From qut Fri Aug 23 19:21:25 1996 Subject: Re: Abusive mail from qut@netcom.com refused To: abuse@netcom.com, rcgraves@ix.netcom.com, llurch@stanford.edu Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 19:21:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <199608240106.SAA07144@Networking.Stanford.EDU> from "Rich Graves" at Aug 23, 96 06:06:04 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1564
! Dear Netcom: ! ! You suspended the account of this cross between Boursy and Dan Gannon (but Absurd! Boursy is non-political and objectively a true net abuser. So is Gannon who spammed thousands of newsgroups with identical political posts, such groups as sci.physics and sci.math . ! not as sincere) for two weeks in March for net abuse including mailbombing ! and forging cancels. Please restore what little faith I once had in Netcom ! by considering doing so again. Netcom has considerably higher standards than Stanford, an account there is apparantly considered an actual right rather than a service. llurch@stanford.edu is his address he abuses the net from, you won't find his abuses from rcgraves@ix.netcom.com which he very rarely uses, this e-mail, for example, was forged from networking.stanford.edu . ! All mail from qut@netcom.com to any of my email addresses is now being ! bounced to you as well as to him. Until he stops, you will usually receive ! multiple copies, because he usually sends multiple copies. This is absurd, we both subscribe to the same mailing list, cypherpunks, thereby anything I post to the list will be abusively e-mailed to abuse@netcom.com . Also, It is inherent that posting to usenet invites e-mailed responses, which would make what he is doing even more abusive. Rich Graves is a prominant net abuser, false complaints are part of his repertoire. He has never before complained about recieving courtesy copies of responses to his posts, this is the first I've heard of it. -- qut@netcom.com