Spam Update/Cyber Promo attacked

--- begin forwarded text


Mime-Version: 1.0
Date:         Wed, 7 May 1997 13:24:57 +0200
Reply-To:     Law & Policy of Computer Communications
              <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender:       Law & Policy of Computer Communications
              <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From:         Wendy Leibowitz <wendyl@LJEXTRA.COM>
Subject:      Spam Update/Cyber Promo attacked
To:           CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM

While aware of the irony of sending an unsolicited message from Cyber
Promotions to a large group of people, this bulletin just arrived from our
friends at Cyber:

PHILADELPHIA, 5-7-97  Bulk e-mail giant Cyber Promotions is under attack by
"anti-spam" hackers. This concentrated attack was planned for several
weeks, and has been publicly discussed on Internet newsgroups. The hackers
are using a brand new method to deny service to all Cyber Promotions'
computers hooked to a main router on an AGIS line. The hackers have devised
a system which sends millions of random "arp" requests to a router, which
can disable the whole network for hours. This type of attack has never
occurred before. Currently thousands of businesses with web pages and mail
box accounts are being denied service.

The attack began yesterday around 4 PM Eastern, and is still occurring at
press time. But the [source of the] attack is traceable with the help of a
backbone provider and computer security specialists. The longer it occurs,
the easier it is to trace it back to the hacker. Cyber Promotions will work
in conjunction with federal authorities to prosecute the criminals.

.......

This latest attack is occurring, by no coincidence, on the same day that
Cyber Promotions, AGIS and several bulk e-mailers scheduled  a press
conference in Las Vegas to discuss the formation of a new association which
will enforce a universal "don not send" list along with many other ethical
bulk e-mail standards.
...........

It goes on, but I need to ponder the meaning of "ethical bulk e-mail
standards."

Wendy R. Leibowitz, Technology Editor
National Law Journal
345 Park Ave. South
New York, NY 10010
E-mail: wendyl@ljextra.com
"Remember, even pencils break."

--- end forwarded text



-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com), Philodox
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

>PHILADELPHIA, 5-7-97  Bulk e-mail giant Cyber Promotions is under attack by
>"anti-spam" hackers. [...] Currently thousands of businesses with web pages
>and mail box accounts are being denied service.

Hmmm... the whole reason they are trying to stop the arp-spam is because
whoever is doing it is trying not to be found, right?  Well, what if
someone (or a group of someones) were to set up a web page with a script
behind it.  The page would simply ask "How many arps would you like to send
CyberPromo?".  An anonymous web user then fills in the blank, hits SUBMIT,
and the CGI does its thing.  Using this system, especially if it is not
just coming from one page but from anyone who sets up the CGI on their
system, CyberPromo really can't do anything about it, can they?

Maybe the denial of service attack is too harsh, though, and provides too
much legal ground.  What if instead of arps it sent emails to random
CyberPromo addresses?  At that point all you are doing is spamming
spammers, so what can they say?  And since it isn't you, but some passerby
on the web, you're safe from any repercussions, right?  You're just
providing the interface.

A perl script to connect directly to their SMTPd (no point in clogging
yours by using sendmail) would be trivial.  If set up on a sufficient
number of sites/pages (the form elements and script might take up a totalk
of 2k, whoopee), this could be a sort of passive agressive way of getting back.
_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
It's amazing how much 'mature wisdom' resembles being too tired.
- Lazarus Long

>First of all, Wallace is a great guy and anyone who interferes with his
>freedom of speech is scum on par with C2Net.

That's your opinion, and you certainly have a right to it.  I don't want to
start the spam war all over again, suffice it to say that it's not an
opinion I happen to agree with.

>Second, if you run a cgi script in this manner, the pings are still coming
>from the web server.  You want to ping from the client that the browser's on.

Which is why I suggested the email version as well.  The arp version has
the connotation of being "morally wrong". An email version, while more
processor and bandwidth intensive, is at least no worse than what Sanford
and his crew are already doing.

Like I said, it's more of a passive agressive thing.  If I were to come
across a page that said "Click here to spam some spammers" and that's all I
had to do, why wouldn't I take 2 seconds of my time to do it?  That's
certainly less time than it takes to go through the amount of spam in my
mail each day.

