $100 million, and that Microsoft has substantially larger sums,
which it would by preference wish to transfer indirectly, available. If it
turns out to be real, then this email and related traffic would clearly be
logical subpoena subjects for the companies on the receiving end of SCO's
lawsuits, and it's not out of the question that such action would find a
smoking pistol or two.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/36017.html
--

-----
I can see the furture in your @ss and its full of shit.

On 2004-03-04, pc <running-crazy@the.zoo> wrote:
I be more inpressed if someone, anyone, waited to verify the email or, at the
very least, provided the header info.

ken

ken <ken@123_nodomain.com> writes:

Which header info do you want?

The ESR site includes this. It's not full headers, of course, but
it's partial.


From: Mike Anderer
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003
To: csontag@sco.com
CC: Bob Bench
Subject: Conversation Friday

--
"Four little piggies went to market.
This little piggy wanted ice cream
And Mama said 'Nooooo'!"
--A new Piggy Song, by Quincy Hughes (age 3)

On 2004-03-04, Jesse F. Hughes <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
In most cases, full headers are the only thing of value.

ken

ken <ken@123_nodomain.com> writes:

But there's no reason to suppose that whoever (allegedly) leaked the
memo had access to full headers. Or that the full headers couldn't be
easily forged anyway. Take any email from the alleged author and
change the body. Big whup.

I agree that one should be cautious regarding the memo. It's not a
smoking gun unless it can be reasonably verified (and the author shown
to know what he's talking about).

But I don't see the availability or lack of headers as being useful
one way or the other.

--
"[The author of the article] refuses to comment further. '/Nonlinear
Analysis/ editors have evaluated the paper, they accepted it for
publication and they have the copyright of its contents - and thus
they are responsible for its correctness,' she [said]."

On 2004-03-04, Jesse F. Hughes <jesse@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
Anything can be forged. But producing the header info gives people, anyone
I suppose, the opportunity to make that determination.

It doesn't amount to absolute proof, however, it's *a* significant step in
proving or disproving.

In my opinion, producing an email message as "evidence" without headers is
like presenting a money order receipt with out the serial numbers or a check
without the bank routing numbers.

ken

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 12:29:06PM +1300, os2@www.com wrote:
Hoist by their own petard, a bizarre flaw in micros~1 word.

Fitting.

--
GNU/Linux revenues last quarter: $1 Billion.
micros~1 revenues last quarter: $4 Billion.
It's no longer a question of windows or GNU, it's a question of *Unix* or GNU.

ken said the following, on 03/04/04 18:06:
Fortunately, this question is now moot. According to Groklaw, SCO has
acknowledged that the memo/E-mail is authentic. Naturally, of course,
everyone has misinterpreted it.

See:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40304174457123

"Microsoft also indicated there was a lot more money out there and they
would clearly rather use Baystar"like" entities to help us get
signifigantly more money if we want to grow further or do acquisitions"

Draw your own conclusions.

--
Rich Gibbs
rgibbs@his.com

ken wrote:

A *doc has lots of info -
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5170073.html

Billy O'Connor wrote:

I'm sure there will be more to come. Now if they had used Open Office lol


Mark

MS Word *.doc format- the most insecure word processor format in the world in the
world. MS "innovation" at it's best.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:53:01 +0000, ken wrote:

http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5170...l?tag=nefd_top

"The SCO Group on Thursday acknowledged the authenticity of an e-mail sent
Oct. 12 from Michael Anderer, CEO of Salt Lake City venture firm S2
Partners, to SCO Vice President Chris Sontag and Chief Financial Officer
Robert Bench."

That enough "verification" for you?

On 2004-03-05, Freeride <freeride@maillinux.org> wrote:

I'd prefer God decend from the heavens and personally asure me, however,
short of that...I'm satisfied.

ken

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 04:32:25PM +1300, os2@www.com wrote:
Uh-oh, trouble in paradise...

--
GNU/Linux revenues last quarter: $1 Billion.
micros~1 revenues last quarter: $4 Billion.
It's no longer a question of windows or GNU, it's a question of *Unix* or GNU.

ken wrote:

But wait there's more. SCO says its a "misunderstanding".
I'm getting the impression this has been intentionally leaked.
Remember The Canopy Group, SCOs masters, put MS over the coals
a few years back. Wouldn't surprise me if they are trying to put MS in a bad
light to get STFU funds.


Mark
--
If Spider's code had been under the GPL, Microsoft couldn't have used it.

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:32:25 +1300, os2@www.com wrote:

Your giving SCO way to much credit, they wold never do this. Its is more
like a pissed of sysadmin with access to mail servers at SCO who leaked
this thing.

Fearing a spontaneous XP reboot, ken mumbled this incantation:

Would a good godsmack do? <grin>

--
No, I won't fix your Windows computer!

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:19:53 -0700, Freeride wrote:

Convenient how everyone seems to "forget" to mention what else this article
says:

"SCO acknowledged the memo but dismissed both the author's and Raymond's
conclusions. BayStar Capital's $50 million investment in SCO wasn't due to
Microsoft's participation, said Blake Stowell, a spokesman for Lindon,
Utah-based SCO."

"We believe the e-mail was simply a misunderstanding of the facts by an
outside consultant who was working on a specific unrelated project to the
BayStar transaction, and he was told at the time of his misunderstanding,"
Stowell said, reading from a statement. "Contrary to the speculation of
Eric Raymond, Microsoft did not orchestrate or participate in the BayStar
transaction."

Erik Funkenbusch, the incarnation of true idiocy, wrote:
Convenient how everyone seems to "forget" to mention what else
was in Ted Bundy's statement of defense:

"Ted Bundy said he didn't do it ..."

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 04:27:19 +0000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

"When Microsoft was asked specifically whether it or any of its employees
played a role in connecting SCO to BayStar, the company declined to
comment."

Dam Erwik you are in a fscking state of denial. Get over it dude M$ is and
was funding SCO's lawsuit.

ken <ken@123_nodomain.com> writes:

Why? How? We know the sender and recipients' names and the date on
which it was sent. I don't see how full headers add *anything* to our
ability to verify it.

You claim it's "a significant step in proving or disproving" the
authenticity. Tell me *how* it helps us there. In what way does this
step fit into a procedure for testing authenticity?

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Even I, who know beyond doubt that my death will be caused by a silly
girl, will not hesitate when that girl passes by." -- Merlin, as
reported by John Steinbeck.