Re: J'accuse!: Whitehouse and NSA vs. Panix and VTW

At 03:58 PM 9/12/96 -0400, Robert Hettinga <rah@shipwright.com> wrote:
>I think someone should just stand right up and accuse the NSA, at the
>behest of the Whitehouse, of running a denial of service attack on Panix at
>*exactly* the time when VTW is lobbying its hardest on the PRO-CODE bill.

Let's see, 
        anon.penet.fi gets shut down (Church of Scientology),
        PRO-Code bill is being lobbied for and against,
        PANIX is attacked by TCP-spammers,
        HipCrime initiates a distributed spam against remailers,
        newspapers accuse remailers of promoting Child Pornography
        Louis Freeh's recently gotten wiretap money approved.
        Clipper-3 is trying to build an escrowed key-certification hierarchy

Could it be *conspiracy*?  Yah, sure.  But it could be just a bunch
of separate people who don't like anonymity.  (Kind of like somebody
getting stabbed twelve times at night on the Orient Express - the problem
is finding someone who _doesn't_ have a motivation to attack anonymity :-)

At least one of the newspaper articles I've read has referred to the need
for real authentication on the net to prevent the anonymity that makes
this kind of attack possible, and in particular for the major network providers
to make sure that they don't export messages with bogus addressing,
a cure that the article said would take several months to deploy.
I don't know if they were referring to IPv6, or sendmail modifications,
or router hacks, or what; the article's author seemed to think this was
about bogusly-addressed email messages rather than understanding SYNs.

Anybody for an Internet Driver's License?

#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> 	Dispel Authority!

Bill Stewart writes:

> Anybody for an Internet Driver's License?

At this point, I would love the ability to filter news and mail 
according to some criteria related to the sender's probable
reputation.  Back in the early days of C&S, spam was an 
intellectual issue.  Now it is a good chunk of the entire
bandwidth of major components of the Net.

I am now getting more junk email than email from people I 
care to correspond with.  It seems one can't even read the
scholarly newsgroups anymore without "Come Watch Us Lick
Ourselves on the Web" messages popping up regularly.

It's really getting to the point where the time-honored
suggestion of "just hit your delete key" cannot deal with the
obverwhelming amount of Drek posted, much of it with subject
lines deliberately designed to blend in with the newsgroup
topic.

Just being able to filter out posts from Net addresses that
don't correspond to real identifiable humans posting under
their legal names would be a good first step.  

Purely voluntary, of course, since any filtering would be
done at the reading end, and people could still post anything
they liked.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Mike Duvos wrote:

> I am now getting more junk email than email from people I 
> care to correspond with.  It seems one can't even read the
> scholarly newsgroups anymore without "Come Watch Us Lick
> Ourselves on the Web" messages popping up regularly.

Not only that, but the <alt.binaries.pictures.-> newsgroup have all gone
to hell with commercial ads.

jlv

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Mike Duvos wrote:

> Bill Stewart writes:
> 
> > Anybody for an Internet Driver's License?

[Too much spam, some designed to avoid filtering by humans or machines]

> Just being able to filter out posts from Net addresses that
> don't correspond to real identifiable humans posting under
> their legal names would be a good first step.  

I'm crushed.

Seriously, what is the import of the "real identifiable human" or the
"posting under their legal names" point?

If an AI program posts quality stuff, what's the difference?

Why the import of true "legal" names?  Why not simply develop reputation
signatures?

The concept that "legal names" are some how a credential is silly.  I have
a friend who has four, with matching SSN cards.

What your suggestion basically says is "instead of developing our own
decentralized reputations system for filtering lets use one already in
place, i.e. the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

Of course the problem is that you have to rely on the "Is a person"
judgment of the DMV which amounts to the education and judgment of the
$21k a year "administrative assistant" who stands at the door looking at
"birth certificates" and deciding whether to let people in.  Not only is
the reputation of such a system questionable, the system is centralized,
easily fooled by anyone with a dose of creativity, and hampered by
corruption and institutional disinformation (witness relocation,
government alteration, etc.).

In any event, getting reputation credentials from a decentralized "web of
trust" is a much more efficient answer, especially where you can assign
your own levels of trust to each signator.

Mr. Duvos' idea is, in my view, a step backwards.

> --
>      Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
>      mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li

Well, it would seem some are helping to make my point; M.Duvos is calling 
for government intervention, in the form of an "Internet Driver's License."