And who cares if the pings/emails are coming from my site?  For the email
version I just add a header that says something to the effect of "This
email was sent to you on behalf of someone at $REMOTE_HOST" and set the
Return-Path to <root@localhost>.  At that point, how can you prove that it
was sent by your script or just by someone using your SMTPd?


_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
"This is what we heroes call the denouement, that's French for when we
finish off the supervillains ... huh? ... huh? ...  Roof pig, most
unexpected."

Rick Osborne <osborne@gateway.grumman.com> writes:

> >First of all, Wallace is a great guy and anyone who interferes with his
> >freedom of speech is scum on par with C2Net.
>
> That's your opinion, and you certainly have a right to it.  I don't want to
> start the spam war all over again, suffice it to say that it's not an
> opinion I happen to agree with.

You expose your own hypocricy. Wallace is free to spam. I'm free to
ignore his spam, which I do.

> Like I said, it's more of a passive agressive thing.  If I were to come
> across a page that said "Click here to spam some spammers" and that's all I
> had to do, why wouldn't I take 2 seconds of my time to do it?  That's

Can you think of a way to have it originate at the browser's machine, not
your machine? Perhaps an activex program for w95 :-)

> certainly less time than it takes to go through the amount of spam in my
> mail each day.

I suggest you learn to filter your e-mail.

> And who cares if the pings/emails are coming from my site?  For the email
> version I just add a header that says something to the effect of "This
> email was sent to you on behalf of someone at $REMOTE_HOST" and set the

You could also try an html form whose actions send mailto:your@enemy

> Return-Path to <root@localhost>.  At that point, how can you prove that it
> was sent by your script or just by someone using your SMTPd?

He'll just filter out your site.  Wallace has some very smart
people working with him.

---

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

Dimitri Vulis wrote:
>Perhaps an activex program for w95 :-)

If I hadn't sworn to take my own life before I touched ActiveX, then I
might have considered that course of action.  :)  Instead, I'll leave it as
an exercise for the reader.

>I suggest you learn to filter your e-mail.

Actually, this account has adequate filters.  Unfortunately, my employer
chooses to use Exchange for mail, which has less than astonishing filtering
capability.  But I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of)
intelligence.  ;)

>You could also try an html form whose actions send mailto:your@enemy

Wouldn't work with all browsers, and can't get more than one at a time.

>He'll just filter out your site.

Which is why I originally suggested bypassing the normal sendmail route and
using straight sockets.  If he blocks my script from connecting directly to
his smtpd then I use a random smtpd somewhere as a go-between, routing it
to his smtpd.  He can't (won't) block them all.  Also, this is why I
recommended making the script small and portable: *anyone* could put it up
on their site.  He can't block everyone.

_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
A system without PERL is like a hockey game without a fight.

Rick Osborne <osborne@gateway.grumman.com> writes:

> >I suggest you learn to filter your e-mail.
>
> Actually, this account has adequate filters.  Unfortunately, my employer
> chooses to use Exchange for mail, which has less than astonishing filtering
> capability.  But I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of)
> intelligence.  ;)

Your lack of ethics, rather.  You choose to work for someone who chooses
to use inadequate Microsoft software, and you brandish these choices as
an excuse to interfere with somene's free speech.

> Which is why I originally suggested bypassing the normal sendmail route and
> using straight sockets.  If he blocks my script from connecting directly to
> his smtpd then I use a random smtpd somewhere as a go-between, routing it
> to his smtpd.  He can't (won't) block them all.  Also, this is why I
> recommended making the script small and portable: *anyone* could put it up
> on their site.  He can't block everyone.

Wallace hired some people who are very good (and you know how seldom I
characterize someone as being very good).  I'm fairly confident that
they will withstand whatever attacks these half-brained wannabe hackers
and anti-free-speech hooligans can invent.

---

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

One simple question: where is the property right to a socket and mailbox.

If Wallace has the right to fill my computer with unwanted data, then I
have the same right toward his.  If it is an act of free speech to send
some commercial solicitation for something I would never want, it is hard
not to maintain that an ARP packet isn't covered by the same theory.

