It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


[RINGS] a strange email

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 18 2004 @ 06:50 AM
(game on)

I confess I haven't really paid attention to all the vague clues like many of our fine members -- I have not the time to follow these odd messages and must rely on the resources of those who do.

I realized this strange e-mail I received many weeks ago may actually have importance.

From: "1"
Subject: for uncle
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2004 22:33:19

for uncle
7 2 5 0

That is all of it. While the message indicated an attachment, there was none.

I hope some of you can make sense of this.

(game off)

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by SimonGray]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 07:11 AM

Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

for uncle
7 2 5 0

Lets see if i remember it correctly. Just for the technical detail :p

The nextpart gives us a new boundary, followed by the first content-type: text/plain. This is intended for recipients who can see only plain text, and not HTML. The full content of the message is given in plain text.

The RFC for this is
4.1.3 Plain Subtype

The simplest and most important subtype of "text" is "plain". This indicates plain text that does not contain any formatting commands or directives. Plain text is intended to be displayed "as-is", that is, no interpretation of embedded formatting commands, font attribute specifications, processing instructions, interpretation directives, or content markup should be necessary for proper display. The default media type of "text/plain; charset=us-ascii" for Internet mail describes existing Internet practice. That is, it is the type of body defined by RFC 822.

No other "text" subtype is defined by this document.

encoding := "Content-Transfer-Encoding" ":"
"7bit" means that the data is all represented as shortlines of US-ASCII data.

So its not really a attachment, your mailer just tells you what type of content you'll get (it should normaly be hidden)


posted on May, 18 2004 @ 07:27 AM
This dont make sense because the received :from
Indicates that the message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients
So it looks like you send the message.

And the (8.12.11/8.12.11) in by (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i4ALQX6L017196
for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2004 16:26:34 -0500

Is the Sendmail Consortium announce the availability of sendmail 8.12.11. It contains several enhancements for the handling of queue ids, fixes for problems when creating qf files (which were introduced in 8.12.10), and the MIME 7 to 8 bit conversion change from 8.12.3 has been undone for base64 decoding.

Where the MIME-Version: 1.0 in the mail is mensand at top also

As for the for uncle 7 2 5 0 safe in dont know

Dont know if this is something .

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 07:29 AM
And for the ESMTP its a mail serer id

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 08:09 AM
Several strange things in this e-mail.

The IP mentioned first ( belongs to the Ford Motor Company.

Second IP mentioned is a reserved IP range (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority/

Third. The date Mon, April 4, 2004....April 4 was on a Sunday.

Curiouser and curiouser! Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).

[Edited on 5-18-2004 by darklanser]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 10:06 AM
Well I have found something. If you'll notice...the message if from 1.

If you search for all posts by indicates there is only 1 post...but in fact, there are 2 now.

Dunno how to decode the text, if anyone does please U2U me.

The mail message also says "Please contact for more information" Hey it's worth a try, right?

EDIT: I just noticed now that the thread ID is 7250, so that looks like it takes care of those numbers....haven't had any luck with the encryption (I really stink at it)

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by Lukefj]

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by Lukefj]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 10:49 AM
That's wierd... when I put 1's new post in Word, it only found the last fragment of it "mispelled". every other clue I put into word to save had all the fragments mispelled.. Why is is this not the same?

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 12:15 PM
This is an ancient Sumerian proverb:

I'm not sure how this relates to the code yet. Working on it...

Regarding the email, I find it interesting that the multipart boundary listed in the header is different than the actual boundary - a MIME-compliant mail program would have an issue with this:

header: boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0118_01C43A13.75415600"
body: ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C43A03.75405600

For background, the boundary as specified in the header is used to determine where each part in a mulitpart message begins. There should also be a line similar to the boundary at the end:


RFC 2046 describes the standard.

What could the 1's turning to 0's mean?

[Edited on 5/18/2004 by PurdueNuc]

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 05:11 PM
simon i thought you were going to a safety deposit box have you been there yet

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 09:05 PM
who was it orignially from. unless its there and im blind

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 10:28 PM
quicksilver...the e-mail is from "1"...he indicates to look at thread id #7520

There you will find, as I mentioned above a new code.

I hope this helps...

EDIT: has anyone else noticed the e-mail was addressed to "imon"

[Edited on 19-5-2004 by Lukefj]

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 07:42 AM
(game on)

I'm terribly sorry, I didn't intend to toss you onto improper trails by pasting the e-mail header data. I really doubt any of that will make any sense at all.

The safe deposit box is in a bank some three hours from me, I plan to drive there this weekend.

Also, I'm disappointed to see some members huddling into secretive teams. While I suppose we can't prevent that, I can say that I doubt very much such activity will help the cause.

(game off)

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 09:00 AM
A new version of what Simon Says!

Sizzle sizzle sizzle. All the last post went up in smoke.
He's talking sideways again! Did anyone copy the last post into their files?

Because I just betcha that's where the clues are at!

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 04:08 PM
D'oh! I hate it when I read into things to much. So, the whole point of that email was to point us to 1's latest post, which Lukefj posted a link to. Guess that's it. Now, to solve the code...

I've spent a couple hours on it. At first, I thought it was BASE64 (a way to encode binary into text for email transmission) encoded, as it uses only characters in the BASE64 character set (6-bit ASCII). I'm not fully convinced that it's not, but decoded it results in gibberish, and doesn't appear to be any standard binary (there's no image or sound file header).

However, there is a definite pattern to it. Several "phrases" are repeated, sometimes with slight variations. Another intersting tidbit is that is contains 1220 characters, a number we should all be familiar with (20-12-2012). So, maybe the code has something to do with 12 or 20, or both? I'm trying to decode it along those lines.

If anyone else has any leads, let us know!

posted on May, 19 2004 @ 04:54 PM
did anyone else notice that it was posted over a year ago,(the 7250 thread)


posted on May, 19 2004 @ 06:27 PM
That's not so. Don't you know numbers can be manipulated? Don't you know that you can't believe everything you read?

Now that that is straightened out, "Don't be Decieved!"


posted on May, 19 2004 @ 07:15 PM
Sent a letter to "1".. to the mail that was listed above....... The mail was returned... Thought I would try.. he he

posted on May, 21 2004 @ 07:39 PM
I got bored and searched for the posts 7 2 5 and 0. All came up empty except for 7, a post from Simon in 2002. at the bottom of this post it says something about The Rings. It just says it's little motto then has a link to that site, and some other discussion board. I don't know if this has any kind of meaning or whether it's a clue, but I thought I just might point that out.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 11:31 AM
Any possibility these may be "keys" or "passwords" for decoding other text? They look to be the right length for that kind of thing.

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 02:21 PM

They are using Xoft on all these codes and the key is ats.

now we know the depths of our problem eh my friends. and then a bunch of gibberish

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in