There goes anonimity, which has, in general, been a "good thing" on the 
'net. Here comes "big brother", to protect us from the evil anonymous 
spammer. Here comes more government infrastructure to enforce the LAWS 
that "we", as a society, have subjected ourselves to, so that "the few, 
the rude, the clueless" can no longer send out their anonymously sourced 
spam. Less freedom, more taxes. Why? Because someone out there is doing 
something because they "have the right", by the sole virtue of there 
currently being no law specifically against their particular behavior.

Still on the side of the spammer, Mr. May?

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Mike Duvos wrote:
> 
> > Bill Stewart writes:
> > 
> > > Anybody for an Internet Driver's License?
> 
> [Too much spam, some designed to avoid filtering by humans or machines]
> 
> > Just being able to filter out posts from Net addresses that
> > don't correspond to real identifiable humans posting under
> > their legal names would be a good first step.  
> 

Am I not an identifiable human? Is Black Unicorn an AI? Would I be 
acceptable if I posted as JohnSmith@mcfeely.bsfs.org? 

> In any event, getting reputation credentials from a decentralized "web of
> trust" is a much more efficient answer, especially where you can assign
> your own levels of trust to each signator.
> 
> Mr. Duvos' idea is, in my view, a step backwards.

If you consider increased legislation a step backwards. How else can we 
determine what we, as free people, can/can't/should/shouldn't do?
(Sarcasm)

Of course it is a step backwards; the ability to discuss sensitive 
issues, and obtain information anonymously has been of great social 
benefit. Yet another freedom soon to be legislated away (See "Georgia, USA").

Still failing to see the cause-and-effect relationship, folks?

When even some on c'punk readers are calling for manditory identification, 
where do you think the great unwashed position themselves?

- r.w.

Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes:
> Well, it would seem some are helping to make my point; M.Duvos is calling
> for government intervention, in the form of an "Internet Driver's License."

It does not have to be the gubment. It could be a web of trust - like
protocol. E.g. M.Duvos gives a pile of non-reusable, revokable cookies
to people from whom he wants to receive e-mail. Every time one of them
sends him an e-mail, he uses up one of his cookies. If he doesn't give
me any cookies, and I want to e-mail him, I have to negotiate with
someone who has a cookie and get one.

Not sure how this would work with mailing lists...

> There goes anonimity, which has, in general, been a "good thing" on the
> 'net. Here comes "big brother", to protect us from the evil anonymous
> spammer. Here comes more government infrastructure to enforce the LAWS
> that "we", as a society, have subjected ourselves to, so that "the few,
> the rude, the clueless" can no longer send out their anonymously sourced
> spam. Less freedom, more taxes. Why? Because someone out there is doing
> something because they "have the right", by the sole virtue of there
> currently being no law specifically against their particular behavior.

Folks who "fight spam" by forging cancels for any Usenet articles they
don't like are no better than an opressive government. The infrastructure
they've created for efficiently suppressing any information they don't
want to be on Usenet can now be used by any government that wants to
remove objectionable material from Usenet.

> Still on the side of the spammer, Mr. May?
The old fart is a spammer.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> writes:
> Seriously, what is the import of the "real identifiable human" or the
> "posting under their legal names" point?

I'm sure certain parties out there would like that.

> If an AI program posts quality stuff, what's the difference?

Indeed, an AI program I wrote has been posting excellent stuff in
alt.sci.physics.plutonium - check it out! :-)

> Why the import of true "legal" names?  Why not simply develop reputation
> signatures?

Right now I let all my incoming e-mail collect in one queue.
If I were really bothered by junk e-mail, I'd set up some sort of
filtering that would sort them into three classes by originator:

to be deleted without reading
to be read as soon as possible
to be read at my leisure

the default, for unknown originators, would be to be read at my leisure.

> What your suggestion basically says is "instead of developing our own
> decentralized reputations system for filtering lets use one already in
> place, i.e. the state Department of Motor Vehicles.

If the situation with junk e-mail becomes much worse than it is now,
then I think we'll end up with the following scenario:

1. A spammer gets my name, Igor Chudov's name, and a bunch of other names
from our Usenet postings.

2. The spammer e-mails each one of us, offering to buy X-rated videos.

3. Igor Chudov reads the spam e-mail first and somehow informs my mail-sorting
'bot that this e-mail should be junked.

4. If my 'bot sees the spammer's mail, it junks it.

And I'd do the same for him if I saw it first. :-) Naturally the warning about
junk e-mail needs to be digitally signed. I suppose they could be posted in a
specially designated Usenet newsgroup. The e-mail-sorting 'bot would check
this newsgroup for signed junk-mail notices from trusted parties and junk the
matching e-mails from the incoming queue. I guess it'd have to look at the
body of the mail and not just the headers, which are easy to vary.

This is the kind of project cypherpunks would do if they were writing code,
instead of lies and personal attacks, the way Tim May (fart) does.

> In any event, getting reputation credentials from a decentralized "web of
> trust" is a much more efficient answer, especially where you can assign
> your own levels of trust to each signator.

Yes - take a look at the NoCeM project for Usenet at http://www.cm.org.
Perhaps this technology can be adapted for rating e-mail.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Fri, 13 Sep 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

<Some SNIPPED>

> If the situation with junk e-mail becomes much worse than it is now,
> then I think we'll end up with the following scenario:
> 
> 1. A spammer gets my name, Igor Chudov's name, and a bunch of other names
> from our Usenet postings.
> 
> 2. The spammer e-mails each one of us, offering to buy X-rated videos.
> 
> 3. Igor Chudov reads the spam e-mail first and somehow informs my mail-sorting
> 'bot that this e-mail should be junked.
> 
> 4. If my 'bot sees the spammer's mail, it junks it.
> 
> And I'd do the same for him if I saw it first. :-) Naturally the warning about
> junk e-mail needs to be digitally signed. I suppose they could be posted in a
> specially designated Usenet newsgroup. The e-mail-sorting 'bot would check
> this newsgroup for signed junk-mail notices from trusted parties and junk the
> matching e-mails from the incoming queue. I guess it'd have to look at the
> body of the mail and not just the headers, which are easy to vary.
> 
<Dr.D.V.KOTH Standard T.C.May reference deleted>

> 
> > In any event, getting reputation credentials from a decentralized "web of
> > trust" is a much more efficient answer, especially where you can assign
> > your own levels of trust to each signator.

Nice concept, but it isn't that hard to slightly alter each message; now 
you've also got to determine which are "the same" messages,and which are 
not. Why would the headers be easier to vary than the body? Tack a few 
extra one-liner pieces of add copy on the end in pseudo-random order, and 
you've got "different" messages.

How do you view this specially designed newsgroup as working? Will you 
need to fetch all notices on a regular basis, and use the "warnings" to 
sort your mail? Seems like it would take longer to alter your trust level 
of third parties than it would take for your "opponent" to crank up 
another aol trial disk ...

Looks like a lot of work ahead. :)

- r.w.

Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org> writes:
> <Dr.D.V.KOTH Standard T.C.May reference deleted>
(fart) H??? Kook of the Hour?

> Nice concept, but it isn't that hard to slightly alter each message; now
> you've also got to determine which are "the same" messages,and which are
> not. Why would the headers be easier to vary than the body? Tack a few
> extra one-liner pieces of add copy on the end in pseudo-random order, and
> you've got "different" messages.

Consider the spam currently found on Usenet. Most multi-posters repeat
exactly the same text, and post it alphabetically once in each newsgroup.
That's what Cantor&Siegal did originally, and that's what they recommended
in their book (which by the way I highly recommend). I remember a couple
of incidents before C&S when someone forged an article from "B1FF" in
every newsgroup, and someone posted a warning about the second cumming of
Christ in every newsgroup, and they were mildly annoying, but didn't break
anything. During the C&S incident the traffic problems (Australia kicked
off the net et al) were caused not by the C&S spam itself, but by the
multitude of ineptly forged cancels. But I'm digressing...

In every e-mail spam I've seen so far, the bodies of all the e-mails
in the single spam are identical. To combat it, a trusted party could
simply post the body, and the readers who trust him would discard
incoming e-mails that match the body. I'm certain, however, that the
spamming technology will improve. I attach at the end an interesting
article that appeared anonymously about a year ago, explaining how
one can multi-post essentially the same message while varying the text.

> How do you view this specially designed newsgroup as working? Will you
> need to fetch all notices on a regular basis, and use the "warnings" to
> sort your mail? Seems like it would take longer to alter your trust level
> of third parties than it would take for your "opponent" to crank up
> another aol trial disk ...

The way I envision this system (and I don't think we really need this yet)
is: a trusted party (there may be more than one of them) posts templates
saying something like: 'don't compare after \n--' (randomized signature);
'contains the string CHAG ratings in the body 3 times'; 'contains the string
Received: from interramp.com in the headers once'. A reader who wants to
update his database of e-mail that needs to be junked would run a program
that would
1) get new articles in the filter notices newsgroup
2) look for articles digitally signed by the "raters" trusted by this reader
3) add their templates to this reader's mail filtering rules
Then when the reader filters his incoming e-mail, he won't see the junk
e-mail that matches the rules.
Of course if the rater posts templates that are "too general" and rejects
non-junk e-mail, the readers won't trust his notices anymore.

If the junk mail makes it through to a reader becase the template for it
hasn't yet been posted, the reader can forward it to the rater and ask him
to post a template for it for other readers' benefit.

Here's the old anonymous article on how to spam better:

]Subject: FAQ for Usenet Advertisers: Use Mathematical Algorithm to Avoid "Spam"
]
]Q-0. Introduction
]
]This mathematical advice is posted as an academic research study and is not a
]solicitation to act. It is a technical note and contains numerous mathematical
]algorithms and portions of pseudo-code. If you are not familiar with the
]intricacies of RFC 1036, you can ask a friendly techie to help implement these
]algorithms in a computer programming language, such as PERL. For example, the
]headers of your ad should contain the header "Approved: <your name>" to assure
]proper propagation in the so-called "moderated" newsgroups, but the techniques
]for inserting it are outside the scope of this article.
]
]Certain self-appointed "net-judges" keep trying to suppress the public
]dissemination of knowledge on how Usenet works (available from RFC 1036 and
]other publicly accessible documents). They rely on "security through obscurity"
]to protect their economic interests and harass honest Usenet entrepreneurs so
]as to keep the advertising pie all to themselves. Hence the need for anonymity.
]
]Q-1. Can I post a separate copy of my ad into each target newsgroup in
]the alphabetical order?
]
]No! That would be "spamming".
]
]Spamming is commonly defined as excessive posting of multiple, separate copies
]of identical messages to many newsgroups, one right after the other, without
]using the standard method of cross-posting, described in this article. Since
]it's really not that difficult to write a program that will post the same
]advertisement to dozens, if not hundreds of thousands of newsgroups, a lot of
]people have taken to doing this. People usually spam as a means of flooding
]Usenet with messages about a product or service that they want to sell,
]although they can spam for other reasons. Spamming Usenet is a BAD THING to do.
]DON'T DO IT. Follow the instructions in this article to advertise WITHOUT spam.
]
]Consider the old-fashioned way of spamming Usenet with ads. Let G be the list
]of all the relevant newsgroups where you want to post your ad. Let NG be the
]number of such newsgroups. We will refer to individual newsgroups as G[0]
]through G[NG-1].
]
]Remember once and for all: it's a very bad idea to run the equivalent of:
]
]for i=0 to NG-1 step 1 do                                          (1)
] post ad to G[i];
]
]This is SPAM. You can do better than that. But what happens if you just spam?
]
]First, some self-appointed net.cops, "vigilantes", or "net judges" will get
]upset if you post into every newsgroup in alphabetical order. Naturally, you
]couldn't care less if you hurt their feelings, but some of these vigilantes
]might go as far as impersonate you and "forge" a control article, making it
]look like you yourself are asking every computer on the network to delete your
]ad! This is illegal, but happens all too often.
]
]It is a major waste of Usenet resources to post your ad to one newsgroup at a
]time, without cross-posting. Please don't do it. On the other hand, if your
]"Newsgroups:" header is too long, it may break some Usenet newsreaders. Let NC
]be the number of newsgroups you will cross-post to at one time. Make sure your
]NC is never greater than 20, or else the self-appointed net.cops or "judges"
]will call your ad "velveeta" (spread into too many newsgroups) and forge
]cancels for it. In the pseudo-code below NC actually varies between 8 and 12.
]Section Q-2 explains what to do when NG is greater than NC.
]
]Second, some of the newsgroups on your list may have poor propagation. When you
]post your ad to them, they won't reach every other site on Usenet unless you
]cross-post the same ad to better propagated groups. After you've composed the
]list of newsgroups into which you want to post your announcement, separate them
]into two lists: the well-propagated newsgroups known at every site (like
]"sci.important.announce") and the poorly propagated ones (like "ca.spam.misc").
]Let NW be the number of well-propagated groups. Let NP be the number of poorly
]propagated groups. You'll probably have them listed in alphabetical order, but
]we'll see how to fix that. Let R be the integer part of NP/NW. You will cross-
]post to one newsgroup from the P list for every R newsgroups from the W list.
]
]Now you are going to go through the lists W and P and make sure that you cover
]each newsgroup. If you pick newsgroups from G at random, you will definitely
]miss a few and hit a few more than once. That would be a waste of Usenet
]resources, which you want to avoid. Instead, let SW be a random number
]relatively prime to NW. Recal Euclid's algorithm for computing the greatest
]common divisor of two integers m, n, such that n>m:
]
]do {
] g=m;
] m=n%m;
] n=g;
] } while (m);
]
]We now rewrite loop (1) as:
]
]i=SW;                                                                  (2)
]do {
] post ad to G[i];
] i=(i+SW) % NW;  /* where % denotes the remainder */
] } while (i!=SW);
]
]Note: the remainder is denoted "mod" in some computer programming languages.
]
]It is easy to see that this loop will cover every newsgroup in G exactly once,
]but not in any kind of alphabetical order. However you still want to cross-post
]your ad to both the W list and the P list. Here is the complete pseudo-code:
]
]/* choose the step for loop (2) */
]let SW=NW/3+random(NW/3)    /* random number betweem NW/3 and 2*NW/3 */
]while (GCD(SW,NW)<>1) ++SW; /* relatively prime to NW */
]
]let SP=NP/3+random(NP/3) /* likewise, random number betweem NP/3 and 2*NP/3 */
]while (GCD(SP,NP)<>1) ++SP;
]
]done=false;
]NR=0; /* when it reaches R, we take a newsgroup from the P list */
]i=j=0; /* control variables for the loops on W and P */
]do {
] L="";  /* random number of groups to cross-post to */
] for (NC=8+random(5); NC>0; --NC) {
]  if (NR<R) { /* choose a newsgroup from the W list */
]   L=L . W[i]; /* here . denotes concatenation, || in some languages */
]   i=(i+SW) % NW;
]   if (i==0) {
]    done=true; /* covered all of W */
]    NC=0; /* break from the for NC loop */
]    }
]   NR++;
]   }
]  else { /* choose a newsgroup from the P list */
]   L=L . P[j];
]   j=(j+SP) % NP;
]   NR=0; /* reset */
]   }
]  }
] post ad to L; /* the list of newsgroups */
] } while (!done);
]
]Q-n Why do some people object to posting multiple copies of the same ad?
]
]Because they're stupid. They don't object when one of them posts 100 inane
]one-liners with the same 20-line .sig art.
]
]
]However to keep the censors from forging cancels for your ads,
]Do not post the same body (ad copy) multiple times! Vary it every time.
]
]Go through your ad copy with a thesaurus and find all the little phrases that
]could be changed slightly without altering the meaning of the ad. For example,
]consider this famous passage:
]
] "We can make it easy to apply and increase your chance of winning one  (3)
] of the 55,000 Green Cards available in the 1994 Green Card Lottery."
]
]One could also rephrase (3) as:
]
] "We can help you apply and improve your chances of winning one
]          (A)                (B)
] of the 55,000 Green Cards distributed through 1994 Green Card Lottery."
]                                (C)
]or even as:
]
] "We can assist you in applying...
]
]We have immediately come up with 3 choices for the first variable phrase, 2
]choices for the second variable phrase, and 2 choices for the third variable
]phrase. Altogether there are 3x2x2=12 ways to combine these phrases to form ad
]copy equivalent to (3).
]
]Using the notation from Q-1, make sure that the number of differently phrased
]ads exceeds NG/NC. That's not as hard as it may sound! For example, if you have
]4 phrases with 2 variants each, 2 phrases with 3 variants, and 1 phrase with 7
]variants, you have a total of 2x2x2x2*3*7=1008 ways of phrasing your ad copy.
]
]The following pesudo-code, when invoked inside a loop, will list all possible
]ways to phrase your ad copy:
]
]SA=SB=SC=0; /* initialize the choice counters */
]do NG/NC times {
] printf("We can ");  /* could be array lookup: */
] printf( (SA==0) ? "make it easy to apply "
] : ((SA==1) ? "help you apply " : "assist you in applying "));
] printf(" and ");
]  printf( (SB==0) ? "increase " : "improve " );
] printf(" your chances of winning one of the 55,000 Green Cards ");
]  printf( (SC==0) ? "available in " : "distributed through " );
] printf("1994 Green Card Lottery.");
] /* advance the counters with carry */
] ++SA;
] if (SA==3) /* number of A choices */
]  {
]  SA=0;
]  ++SB;
]  if (SB==2) /* number of B choices */
]   {
]   SB=0;
]   ++SC;
]   if (SC==2) /* number of C choices */
]    {
]    SC=0; /* wrap around to all zero counters */
]    }
]   }
]  }
]/* pipe the output of printf through a formatter and append a
]  pre-formatted trailer before posting */
] }
]
]As usual, you are strongly encouraged to keep all variant phrasings hype-free.
]What often works very well is to post varying factual information about your
]services or products and include a constant pre-formatted contact address,
]World Wide Web site, or phone number for readers to ask for more information.