It costs me something to filter out spam, and will cost him something to
filter out counterspam of whatever sort.  The NSP may be in the no-man's
land between the trenches, but they are providing the connection and can
tell him to look elsewhere or charge a premium for the extra traffic.

On Thu, 8 May 1997, Rick Osborne wrote:

> Actually, this account has adequate filters.  Unfortunately, my employer
> chooses to use Exchange for mail, which has less than astonishing filtering
> capability.  But I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of)
> intelligence.  ;)

Filtering isn't the point.  Just as you have the right to free speech, 
you also have the right to ignore someone else's speech as it is aimed at 
you.  If you don't want Cyberspammo to spam you, they should honor your 
request to take their crap elsewhere.

The problem I have with them is that while they do say "Send email here 
to never be spammed again" it doesn't work.  They don't honor the 
deletion requests.  You wind up on some other dweeb's spam queue also 
from cyberspam. :(

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "So make a move and plead the fifth,   |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|  'cause you can't pleade the first!"   |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |                                        |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die.     |.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

At 7:46 AM -0800 5/9/97, Ray Arachelian wrote:

>Filtering isn't the point.  Just as you have the right to free speech,
>you also have the right to ignore someone else's speech as it is aimed at
>you.  If you don't want Cyberspammo to spam you, they should honor your
>request to take their crap elsewhere.

Much as it pains me to dispute my usual ideological ally Ray A., the "they
should honor your request" is problematic.

If by this Ray means "as decent human beings they should," then, well,
perhaps so.

If, however, Ray means "they should, or something should be done," then, of
course, we disagree.

(If Ray means something in between, then he should say more about what he
means.)

Fact is, so long as anybody is free to send a message to someone else, then
what Wallace, Cantwell, Vulis, et. al. are doing is legit. Legit in the
sense of not breaking any laws. Whether tasteful or not, legit.

>The problem I have with them is that while they do say "Send email here
>to never be spammed again" it doesn't work.  They don't honor the
>deletion requests.  You wind up on some other dweeb's spam queue also
>from cyberspam. :(

Indeed, saying you don't "want" more advertisements is, for all practical
purposes, saying "Send me more!!!!"

So?

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May wrote:
> >The problem I have with them is that while they do say "Send email here
> >to never be spammed again" it doesn't work.  They don't honor the
> >deletion requests.  You wind up on some other dweeb's spam queue also
> >from cyberspam. :(
> 
> Indeed, saying you don't "want" more advertisements is, for all practical
> purposes, saying "Send me more!!!!"

You know, maybe if the spammers were not routinely kicked 1/2 hr after
the incident, they would probably have a chance to receive and honor
the removal requests.

But then, maybe not.

	- Igor.

At 8:17 PM -0800 5/9/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>Tim May wrote:

>> Indeed, saying you don't "want" more advertisements is, for all practical
>> purposes, saying "Send me more!!!!"
>
>You know, maybe if the spammers were not routinely kicked 1/2 hr after
>the incident, they would probably have a chance to receive and honor
>the removal requests.

I can't parse your English. (Not a new problem for me, Igor, as I seldom
understand your posts.)

My point was an obvious marketing one: anyone who expresses any interest
whatsoevery in advertisements or products, no matter what kind of interest,
is essentially automatically a candidate for more advertising.

--Tim May


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> At 7:46 AM -0800 5/9/97, Ray Arachelian wrote:
>
> >Filtering isn't the point.  Just as you have the right to free speech,
> >you also have the right to ignore someone else's speech as it is aimed at
> >you.  If you don't want Cyberspammo to spam you, they should honor your
> >request to take their crap elsewhere.

Ray Arachelian is a terrorist who publicly advocates criminal hacking.
Please e-mail your comments to jack@earthweb.com.

[Timmy C... May]
> Much as it pains me to dispute my usual ideological ally Ray A.

There's no question that Timmy and Ray are ideological allies.

> If by this Ray means "as decent human beings they should," then, well,
> perhaps so.

Suppose the request is phrased, "Please refrain from posting to soc.motss
in the future". Should a "decent human being" honor it?

Suppose the request is phrased, "Please refrain from posting to Usenet
in the future", without specifying the newsgroup.

> Fact is, so long as anybody is free to send a message to someone else, then
> what Wallace, Cantwell, Vulis, et. al. are doing is legit. Legit in the
> sense of not breaking any laws. Whether tasteful or not, legit.

Of course, Timmy May, unlike many other people, did not object when Cocksucker
John Gilmore unsubscribed me from this list (even posted a blurb in Gilmore's
support claiming that I was removed for "volume", not "content", apparently
in reference to Gilmore's lies that I was sending "50 articles/day" and
"megabytes" - both of which are outright lies).

Of course Timmy May didn't utter a word when the plan to "moderate" this
mailing list by a C2Net shill was being discussed.

Therefore is feeble attempt tp speak up in defense of someone's free speech
is insincere and hypocritical.

> Indeed, saying you don't "want" more advertisements is, for all practical
> purposes, saying "Send me more!!!!"
>
> So?

A decent person can filter them out, like I do.

The attempts by net.terrorists like Ray Arachelian&co to silence Wallace are
no different from the attempts by C2Net to silence me, or the attempts by
the Nazi German government to silence the Radikal, or the atttempts by
the Burmese government to silence its opposition. Only an ignorant hypocrite
like Timmy May can argue that because a particular gang of thugs calls
itself "gubmint", its form of censorship is somehow more or less benign
than private censorship enforced via terrorist acts.

I'm very glad that the Turks retaliated against Armenians in 1915 -
it's too bad they didn't get Ray Arachelian's criminal grandparents.

---

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In <v03007800af99ae300ca9@[207.167.93.63]>, on 05/09/97 at 10:53 PM,
   Tim May <tcmay@got.net> said:


>At 7:46 AM -0800 5/9/97, Ray Arachelian wrote:

>>Filtering isn't the point.  Just as you have the right to free speech,
>>you also have the right to ignore someone else's speech as it is aimed at
>>you.  If you don't want Cyberspammo to spam you, they should honor your
>>request to take their crap elsewhere.

>Much as it pains me to dispute my usual ideological ally Ray A., the "they
>should honor your request" is problematic.

>If by this Ray means "as decent human beings they should," then, well,
>perhaps so.

>If, however, Ray means "they should, or something should be done," then,
>of course, we disagree.

>(If Ray means something in between, then he should say more about what he
>means.)

>Fact is, so long as anybody is free to send a message to someone else,
>then what Wallace, Cantwell, Vulis, et. al. are doing is legit. Legit in
>the sense of not breaking any laws. Whether tasteful or not, legit.

Yes this is true just as it is ligit for me to make arp request to their
routers, lots of arp requests <EG>. There is nothing ilegal from me sending
such a request nor is their any limitation on the number of request that I
make.

As far as the "denial of service" problem that is theirs not mine. After
all they were not concerned with the problems they caused by dumping
+1,000,000/day e-mail messages on AOL's servers so why should anyone be
conserned with their network problem?

>>The problem I have with them is that while they do say "Send email here
>>to never be spammed again" it doesn't work.  They don't honor the
>>deletion requests.  You wind up on some other dweeb's spam queue also
>>from cyberspam. :(

>Indeed, saying you don't "want" more advertisements is, for all practical
>purposes, saying "Send me more!!!!"

>So?

Yep and sending me spam is saying "Make more arp requests!!!!"

So?





- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
                          
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
- -----------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: Windows isn't crippleware: it's "Fuctionally Challenged"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 ES000000

iQCVAwUBM3SmjI9Co1n+aLhhAQGKJwQAmZSNCXaUMCIZvVHhvgZwJ1IeRS3j/mC0
7CHttFq2bmVF6mftjrZaP/X8dum7zdUXe/hCFs0YSXTTEFcvIYyQIVnPzI0SkU3u
QYqP7XHwoZDi9jI12sYfZNhnFU1P61rY7iVTRq/eDoVnbk9sqBbo38hKUO0xD8fH
RgnQMPoty4M=
=xiTV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> writes:
>
> >Fact is, so long as anybody is free to send a message to someone else,
> >then what Wallace, Cantwell, Vulis, et. al. are doing is legit. Legit in
> >the sense of not breaking any laws. Whether tasteful or not, legit.
>
> Yes this is true just as it is ligit for me to make arp request to their
> routers, lots of arp requests <EG>. There is nothing ilegal from me sending
> such a request nor is their any limitation on the number of request that I
> make.

And if they come up with a technical solution, it'll advance the state
of the art and generally make the net a better place.

> As far as the "denial of service" problem that is theirs not mine. After
> all they were not concerned with the problems they caused by dumping
> +1,000,000/day e-mail messages on AOL's servers so why should anyone be
> conserned with their network problem?

Just be prepared for an FBI visit in response to Wallace's complaint
- make sure your entire child pornography / bomb making recipe collection
is securely encrypted.

---

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

At 7:37 AM -0800 5/10/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:

>Yes this is true just as it is ligit for me to make arp request to their
>routers, lots of arp requests <EG>. There is nothing ilegal from me sending
>such a request nor is their any limitation on the number of request that I
>make.
...
>
>Yep and sending me spam is saying "Make more arp requests!!!!"
>
>So?

I never claimed otherwise. The effort to shut down CyberPromo with
coordinated ARP attacks is to be commended. This will probably turn out to
be another success story for Cypherpunks, having forced Wallace off the
air, so to speak.

"What goes around, comes around."

If you read my post carefully you'll see that I never said ARP attacks were
unjustified. I merely took issue with Ray A.'s point that CyberPromo was
not "honoring" requests to cease. (Absent a contractual arrangement, no one
is under any obligation to "honor" requests about what they wish to have
sent to them in e-mail.)

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In <v03007807af9a5cf5c64a@[207.167.93.63]>, on 05/10/97 at 11:16 AM,
   Tim May <tcmay@got.net> said:


>At 7:37 AM -0800 5/10/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:

>>Yes this is true just as it is ligit for me to make arp request to their
>>routers, lots of arp requests <EG>. There is nothing ilegal from me sending
>>such a request nor is their any limitation on the number of request that I
>>make.
>...
>>
>>Yep and sending me spam is saying "Make more arp requests!!!!"
>>
>>So?

>I never claimed otherwise. The effort to shut down CyberPromo with
>coordinated ARP attacks is to be commended. This will probably turn out to
>be another success story for Cypherpunks, having forced Wallace off the
>air, so to speak.

>"What goes around, comes around."

>If you read my post carefully you'll see that I never said ARP attacks
>were unjustified. I merely took issue with Ray A.'s point that CyberPromo
>was not "honoring" requests to cease. (Absent a contractual arrangement,
>no one is under any obligation to "honor" requests about what they wish to
>have sent to them in e-mail.)

Ahhh... an erroneous jump in logic on my part. I had made the assumption
that you were also in disagreement with the ARP attack. Glad to see that we
are both on the same side of this issue. :)

Eventually programmers will learn that the Internet is a hostile
environment and code accordingly.

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
                          
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
- -----------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: Windows: From the people who brought you EDLIN!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Registered User E-Secure v1.1 ES000000

iQCVAwUBM3SwI49Co1n+aLhhAQGIQAP+PeQIOsCeONRRVDPOXpqBPQ55KgnWtmBE
nqqIV9tlKl26xRCRIGwk76PInkpfdsJDNVZ9reUEzt8MQZ6vRT0b3m21f67d7kk5
WmuKNkHPNHDHaFANH64FDBYFDnt0g4Covy9r2BXyTzlqFqPt0IrUiJgw+yYlDRPl
HJB6D79O1dM=
=HEgw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 9 May 1997, Tim May wrote:

> Much as it pains me to dispute my usual ideological ally Ray A., the "they
> should honor your request" is problematic.

To elaborate:

Point is that in every one of their posts that I've gotten they have a 
"send email to this address with subject cancel" only it doesn't do 
shit.   They place something that makes it look like they will not spam 
you if you ask them not to, but they do anyway.

> Indeed, saying you don't "want" more advertisements is, for all practical
> purposes, saying "Send me more!!!!"
> 
> So?

Yeah, they use the "cancel" messages to send you more spam instead of 
shutting off all spam.  This is called false advertising, no?

If you want to take it further in to the land of the creatures of theory, 
who owns your email?  Do you?  If so, by right of ownership can you 
decide who isn't to send you email?  You can certainly achieve this by 
filters.  If the spamming scum says "I will stop if you ask me to" and 
you ask him to stop, but he doesn't, what rights have you got against 
him?  What if he is using your email for commercial purposes without your 
consent? etc.....

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "So make a move and plead the fifth,   |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|  'cause you can't pleade the first!"   |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |                                        |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die.     |.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

At 2:54 PM -0800 5/13/97, Ray Arachelian wrote:

>Point is that in every one of their posts that I've gotten they have a
>"send email to this address with subject cancel" only it doesn't do
>shit.   They place something that makes it look like they will not spam
>you if you ask them not to, but they do anyway.

So?

>Yeah, they use the "cancel" messages to send you more spam instead of
>shutting off all spam.  This is called false advertising, no?

I don't believe in the concept of "false advertising." All advertising is
an attempt in persuasion. Sometimes founded in truth, sometimes in a wish
to believe, sometimes in outright deception. So?

(If "false advertising" were a true crime, most of the world's religions
would surely be shut down.)


>If you want to take it further in to the land of the creatures of theory,
>who owns your email?  Do you?  If so, by right of ownership can you
>decide who isn't to send you email?  You can certainly achieve this by
>filters.  If the spamming scum says "I will stop if you ask me to" and
>you ask him to stop, but he doesn't, what rights have you got against
>him?  What if he is using your email for commercial purposes without your
>consent? etc.....

Look to contract law for your answer.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Tue, 13 May 1997, Tim May wrote:

> (If "false advertising" were a true crime, most of the world's religions
> would surely be shut down.)

That would be a dream come true. <Evil grin>

> Look to contract law for your answer.

I'd rather spam them back... Gee, where's Vulis's bots when you need them 
:)

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "So make a move and plead the fifth,   |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|  'cause you can't pleade the first!"   |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |                                        |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die.     |.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

________________________ R i c k   O s b o r n e ________________________
I said:
>I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of) intelligence.  ;)

To which Vulis wrote:
>Your lack of ethics, rather.  You choose to work for someone who chooses
>to use inadequate Microsoft software, and you brandish these choices as
>an excuse to interfere with somene's free speech.

I'm not brandishing anything as an excuse, simply stating this: I should
not have to walk through the street (get my email) wearing 4 inches of
kevlar (using spam filters), *just in case* someone decides to whip out a
submachine gun (spam).  It should not me my job to defend myself from
psychos, rather people should have to ask my permission to infringe upon my
space and time.

Microsoft (and I can't believe I'm saying this) actually is doing it right
for a change: when you sign up to be a part of any of their "clubs" (SBN,
etc), you get asked if you want to receive further mail.

How am I taking away from Sanford's right to free speech by just spamming
him back?  I sgree with this weekend's discussion on arp attacks:
technically, they should be no different than spam attacks.  WHy then
should he (or whoever) have the right to spam me without fear of retribution?

>I'm fairly confident that they will withstand whatever attacks these
>half-brained wannabe hackers and anti-free-speech hooligans can invent.

Actually, and this is just MHO, I don't really care if the 100 or so
spams/arps I send them are but a mosquito's bite to them.  It makes *me*
feel better.  I'm not in this necessarily to shut anyone down (though it
would be a nice side-effect), just to annoy them as much as they annoy me.
Like I said, I'm more of the passive-agressive type, so I'm not here to
wage a war, just a few small skirmishes.
_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
"A heart of gold beats under that big fiberglass croissant, Arthur.  And
thank goodness for it!  It's spirit like hers that allowed us to thwart
Chairface's evil scheme and thwart we did."

Rick Osborne <osborne@gateway.grumman.com> writes:
> I said:
> >I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of) intelligence.  ;)
>
> To which Vulis wrote:
> >Your lack of ethics, rather.  You choose to work for someone who chooses
> >to use inadequate Microsoft software, and you brandish these choices as
> >an excuse to interfere with somene's free speech.
>
> I'm not brandishing anything as an excuse, simply stating this: I should
> not have to walk through the street (get my email) wearing 4 inches of
> kevlar (using spam filters), *just in case* someone decides to whip out a
> submachine gun (spam).  It should not me my job to defend myself from
> psychos, rather people should have to ask my permission to infringe upon my
> space and time.

Rick also walks in the rain without an ubmbrella and fucks without a condom.

*PLONK*

---

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

________________________ R i c k   O s b o r n e ________________________
At 12:24 AM 5/13/97 EDT, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>*PLONK*

Damn, does this mean I've made your killfile?  Let me now express my sorrow
and regret.
_________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
Steganography Question:
How many bodies does it take to spell "I _told_ you I was crazy!"?

On Mon, 12 May 1997, Rick Osborne wrote:

> Microsoft (and I can't believe I'm saying this) actually is doing it right
> for a change: when you sign up to be a part of any of their "clubs" (SBN,
> etc), you get asked if you want to receive further mail.

<FLAME: Climing on anti Microsoft Sandbox>

Erm, mayhaps, but they haven't lost their evil touch yet.  In recent news 
Borland is suing them for raiding their employees. :(  (Borland made the 
best intel compilers I've ever seen in terms of both compile speed and 
resulting code...  Microsoft has done everything in their power to crush 
this competitior including forcing them to give up ObjWin so for MFC 
inclusion.)  Nasty bastards.

</FLAME>

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "So make a move and plead the fifth,   |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|  'cause you can't pleade the first!"   |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |                                        |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die.     |.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

Rick Osborne <osborne@gateway.grumman.com> writes:

> >PHILADELPHIA, 5-7-97  Bulk e-mail giant Cyber Promotions is under attack by
> >"anti-spam" hackers. [...] Currently thousands of businesses with web pages
> >and mail box accounts are being denied service.
> 
> Hmmm... the whole reason they are trying to stop the arp-spam is because
> whoever is doing it is trying not to be found, right?  Well, what if
> someone (or a group of someones) were to set up a web page with a script
> behind it.  The page would simply ask "How many arps would you like to send
> CyberPromo?".  An anonymous web user then fills in the blank, hits SUBMIT,
> and the CGI does its thing.  Using this system, especially if it is not
> just coming from one page but from anyone who sets up the CGI on their
> system, CyberPromo really can't do anything about it, can they?
> providing the interface.
> 
> A perl script to connect directly to their SMTPd (no point in clogging
> yours by using sendmail) would be trivial.  If set up on a sufficient
> number of sites/pages (the form elements and script might take up a totalk
> of 2k, whoopee), this could be a sort of passive agressive way of getting bac
> _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________
> It's amazing how much 'mature wisdom' resembles being too tired.
> - Lazarus Long
> 

First of all, Wallace is a great guy and anyone who interferes with his
freedom of speech is scum on par with C2Net.

Second, if you run a cgi script in this manner, the pings are still coming
from the web server.  You want to ping from the client that the browser's on.

---

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

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote:

> PHILADELPHIA, 5-7-97  Bulk e-mail giant Cyber Promotions is under attack by
> "anti-spam" hackers. This concentrated attack was planned for several
> weeks, and has been publicly discussed on Internet newsgroups. The hackers
> are using a brand new method to deny service to all Cyber Promotions'
> computers hooked to a main router on an AGIS line. The hackers have devised
> a system which sends millions of random "arp" requests to a router, which
> can disable the whole network for hours. This type of attack has never
> occurred before. Currently thousands of businesses with web pages and mail
> box accounts are being denied service.


Wooo hooo! :)  Now that's a dream come true!  Whoever did this: many 
thanks! :)  

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "So make a move and plead the fifth,   |./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|  'cause you can't pleade the first!"   |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |                                        |\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  | For with those which eternal lie, with |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| strange aeons, even death may die.     |.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

At 10:39 AM -0700 5/7/97, Robert Hettinga forwarded:
>The hackers have devised
>a system which sends millions of random "arp" requests to a router, which
>can disable the whole network for hours. This type of attack has never
>occurred before.

It is quite obvious to anyone who cares to give it even a moment's thought
that the currently installed Internet Protocols are still in the age of
cooperative communicators.  While some work, e.g. DNSSEC, has addressed
part of this problem, the bulk of it remains.

Now, if we could only go back 30 years and give C a reasonable string
model, we might be able to eliminate 50% of the known holes in Unix
security.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | God could make the world   | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | in six days because he did | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | not have an installed base.| Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA