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
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
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-----
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 =========================
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 =========================
________________________ 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 =========================
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
participants (9)
-
Bill Frantz -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Ray Arachelian -
Rick Osborne -
Robert Hettinga -
Tim May -
tzeruch＠ceddec.com -
William H. Geiger III