]You may wish to use the same technique to vary the "Subject:" headers of your
]ad slightly. You may even have to vary your "From:" and "Organization:" headers
]in your ads to bypass the self-appointed net.censors.
]
]If you have a product or service to advertise, but lack the technical expertise
]to implement these instructions, seek a knowledgeable consultant. Don't ask
]this poster for help. This advice is disseminated as free public service only.
]
]Finally, note that "Spam" and "Velveeta" are someone's registered trademarks
](ab)used unlawfully and without permission by the self-appointed "net judges".
]
]
]The "Subject:" of your message is one of the most important parts. Make
]it catchy. Remember, most modern newsreaders display a menu of article
]subjects and allow the user to select what articles they want to read.
]To be a good net.citizen, consider following the Usenet convention of
]starting the "Subject:" header of your post with the word "AD:". This
]will allow persons to filter them out, if they do not wish to see them,
]and so they'll have no basis no complain about your "unwanted ads".
]
]Add your phone number and other contact information to each Subject
]line. Never announce toll-free 800 on Usenet! You might get a lot of
]crank calls.
]
]The following example illustrates a little programming trick that will make
]your ad look more "catchy", and cause more people to read it. Suppose that your
]program is about to cross-post your ad into fictional newsgroups comp.os.cpm
]and alt.cpu.z80. Let your posting program pull a random article header from one
]of these newsgroups and its Subject: turns out to be "Re: Cross-jump
]optimization". Append it to your ad's subject to make it look like a follow-up.
]For example, if the fixed part of subject is:
]
]"Call 1-800-555-1212 for directory info"
]
]Then the ad cross-posted into these two newsgroups might have the subject:
]
]"Call 1-800-555-1212 for directory info (Was: Re: Cross-jump optimization"
]
]Q: What other neat headers are used in Usenet articles?
]
]Be a good net.citizen: include the "Followup-to: poster" in all your ads.
]If you post your ad to a newsgroup you don't normally read, you don't
]want its readers to ask for more information by posting the followup
]in that newsgroup.
]
]The "Expires:" header tells the other sites until what date to retain your
]ad. For example, if you're advertising a special price on a product or
]service and the offer lasts until December 31, 1999, you should add:
]
]Expires: 31 Dec 1999 01:00:00 GMT
]
]to your ad's header. Make sure the date complies with RFC 822.
]
]The "Approved:" header improves propagation in the so called "moderated"
]newsgroups. It doesn't hurt when posting to "unmoderated" newsgroups.
]Make sure your every ad contains the header:
]
]Approved: your name and e-mail address
]
]Other useful headers, such as "Distribution:" are described in RFC 1036.
]
]
]Q: What can I do if someone "flames" me or badmouthes the product I sell?
]
]It's a fairly common practice on Usenet to forge cancels for other people's
]articles whenever you disagree with their contents. Others are likely to forge
]cancels for your ads, so there's no reason why you can't forge cancels for
]their "flames".
]
]Automatic robocanceller: monitor specified newsgroups for specified
]patterns and forge cancels as soon as a matching patterns appears.
]
]Q: What can I do if someone forges cancels for my ads?
]
]for each message-id M post _twice_:
]into L with message-id M
]into "control".L with message-id "cancel.M"
]
](the so-called "$alz convention" used by the net.cop forgers)
]
]All M's must be distinct. It adds a nice touch to include the name of the
]product or service you're advertising in each M. Instead of boring
]<123456@your.site> say something like <123buy-my-widgets@your.site>.
]Make sure all message-ids are distinct and "legal".
]
]Ability to revive articles for which someone else has forged a cancel.
]
]Suppose you have posted article A1..An with message-id's M1..Mn.
]Save this information in a database. On a fast computer you could use
]PERL's associate list, with
]Mi's used as an index and Ai's being the info you've fed to NNTP, including
]article'b body and the relevant headers, like the list of newsgroups it was
]posted to.
]
]Now have a program monitor your control newsgroup and whenever it sees
]an incoming article with a "Control: M" header, check if M is equal to some Mi
]in your associate list. If it is, then:
]
] * Generate a new message-id, M'i.
]
] * Repost Ai with message-id M'i, adding the header "Supersedes: Mi"
]
] * Replace M' by M'i in your associate list.
]
]As an added touch, you can automatically add a little blurb to the reposted
]article providing header information about the forged cancel to which you're
]reacting.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:
> At this point, I would love the ability to filter news and mail
> according to some criteria related to the sender's probable
> reputation.  Back in the early days of C&S, spam was an
> intellectual issue.  Now it is a good chunk of the entire
> bandwidth of major components of the Net.

No it's not. Look at the size of the spam reported on a week in
news.admin.net-abuse.announce. Divide it by the total Usenet traffic
in a week. Tell us what you get.

> I am now getting more junk email than email from people I
> care to correspond with.  It seems one can't even read the
> scholarly newsgroups anymore without "Come Watch Us Lick
> Ourselves on the Web" messages popping up regularly.

Have you looked at NoCeM notices?

If the "Lick my Pussy Cheap" article is multi-posted more than
15 times, then the CancelMoose[tm] will post a NoCeM notice for
it in alt.nocem.misc. (A big 8 newsgroup may be created eventually.)
If you use decent newsreading software, you can instruct it to
look at the NoCeM notices and mark the inappropriate articles as
being already read, so you won't see them. Look at CM's homepage
at http://www.cm.org for more information about NoCeM's.

Some people, including myself, issue NoCeM notices for articles
in certain newsgroup which aren't multi-posted, but are nevertheless
off-topic. Here are the PGP signatures for the 'bots I run:

Type bits/keyID    Date       User ID
pub  1024/7BECC7F1 1996/08/08 <alt.revenge-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>
pub  1024/F1CB011D 1996/03/16 <misc.jobs.misc-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>
pub  1024/5BEC22E5 1996/08/08 <nyc.food-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>
pub  1024/FDF03179 1996/08/09 <nyc.general-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>
pub  1024/6396A13D 1996/08/08 <nyc.seminars-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>
pub  1024/B1E05325 1996/08/08 <rec.humor-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>
pub  1024/946493D5 1996/08/08 <sci.math-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>
pub  1024/FEBCB511 1996/08/08 <sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>

Public key for <alt.revenge-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAzIJ2+4AAAEEAL0WxIcWypgl7EFfVmJSfSCGmWTuzEaMHvbPxdyN1lm4Dum3
M9DVk8fqaPWLqEjqXOJ700Op3Dl/jXoYbv38tXpwaZ/Z769gXFHnEJOkX1m1PqCo
0Sq5naPauhIt6cpaminvfourqwbWjDmDWn7/1T5K4V4yehEnj1UsIER77MfxAAUR
tCM8YWx0LnJldmVuZ2UtTm9DZU1ib3RAYndhbGsuZG0uY29tPg==
=B5BZ
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Public key for <misc.jobs.misc-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAzFLAe4AAAEEAOLyLxMchegiEnjrf39JnpoO3UiEf7PelgOgbDAWafnj2cQV
HfhBWJZDsCekCBi64Wu6YsoF/hY6QkA5QwQ7O7ZXB89chBIdOeJIlFFo9qq4LWRX
vlQzcSDvt93f2S+HHCjQCYS0C1N+hS1FcseJnmRYBtAKsqwVFRkXW//xywEdAAUR
tCY8bWlzYy5qb2JzLm1pc2MtTm9DZU1ib3RAYndhbGsuZG0uY29tPg==
=SG3Y
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Public key for <nyc.food-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAzIJ6M4AAAEEAL4+AoiMaQnGJfm868jVi9Ol97Fz002PKepBUwEJJzGxm91K
MbF/TC977/vMZlaXIp2JYD4+v0nfweb17cWtPcqhXQaHStCvvjVu96NGgajcsm7u
lJeoag7bsEwcvG3WgGyEXcYCsWLl7/YAl41bhWFGI1j++BzAT2WekuVb7CLlAAUR
tCA8bnljLmZvb2QtTm9DZU1ib3RAYndhbGsuZG0uY29tPg==
=PQxj
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Public key for <nyc.general-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAzIKhHIAAAEEAKzBmAsBxOBg5bsCsSlIbe1uhQFBYP7sFS1t0xQHEOQRfp3K
bGBoxkVPp/lHaOya+TALwLC45/b4aqCwPIiXftcp1/U1e9xBhac5AhCtjJK+1itQ
vK9qZswPpikUm/1r//3gbXgaR8dVbgU72Sd2z6ddoqu3MLvTAWq10JL98DF5AAUR
tCM8bnljLmdlbmVyYWwtTm9DZU1ib3RAYndhbGsuZG0uY29tPg==
=oMRH
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Public key for <nyc.seminars-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>:


-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAzIJ6kkAAAEEAK+ug4kBmJv7amuFSjgJ9+U05JRctOxLMQvWwQA5lQIwm0wM
jTdlxA9h7l1QUry8Cah3LTCghTTpl67UPgwF4Ht2Msy6Rj8qCS49wIAKNWTIysex
dx+mfVPWl+/nVXbkgesjMbTm8Zc5fNos2Hi2YNEP3oPdI7qHnl0kDBhjlqE9AAUR
tCQ8bnljLnNlbWluYXJzLU5vQ2VNYm90QGJ3YWxrLmRtLmNvbT4=
=zZzz
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Public key for <rec.humor-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAzIJ2hoAAAEEAKwXMPkoGemZgPoQwyLLyK+Pq951FAPb/YuEQ4ZMd2wfm0jo
nR+DrmCkCmIyH0OIbSuXRCXeLdO+tN91DdqCvAQA/FbKVUkLSxSS4eMRC5O9GVF9
Y+hY5NzIk3hPS9HLtPqZd4nlO//qi6vk4xXxHxqpEMssnWNBdTmuqP6x4FMlAAUR
tCE8cmVjLmh1bW9yLU5vQ2VNYm90QGJ3YWxrLmRtLmNvbT4=
=fTWy
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Public key for <sci.math-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>:

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAzIJ688AAAEEAOZtfqm48a0q/eXlVXeE3v4+8oceIPBHvnOoulrsDmH1KQzv
vCwZrQP1d+Q/I1Sbk6kE7FLWva77Pmr+cRzv8pRA52HYNFZinu62g8sXtTHeX67J
Jb3woVg1ZlHNxzUHQ4lSXE1GZ2x08OjuOpEPBIVsGxUfGJzYRTLKBVWUZJPVAAUR
tCA8c2NpLm1hdGgtTm9DZU1ib3RAYndhbGsuZG0uY29tPg==
=so64
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

Public key for <sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com>:


-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6

mQCNAzIJ70UAAAEEAMNuejWXicbK3jSpBGXQeSYmIT2+XENPwXMxKIJIGtOJ5ILo
WRu3r1Q1QkFKJJ3u68PDQfGYeisLvnpqLqGZoyhWiGqPkN4OxNtFku1L72MDwbF+
4XqxFtxzOLeH/lFc7MQDTji4nbMgUD0GXBsNITRZ+YyvpnrVd4z0ceX+vLURAAUR
tCM8c2NpLnBoeXNpY3MtTm9DZU1ib3RAYndhbGsuZG0uY29tPg==
=9q4g
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

> It's really getting to the point where the time-honored
> suggestion of "just hit your delete key" cannot deal with the
> obverwhelming amount of Drek posted, much of it with subject
> lines deliberately designed to blend in with the newsgroup
> topic.

Are you talking about newsgroups or mailing lists? I don't find
reading newsgroups a problem with the proper software. I am somewhat
annoyed by the trash I get via e-mail, especially from this mailing
list (lies, off-topic rants, personal attacks from Tim May (fart)).

> Just being able to filter out posts from Net addresses that
> don't correspond to real identifiable humans posting under
> their legal names would be a good first step.

You have got to be fucking kidding! Some of the most interesting
Usenet articles in hostory were posted anonymously.

> Purely voluntary, of course, since any filtering would be
> done at the reading end, and people could still post anything
> they liked.

Yes - people should be able to post anything they like to Usenet,
including spam, and other people should be able to submit voluntarily
to other people's "censorship" if they choose to. NoCeM's do this
very nicely.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps