AOL's TOS threatens Web site
David Cassel
Basic program that exploits AOL's buggy interface.
AOL's twisted logic wreaks havok on the net again. There's a letter at
http://www.zoom.com/personal/bell103/aol.msg that was written to an
internet user's provider complaining about his Web page.
Even stranger: the letter is signed by "The Terms of Service Staff"
It's full of ominous overtones ("It has been brought to our attention that
a file entitled "AOHell", as well as several other potentially disruptive
files, are available on your server...") Always thinking about others, AOL
writes "they tend to be disruptive to our service, and can potentially
diminish the quality of internet service you provide to your users."
~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~
But the TOS staff hits the nail on the head here:
"Due to the malicious nature and possible illegality of these files..."
~~~~~~~~
Even AOL isn't convinced the files are illegal.
des...@crl.com /\ NEW: http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
/ \ And: ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/
==============================================================================
/__________\ Hackers on AOL, Time's "I've Been Spammed" debacle
Claude D. Bilbo
>Last August AOL ran to the FBI to defend them against AOHell, a Visual
>Basic program that exploits AOL's buggy interface.
>AOL's twisted logic wreaks havok on the net again. There's a letter at
>http://www.zoom.com/personal/bell103/aol.msg that was written to an
>internet user's provider complaining about his Web page.
>Even stranger: the letter is signed by "The Terms of Service Staff"
>It's full of ominous overtones ("It has been brought to our attention that
>a file entitled "AOHell", as well as several other potentially disruptive
>files, are available on your server...") Always thinking about others, AOL
>writes "they tend to be disruptive to our service, and can potentially
>diminish the quality of internet service you provide to your users."
> ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~
>But the TOS staff hits the nail on the head here:
>"Due to the malicious nature and possible illegality of these files..."
> ~~~~~~~~
>Even AOL isn't convinced the files are illegal.
That's not the part that caught my attention. Apparently, AOL claims that
AOHELL still works, including the fake account generator.
The program "AOHell" allows users to email bomb other Internet users,
forge email headers, disrupt IRC channels, generate fake credit card
numbers, generate fraudulent America Online accounts, and impersonate
America Online Staff all at the click of a button.
I thought that AOL had made it where you couldn't generate phake
accounts anymore. Do the more interesting features of AOHELL that
allow D@@DZ to rip off AOL still work? If it still works, then, well,
that's pathetic, but if it doesn't, then they are apparently lying
in this letter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Claude D. Bilbo | |
| cbi...@mindspring.com | All of my opinions are |
| bilb...@eng.uab.edu | completely uncorrelated.|
| http://www.mindspring.com/~cbilbo/ | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
barton
> I thought that AOL had made it where you couldn't generate phake
> accounts anymore. Do the more interesting features of AOHELL that
> allow D@@DZ to rip off AOL still work? If it still works, then, well,
> that's pathetic, but if it doesn't, then they are apparently lying
> in this letter.
Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
with AOL.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
David Cassel
the AOL building to an internet account to obfuscate criticism of her
employer.
Message-ID: <barton-1904...@152.163.52.16>
~~~ ~~~
A "whois" on 152.163 gives:
America Online (NET-ANS-BNET8)
8619 Westwood Center Drive
Vienna, VA 22182
Catherine Buzzell's link on the AOL Employee Home Page at
http://www.aol.com/community/employees/ leads to the Barton account,
(where we find "Barton's Sex Tips" and "Barton's Gynecological Adventures".)
The self-described "stirrup queen" writes:
: > I thought that AOL had made it where you couldn't generate phake
: > accounts anymore.
Catherine doesn't address this. AOL is so powerless against AOHell, they
added big red letters below the mailbox saying, in effect, "In the event
that you receive e-mail from someone using AOHell asking for your
password, please don't give it to them." The same warning was added to
"Instant Message" windows and on the exit screen of every log-off.
Last year AOL's Kathy Ryan told staffers at an internal gathering, "we
understand that our aggressive distribution of both software and
certificates can result in 'throwaway' accounts. We have made the
business decision that the benefits in this case outweigh the
disadvantages." AOL apparently knew about the password-fishing
population.
And Chip Douglas, head of AOL's TOS staff, posted to an internal board,
"Many times we (AOL) are caught between a rock and a hardplace debating
over the importance of our 'community' while still trying to be as open to
new members as possible, and NOT scare them away with needless (?)
warnings about PW scammers, etc." Looks like AOL had considered warnings,
but chose not to for marketing reasons.
It was only when stories about AOL's security breaches started appearing
in (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/archive/1995/09/07/MN16190.DTL) the
San Francisco Chronicle, and being picked up by UPI and the Wall Street
Journal that AOL allegedly improved their security. The 70 screen names
involved in the "Hacker Riot" months later attest to their failure; and
there was another coordinated hacker attack Easter Sunday. Yesterday an
AOLer told me they had been password-fished *that morning*.
: >Do the more interesting features of AOHELL that
: > allow D@@DZ to rip off AOL still work?
AOHell has 35 features--most of which just automate hacks from the
keyboards that have existed for years. You can read the documentation at
ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/chronic2, where the program's
author writes "I wrote a text file on this trick back at the beginning of
November [1994]. In AOHell, it's automized. AOL doesn't care about the
stupid text files I write, they're worried when I write Moron-Friendly
programs that any AOL Idiot can use just by pushing the nice looking
button."
BTW, the end of the documentation says the program was created because
AOL's child pornography chat rooms stayed open longer than their hacker
chat rooms. (To this day "hacker" is automatically prohibited in any AOL
chat room name, along with the word "boy".)
I spoke to someone at Microsoft for a story on Visual Basic. "Why don't
they just eliminate the ability to trick AOL into give you free time?" he
asked. "AOL should really think of AOHell as a blessing. Because since
they know about it, they know that they have a fault in their system."
But AOL apparently doesn't see it that way. Their paid employee writes
in the newsgroup:
: Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
: forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
: with AOL.
But possession of the software to do so is....?
And AOL has everything to do with the threats against numerous Web
sites--including Boardwatch magazine--that were distributing the AOHell
program. For a list of those sites, see
http://www.crl.com/~destiny/threats.htm
AOL is threatened by a piece of software a teenager wrote in Visual Basic.
des...@crl.com /\ New: http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
/ \ Also: ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/
==============================================================================
/__________\ Hackers on AOL, AOL threatens critics
Mark G. Scheuern
morning pearl of wisdom:
>In article <4l7sc6$u...@mule2.mindspring.com>, cbi...@bham.mindspring.com wrote:
>> I thought that AOL had made it where you couldn't generate phake
>> accounts anymore. Do the more interesting features of AOHELL that
>> allow D@@DZ to rip off AOL still work? If it still works, then, well,
>> that's pathetic, but if it doesn't, then they are apparently lying
>> in this letter.
>Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
>forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
>with AOL.
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I've noticed that your posts have taken on a decidedly different tone
lately. I wonder why?? Hmmmm.... .
Unfortunately they are still lacking in meaningful content. First of
all, you apparently have either not read the post that you are replying
to or have completely failed to understand it. Nowhere did he say that
_he_ attempted to create a fake account or forge a credit card. He's
responding to a post of David Cassel's where he reports of AOL's attempts
to threaten a person for making AOHell available on his server, with the
loopy claim that they are concerned because it can "potentially diminish
the quality of internet service you provide to your users."
You don't attempt to address whether or not AOL is right to make these
kinds of threats when the person in question has taken no harmful action
against AOL. You also totally ignore Claude's point, which is why AOL
continues to be so frightened by this little program. Would you care to
try again and try to respond to the actual posts rather than the one's
you imagined?
I continue to wonder exactly what your motivation is for making these
posts. I can't imagine that making yourself look silly is really a goal
of yours.
Mark
Earl Cooley III
[...]
>AOL is threatened by a piece of software a teenager wrote in Visual Basic.
If AOL weren't quite so clue-challenged, then they would use AOLHell themselves
as a test suite to confirm the quality of their security improvements.
--
\ | Earl Cooley III * sh...@io.com * <url:http://www.io.com/~shiva/> | /
\| Online Liaison, the 55th Worldcon: LoneStarCon 2, Aug 28-Sep 1, 1997 |/
/| Online Liaison, the 49th WesterCon: ConDiablo, July 4-7, 1996 |\
/ | The Virtual SMOF-BBS: <url:http://www.io.com/~shiva/SMOF-BBS.html> | \
\ | alt.fan.lynne-russell FAQ: <url:http://www.io.com/~shiva/lrFAQ.html> | /
Mark G. Scheuern
>The producer of AOL's Internet Connection, Catherine Buzzell, telnets from
>the AOL building to an internet account to obfuscate criticism of her
>employer.
>Message-ID: <barton-1904...@152.163.52.16>
> ~~~ ~~~
>A "whois" on 152.163 gives:
>
> America Online (NET-ANS-BNET8)
> 8619 Westwood Center Drive
> Vienna, VA 22182
In fact she's not even doing a telnet to her phantom.com account when she
makes these posts. These gems are coming directly from AOL. She's
simply changed the address field in her GNN client. AOL's giggly Stirrup
Queen was telling an outright lie when she said that she's posting from
her phantom account.
[snip]
>Catherine doesn't address this. AOL is so powerless against AOHell, they
>added big red letters below the mailbox saying, in effect, "In the event
>that you receive e-mail from someone using AOHell asking for your
>password, please don't give it to them." The same warning was added to
>"Instant Message" windows and on the exit screen of every log-off.
She never addresses _anything_ (well, okay, she did once actually answer
a question: the one about whether watering her breasts did any good).
Her latest technique is to skip from thread to thread, making a single,
pointless post each morning. David, she might do you the honor of
actually responding to this post (I _still_ laugh at the way she so
obviously avoids dealing with me--it's like when my cat "hides" by
sticking her head under a blanket with the rest of her exposed). Though
she seems to be attempting to be on her best behavior (wonder why?)
perhaps she'll answer your fact-filled post with a comment on how you
should go read a dummies book, grow the fuck up, or maybe a comparison
of brain cell numbers. I wait with breathless anticipation.
>AOL is threatened by a piece of software a teenager wrote in Visual Basic.
There's no doubt about that. I learned a lot from your post. We learned
all we'll ever know from Catherine a long time ago and it's about her,
not AOL. She _must_ think we're dumb if she thinks we haven't gotten
that message by now.
Mark
barton
> The producer of AOL's Internet Connection, Catherine Buzzell, telnets from
> the AOL building to an internet account to obfuscate criticism of her
> employer.
Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but you're wrong
here. If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
know it. Tsk. Tsk.
> The self-described "stirrup queen" writes:
>
> : > I thought that AOL had made it where you couldn't generate phake
> : > accounts anymore.
I didn't write this. Again, you're wrong. What I wrote was:
"Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
with AOL."
None of the crap you wrote makes what I said wrong.
> Catherine doesn't address this. AOL is so powerless against AOHell, they
> added big red letters below the mailbox saying, in effect, "In the event
> that you receive e-mail from someone using AOHell asking for your
> password, please don't give it to them." The same warning was added to
> "Instant Message" windows and on the exit screen of every log-off.
First off, I've never seen that text (mentioning AOHell) on an AOL window.
I know this technical stuff is staggering for many of you, but you can
actually phish for passwords without AOHell! Oh, you can also phish for
passwords without ever going near the AOL service.
> But AOL apparently doesn't see it that way. Their paid employee writes
> in the newsgroup:
>
> : Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
> : forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
> : with AOL.
If you're assuming I'm speaking for AOL, then again, you're wrong. Also,
the little snippet above is a fact. Not something I guess you are too
familiar with.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Claude D. Bilbo
>In article <4l7sc6$u...@mule2.mindspring.com>, cbi...@bham.mindspring.com wrote:
>> I thought that AOL had made it where you couldn't generate phake
>> accounts anymore. Do the more interesting features of AOHELL that
>> allow D@@DZ to rip off AOL still work? If it still works, then, well,
>> that's pathetic, but if it doesn't, then they are apparently lying
>> in this letter.
>Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
>forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
>with AOL.
MY attempts? Are you accusing me of attempting to gain illegal access
to AOL? Please Barton, clarify your statement. I was simply inquiring
whether AOL has taken steps to prevent illegal use. Surely by now they
go to the trouble of verifying the account.
The way I read your post, one would conclude that you do consider AOL's
attempts at security to be pathetic. If this is not true, then please
explain it to us instead of blowing smoke.
Claude D. Bilbo
>In article <4l8ee7$e...@crl2.crl.com>, des...@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
>> The producer of AOL's Internet Connection, Catherine Buzzell, telnets from
>> the AOL building to an internet account to obfuscate criticism of her
>> employer.
>Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but you're wrong
>here. If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
>know it. Tsk. Tsk.
Oh, stop whining Barton. You've been caught posting from AOL.
>> The self-described "stirrup queen" writes:
>>
>> : > I thought that AOL had made it where you couldn't generate phake
>> : > accounts anymore.
>I didn't write this. Again, you're wrong. What I wrote was:
Blowing smoke again. The above is clearly indented properly. Anyone
outside of AOL recognizes that fact. Plus he lists your message ID,
making it extremely easy for anyone, except maybe an AOLer to look
up your post in the unlikely event they are confused.
>"Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
>forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
>with AOL."
>None of the crap you wrote makes what I said wrong.
None of the crap you wrote addresses the issue of AOL's inability/
unwillingness to take proper security measures. You would have been
just as unwrong if you'd said "The sky is blue" or "Water is wet".
>> Catherine doesn't address this. AOL is so powerless against AOHell, they
>> added big red letters below the mailbox saying, in effect, "In the event
>> that you receive e-mail from someone using AOHell asking for your
>> password, please don't give it to them." The same warning was added to
>> "Instant Message" windows and on the exit screen of every log-off.
>First off, I've never seen that text (mentioning AOHell) on an AOL window.
>I know this technical stuff is staggering for many of you, but you can
>actually phish for passwords without AOHell! Oh, you can also phish for
>passwords without ever going near the AOL service.
Are you familiar with all the text in all the windows on AOL? You must
be one of those "expert" programmers in Vienna. And BTW, surely you
recognize that phishing is SO much more effective on AOL itself. Not
likely that a newbie would be fooled into thinking that AOL staff needed
their password for verification if they were solicited outside AOL.
>> But AOL apparently doesn't see it that way. Their paid employee writes
>> in the newsgroup:
>>
>> : Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
>> : forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
>> : with AOL.
>If you're assuming I'm speaking for AOL, then again, you're wrong. Also,
>the little snippet above is a fact. Not something I guess you are too
>familiar with.
Even if you are not speaking in an "official" capacity for AOL, that does
not make his assertion that you are "Their paid employee" wrong. (Don't
you just love it when your own logic bites you in the arse?) And yes,
it is a fact that fraud is against the law, but it is also true that the
sky is blue.
Mark G. Scheuern
>In article <4l8ee7$e...@crl2.crl.com>, des...@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
>> The producer of AOL's Internet Connection, Catherine Buzzell, telnets from
>> the AOL building to an internet account to obfuscate criticism of her
>> employer.
>Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but you're wrong
>here. If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
>know it. Tsk. Tsk.
No, Cathy. You _are_ using your internal AOL account to make these posts.
We can see that in the headers. It's true that you are using this account
directly, which is in fact worse than telnetting to an ISP and doing it.
These posts are coming directly from an internal AOL account on an
internal AOL machine. They are not coming from phantom as you stated.
We can see this (and in fact we could also see if you were telnetting to
phantom--you _also_ do that, which I don't see as much of a problem with).
>I didn't write this. Again, you're wrong. What I wrote was:
>"Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
>forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
>with AOL."
Yes, you did write that.
>None of the crap you wrote makes what I said wrong.
Two points here. No one said what you wrote was wrong, we said that it
had nothing to do with the posts. In my opinion truth is a necessary but
not a sufficient condition in conversation or debate. Relevance is a
factor too. Like I said, it seems as if you didn't even read the post
and still haven't. You have not responded to its contents in any
substantive way and have not even attempted to do so.
Secondly, what David said is not "crap". It was well-researched,
well-documented, and well-presented. He backs up his statements with
facts. If you find a flaw in some of what he presents then please tell
us exactly what you think is wrong. Did he say anything that you know to
be untrue? Did he say anything that you think has any merit at all?
When you misunderstand what's presented and call it "crap" you do yourself
no favors.
>First off, I've never seen that text (mentioning AOHell) on an AOL window.
Then what you need to do is to try to find out exactly where it was seen
and look for yourself. Saying that you haven't seen it does not prove
anything.
>I know this technical stuff is staggering for many of you, but
>you can actually phish for passwords without AOHell! Oh, you can also
>phish for passwords without ever going near the AOL service.
Again, silly name calling. As a person very much aware of your level of
technical expertiese, or lack, I find this totally innapropriate.
Perhaps David and I would be more impressed if you got your mail reply
forms working properly on your sex tips page. What's even worse than
this is that you fail to see that this strengthens the argument which you
purport to refute. You are saying that AOL is a security sieve even
without AOHell, so the question remains, just why is AOL harassing (only
one "r", Cathy) people for distributing it? You don't even understand
the issues here.
>> But AOL apparently doesn't see it that way. Their paid employee writes
>> in the newsgroup:
>>
>> : Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
>> : forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
>> : with AOL.
>If you're assuming I'm speaking for AOL, then again, you're wrong. Also,
>the little snippet above is a fact. Not something I guess you are too
>familiar with.
Certainly we're not from your posts. I think an impartial person--one
who has never even heard of AOL--could look at your posts and look at
those from David, myself, and others and it would be abundantly clear who
has presented their case in a more skilled manner. It's the people who
think before they post, who post because they have an actual point they
want to make, who don't lie constantly, who read and understand the posts
they respond to, who make declarative statements, who back those
statements up with proof, and who don't resort to childish name-calling
because that's the best they can do. It's not you, Cathy.
Yes, you do work for AOL (not that you admitted it, as you should have at
the outset), and no, you don't speak for them (no doubt much to their
relief, but I have to think there is some embarassment in seeing what you
put here). But one would think that you might, on occasion, have
something of value to say. That you might show us that you have some
knowledge of AOL (I can understand David's surprise when he found out
that you work there). You have done none of that. All you do is leave
us wondering just what motivates this display.
Mark
Joseph K. Shraibman
use the manual hacks.
David Cassel (des...@crl.com) wrote:
: AOHell has 35 features--most of which just automate hacks from the
David Cassel
barton (bar...@phantom.com) wrote:
: > The producer of AOL's Internet Connection, Catherine Buzzell, telnets from
: > the AOL building to an internet account to obfuscate criticism of her
: > employer.
: Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but you're wrong
: here. If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
: know it. Tsk. Tsk.
I stand corrected. The producer of AOL's Internet Connection is posting
directly from the AOL building, on company time. (Shouldn't you be off
writing one-sided reviews of newsgroups you don't like, or something?)
: > The self-described "stirrup queen" writes:
: >
: > : > I thought that AOL had made it where you couldn't generate phake
: > : > accounts anymore.
:
: I didn't write this.
I wrote "Catherine doesn't address this" immediately below that material,
which you included in your post but didn't respond to.
Whether AOL has the ability to stop people from accessing their system
without paying is a good question.
: Again, you're wrong. What I wrote was:
:
: "Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
: forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
: with AOL."
:
: None of the crap you wrote makes what I said wrong.
Except the part you deleted:
> : Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
> : forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
> : with AOL.
>
> But possession of the software to do so is....?
AOL is seeking prior restraint on the software because it might enable
that crime to then be committed.
The head of AOL's Internet Connection would apparently prefer the subject
were whether or not fake credit card numbers are illegal, as this would
remove her employer from the discussion about whether it was wrong for
them to bully Web sites.
Her position: whether or not AOHell was effective, forging a credit card
number would still be a violation of law. Sidestepping the question of
whether the program still works, and whether or not prior restraint of
that software does anything but further AOL's interest at the expense of
Web sites and free speech.
(Doesn't it follow that if there were no security holes, AOHell would be
of no concern to AOL...)
> And AOL has everything to do with the threats against numerous Web
> sites--including Boardwatch magazine--that were distributing the AOHell
> program.
Never addressed by Barton.
I just think it's ironic that in this case, the *Terms of Service* staff
contacted the ISP. These are the people that tell AOLers which words in
chat rooms are banned. Now they're reaching out to internet Web sites,
complaining about *their* content...
I'd say the fact that the TOS staff contacted a Web site less than 10
days ago indicates they're desparate...
: > Catherine doesn't address this. AOL is so powerless against AOHell, they
: > added big red letters below the mailbox saying, in effect, "In the event
: > that you receive e-mail from someone using AOHell asking for your
: > password, please don't give it to them." The same warning was added to
: > "Instant Message" windows and on the exit screen of every log-off.
:
: First off, I've never seen that text (mentioning AOHell) on an AOL window.
"Saying, in effect".
The actual text on those windows is:
"Reminder: AOL staff will never ask you for your password or
billing information. :)"
This is clearly designed specifically to address AOHell. From AOHell's
documentation:
AOHell will IM everyone in that room pretending to be AOL staff,
asking for their PW or their credit card information (which ever you
told AOHell to do)
: I know this technical stuff is staggering for many of you
AOL's paid employee reverts to name-calling...
: but you can actually phish for passwords without AOHell! Oh, you can
: also phish for passwords without ever going near the AOL service.
So are you argument is that, in fact, the warning message is really saying
"In the event that you receive e-mail from someone using AOHell OR ONE OF
THE MANY OTHER PASSWORD-FISHING SOFTWARES AVAILABLE, please don't give it
to them."
I stand corrected.
And this somehow exonerates AOL from the threats to the Web site?
des...@crl.com /\ Time magazine and alt.aol-sucks: the connection
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Hacks, flacks, and Macs
Mark G. Scheuern
>Are you familiar with all the text in all the windows on AOL? You must
>be one of those "expert" programmers in Vienna. And BTW, surely you
Looking at some of the software that comes out of there and looking at
barton's posts can easily make a person come to that conclusion.
Fortunately though, despite her odd attempt to make us think that she's
some sort of technical whiz (she _really_ needs to work on that
self-esteem thing) her position is not remotely technical. A look at her
struggeles with proper HTML coding as well as not being able to get a
simple mail reply form working in over five months will confirm that AOL
at least did its subscribers a favor in that respect. Given her
all-too-obvious struggles with communicating in this newsgroup, however,
it would be difficult to think of a less appropriate choice for
"Newsgroup Scoop Editor". For good entertainment, read her
self-important pontifications there and then her babblings here.
Mark
Dave
>> The producer of AOL's Internet Connection, Catherine Buzzell, telnets from
>> the AOL building to an internet account to obfuscate criticism of her
>> employer.
>Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but you're wrong
>here. If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
>know it. Tsk. Tsk.
Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
Better think of something different to try and impress people with,
cause you computer knowledge definately isn't doing it.
finger bar...@phantom.com
Login Name TTY Idle When Where
barton Negative Creep pts/6 <Apr 19 18:01> 152.163.52.16
Not that I have anything against AOL, some of my best friends are
AOLamers. Spend some time in Unix (even DOS will do to start). The
net is an open book, don't do anything on it you wouldn't do in the
town square at noon.
David Cassel
lack of net savvy....
Dave (dfr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
: >know it.
: Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
: wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
: telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
AOL's Webmaster--the 24-year-old Michael Hutchinson--was *also* telnetting
from the AOL building and posting to alt.aol-sucks without identifying
himself.
bl...@cais.cais.com (Blues) writes:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Christopher M McCraken (asci...@nyc.pipeline.com) wrote:
:alone. We dont want you to give back to us Steve, every time you do , you
:fuck something up (i.e: WebCrawler)
"Net Leach (sic) Philosophy" vs "We dont (sic) want you to give back to
us Steve". You people need to make up your minds (and learn how to spell).
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
crl1% finger bl...@cais.com
[cais.com]
Login: blues Name: Blues
Directory: /cais/blues Shell: /bin/csh
Last login Wed Jan 10 14:44 (EST) on ttyp9 from 152.163.33.50
No Plan. ~~~~~~~~~~~~
crl17% nslookup 152.163.33.50
Name: mac-sn12501.office.aol.com
Address: 152.163.33.50 ~~~~~~~
But it's more sinister.
Hutchinson joins a campaign against "anti-AOL bias" in the mass media.
Take this letter to "The Net" magazine...
"over the past couple of issues, I've noticed a disturbing trend that
being AOL bashing...why must we be treated to a monthly tirade of your
obvious hostility toward it?... I was shocked to see you jump head-first
into the foray, and help foster an atmosphere of hatred and mistrust."
It was signed only "dir...@primenet.com". However, his Web page
identifies him as Michael Pellerin, who works for "a very large online
service". In fact, it's AOL's Customer Service building in Arizona.
The Net published a similar letter one month earlier from a paid AOL
staffer who also didn't identify their affiliation.
Hutchinson's cais.com account.
des...@crl.com /\ AOL, hackers, and the threats against critics
Art Stone
>bl...@cais.cais.com (Blues) writes:
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Christopher M McCraken (asci...@nyc.pipeline.com) wrote:
>
>:alone. We dont want you to give back to us Steve, every time you do , you
>:fuck something up (i.e: WebCrawler)
>
>"Net Leach (sic) Philosophy" vs "We dont (sic) want you to give back to
>us Steve". You people need to make up your minds (and learn how to spell).
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> crl1% finger bl...@cais.com
> [cais.com]
> Login: blues Name: Blues
> Directory: /cais/blues Shell: /bin/csh
> Last login Wed Jan 10 14:44 (EST) on ttyp9 from 152.163.33.50
> No Plan. ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> crl17% nslookup 152.163.33.50
> Name: mac-sn12501.office.aol.com
> Address: 152.163.33.50 ~~~~~~~
>
>
You ARE one sharp investigator! :)
JG
>The head of AOL's "Internet Connection" caught red-handed showing her
>lack of net savvy....
>Dave (dfr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
>: >know it.
>: Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
>: wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
>: telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
>AOL's Webmaster--the 24-year-old Michael Hutchinson--was *also* telnetting
>from the AOL building and posting to alt.aol-sucks without identifying
>himself.
>But it's more sinister.
>
>Hutchinson joins a campaign against "anti-AOL bias" in the mass media.
>Take this letter to "The Net" magazine...
>
> "over the past couple of issues, I've noticed a disturbing trend that
> being AOL bashing...why must we be treated to a monthly tirade of your
> obvious hostility toward it?... I was shocked to see you jump head-first
> into the foray, and help foster an atmosphere of hatred and mistrust."
>
>It was signed only "dir...@primenet.com". However, his Web page
>identifies him as Michael Pellerin, who works for "a very large online
>service". In fact, it's AOL's Customer Service building in Arizona.
>
>The Net published a similar letter one month earlier from a paid AOL
>staffer who also didn't identify their affiliation.
>Hutchinson's cais.com account.
> des...@crl.com /\ AOL, hackers, and the threats against critics
> / \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
>==============================================================================
> /__________\ "Hacks, flacks, and Macs"
Is it my imagination or does David Cassel bear a striking resemblance
to God? You're the man, David. Keep it up.
JG
In awe
Mimi Kahn
chastised David Cassel thusly:
>I didn't write this. Again, you're wrong. What I wrote was:
>
>
>"Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
>forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
>with AOL."
Then she goes on to quote David's quote of what she said:
>> : Whether or not your attempts at creating a fake account is successful,
>> : forging a credit card account is against the law. That has nothing to do
>> : with AOL.
So the same ungrammatical paragraph she chastised David for *not*
quoting is the same ungrammatical paragraph David quoted.
Um -- is our highly paid troll a bit confused?
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
barton
Kahn) wrote:
> So the same ungrammatical paragraph she chastised David for *not*
> quoting is the same ungrammatical paragraph David quoted.
Ungrammatical? Huh?
>
> Um -- is our highly paid troll a bit confused?
Nope. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the
line attributing text to me fell far above my actual paragraph and
attributed to me some text that I didn't write. The only thing I'm
confused about is why you think I'm highly paid.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
barton
> I stand corrected. The producer of AOL's Internet Connection is posting
> directly from the AOL building, on company time. (Shouldn't you be off
> writing one-sided reviews of newsgroups you don't like, or something?)
Not on company time. All my reviews are one-sided by definition, and I
write reviews of groups I like, don't like, and could care less about.
It's part of working for the man.
> I wrote "Catherine doesn't address this" immediately below that material,
> which you included in your post but didn't respond to.
Actually, I thought I did address this. You are complaining about AOL
going after people who carry AOHell on their Web sites. You made some
mention of AOHell not violating the law. The only point I was addressing
in your post was that AOHell does indeed violate the law. Without the
credit card number generator, there's probably no illegality at all.
As for your remarks on what I didn't remark on--I'm not going to comment
on something that I am not 100% of the answer. You can feel free to
speculate to your heart's desire. In this case, I would rather not. But
when you post that AOL's screens actually mention AOHell, well, that's
what we call a lie. So I called you on it.
> The head of AOL's Internet Connection would apparently prefer the subject
> were whether or not fake credit card numbers are illegal, as this would
> remove her employer from the discussion about whether it was wrong for
> them to bully Web sites.
I am just a lowly peon. I am not the head of the Internet Connection or
anywhere near it.
> So are you argument is that, in fact, the warning message is really saying
> "In the event that you receive e-mail from someone using AOHell OR ONE OF
> THE MANY OTHER PASSWORD-FISHING SOFTWARES AVAILABLE, please don't give it
> to them."
This is what blows my mind. What is so goddamned hard about password
phishing that it would require any software to actually help you out with
it? Is there a software packages out there to help people who want to cold
call the elderly and steal their credit card numbers too? Does it organize
the people you've called and keep track of how long you've been holding a
stolen number?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
barton
> MY attempts? Are you accusing me of attempting to gain illegal access
> to AOL? Please Barton, clarify your statement. I was simply inquiring
> whether AOL has taken steps to prevent illegal use. Surely by now they
> go to the trouble of verifying the account.
Sorry. Didn't mean "your" as in you but as a general pronoun.
> The way I read your post, one would conclude that you do consider AOL's
> attempts at security to be pathetic. If this is not true, then please
> explain it to us instead of blowing smoke.
What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
any online service. Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
You don't need AOHell to do it. You don't have to do it on AOL. In fact,
you can phish for credit card numbers or phone card numbers or any
sensitive information (online or not).
When you got a credit card, did you feel that the company should tell you
the obvious security risks inherent in owning a card? Should they put you
through a seminar on how not to give people your credit card number? Of
course not. Lots of people on this newsgroup seem to think AOL should do
this. I don't agree.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
barton
(Dave) wrote:
> Moments before complete insanity bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
> Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
> wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
> telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
> Better think of something different to try and impress people with,
> cause you computer knowledge definately isn't doing it.
>
> finger bar...@phantom.com
> Login Name TTY Idle When Where
> barton Negative Creep pts/6 <Apr 19 18:01> 152.163.52.16
I'm well aware of the finger command. I was saying you couldn't tell from
the newsgroup header.
> Not that I have anything against AOL, some of my best friends are
> AOLamers. Spend some time in Unix (even DOS will do to start). The
> net is an open book, don't do anything on it you wouldn't do in the
> town square at noon.
I first started playing with Unix in 1989, so while I'm relatively new at
it, I have been using it for 7 years now. In fact, at my old job, we coded
all out documents in troff coding using emacs as an editor. So bite me
(the the town square at noon if you'd prefer).
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Mark G. Scheuern
points and writes:
>In article <4l91hh$1g...@mule2.mindspring.com>, cbi...@bham.mindspring.com wrote:
>> MY attempts? Are you accusing me of attempting to gain illegal access
>> to AOL? Please Barton, clarify your statement. I was simply inquiring
>> whether AOL has taken steps to prevent illegal use. Surely by now they
>> go to the trouble of verifying the account.
>Sorry. Didn't mean "your" as in you but as a general pronoun.
Uh-huh.
>> The way I read your post, one would conclude that you do consider AOL's
>> attempts at security to be pathetic. If this is not true, then please
>> explain it to us instead of blowing smoke.
>What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
>any online service. Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
>You don't need AOHell to do it. You don't have to do it on AOL. In fact,
>you can phish for credit card numbers or phone card numbers or any
>sensitive information (online or not).
No, we _do_ get it. What you still don't get is the issue of whether or
not AOL--AOL's TOS department, as a matter of fact--has any business
threatening people who run web sites that have AOHell.
>When you got a credit card, did you feel that the company should tell you
>the obvious security risks inherent in owning a card? Should they put you
>through a seminar on how not to give people your credit card number? Of
>course not. Lots of people on this newsgroup seem to think AOL should do
>this. I don't agree.
Again, you've totally missed the point and I think we can conclude that
you're never going to understand what this discussion is about.
Mark
Mark G. Scheuern
>In article <4l9kqn$6...@crl.crl.com>, des...@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
>> I stand corrected. The producer of AOL's Internet Connection is posting
>> directly from the AOL building, on company time. (Shouldn't you be off
>> writing one-sided reviews of newsgroups you don't like, or something?)
>Not on company time. All my reviews are one-sided by definition, and I
>write reviews of groups I like, don't like, and could care less about.
>It's part of working for the man.
And we're all very convinced, given your performance here, that your
reviews carry a lot of weight. I am glad to see that, after initially
lying about it and then trying to weasel out of it, you are now admitting
that you are posting from an internal AOL account. This, however, does
not change the fact that you _did_ lie about this.
BTW, you must work strange hours. Times from some random posts of yours
include:
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:24:05 -0500
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 1996 10:08:13 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:25:43 -0500
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:44:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:50:00 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 17:18:47 -0500
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:51:22 -0500
Whatever.
>Actually, I thought I did address this. You are complaining about AOL
>going after people who carry AOHell on their Web sites. You made some
>mention of AOHell not violating the law. The only point I was addressing
>in your post was that AOHell does indeed violate the law. Without the
>credit card number generator, there's probably no illegality at all.
A program that simply says something like "give me your password" is in
violation of the law? Posting a program that does this is in violation
of the law? Where did you imagine this? Okay, feel free to turn me in
for this:
#!/bin/ksh
write $1 "Hello, I'm your sys admin. Please give me your password."
>As for your remarks on what I didn't remark on--I'm not going to comment
>on something that I am not 100% of the answer. You can feel free to
>speculate to your heart's desire. In this case, I would rather not. But
>when you post that AOL's screens actually mention AOHell, well, that's
>what we call a lie. So I called you on it.
What you failed to remark on was the entire topic of that thread, which
raises the question of why you said anything at all.
>> The head of AOL's Internet Connection would apparently prefer the subject
>> were whether or not fake credit card numbers are illegal, as this would
>> remove her employer from the discussion about whether it was wrong for
>> them to bully Web sites.
>I am just a lowly peon. I am not the head of the Internet Connection or
>anywhere near it.
You are the Producer of the Internet Connection. One of two, I believe.
You do, in fact, have a small staff. Whatever, you again avoid the issue
of whether or nmot these web sites should be bullied. And please, we
have your egomaniacal number. A little late for the modesty act.
>This is what blows my mind. What is so goddamned hard about password
>phishing that it would require any software to actually help you out with
>it? Is there a software packages out there to help people who want to cold
>call the elderly and steal their credit card numbers too? Does it organize
>the people you've called and keep track of how long you've been holding a
>stolen number?
Then why is AOL so afraid of this program? You can't have it both ways.
Mark
Mark G. Scheuern
bar...@phantom.com (barton) writes:
>I'm well aware of the finger command. I was saying you couldn't tell from
>the newsgroup header.
Were you saying this to yourself as you typed this?
"If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't know
it. Tsk. Tsk."
Recall that you said:
"That's why I prefer to post to newsgroups under my phantom.com account.
I can say whatever I want all the live long day without worrying
about breaking the rules of a family service."
_Every_ single post you've made here has been from your AOL account.
Again I ask, does this mean that you did break the rules while posting
"all the live long day"? You see, this is what we call a lie. And you
were caught. I pointed this out, so did David, and all you did was
ignore it and then blow smoke.
>I first started playing with Unix in 1989, so while I'm relatively new at
>it, I have been using it for 7 years now. In fact, at my old job, we coded
>all out documents in troff coding using emacs as an editor. So bite me
>(the the town square at noon if you'd prefer).
Again, from the help I've given you on this topic in the past, I am well
aware of your level of Unix expertise. Yes, you do know how to run a few
applications from a Unix prompt. This does not make you the Stirrup
Queen version of Rob Pike.
Mark
Mark G. Scheuern
>In article <317ad743....@news.hooked.net>, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi
>Kahn) wrote:
>> So the same ungrammatical paragraph she chastised David for *not*
>> quoting is the same ungrammatical paragraph David quoted.
>Ungrammatical? Huh?
Read it again. Confusion of tenses. We hold people who say things like
"Bad subject-verb agreement makes readers doubtful they should have even
read this far" to a higher standard.
Mark
David Cassel
>What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
>any online service.
But it's much much easier when you have a free account with no name on it
on a system that markets itself to new users. And when there's a piece of
software specifically designed to automate the process. And when the
system you're exploiting chooses not to plug the security holes because it
might cut into their bottom line.
AOHell lets you automatically fish twenty people at a time. Since AOL's
software allows you to log the responses, you can even fish ten rooms in a
few minutes and sort through all the responses later.
>Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
I think you're deliberately sidestepping the fact that it's easier on
AOL--both technically, and because of AOL's official PR-induced silence on
security issues, combined with mass-marketing aimed a new users.
Saying "Phishing *also* occurs elsewhere" doesn't address whether its
worse on AOL.
Or, more importantly, that AOL's response to the problem was to threaten a
Web page distributing phishing software, rather than implement fixes on
their own system.
>When you got a credit card, did you feel that the company should tell you
>the obvious security risks inherent in owning a card? Should they put you
>through a seminar on how not to give people your credit card number? Of
>course not. Lots of people on this newsgroup seem to think AOL should do
>this.
AOL seems to think they should do this, too, since they've put the
password warning message on every single exit screen.
Which raises the question why they didn't do this last month...
>when you post that AOL's screens actually mention AOHell, well, that's
>what we call a lie. So I called you on it.
You're deliberately twisting what I said. I wrote that the
messages in effect say we're powerless against AOHell.
Your response to this was "password fishing also occurs on the internet".
Which, again, redirects the issue. Away from AOL's security lapses (and
whether or not threatening Web pages is the best response.)
: > Moments before complete insanity bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
:
: > Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
: > wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
: > telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
: > Better think of something different to try and impress people with,
: > cause you computer knowledge definately isn't doing it.
: >
: > finger bar...@phantom.com
: > Login Name TTY Idle When Where
: > barton Negative Creep pts/6 <Apr 19 18:01> 152.163.52.16
:
:
: I'm well aware of the finger command. I was saying you couldn't tell from
: the newsgroup header.
Interesting that you quoted 14 lines, deleting only the text where the
poster quotes you as saying "If I was telnetting from the AOL building
to an ISP, you wouldn't know it". (Which is obviously untrue...)
>I am just a lowly peon. I am not the head of the Internet Connection or
>anywhere near it.
mgsc...@io.com wrote:
>You are the Producer of the Internet Connection. One of two, I believe.
>You do, in fact, have a small staff.
Newsgroup Scoop's credits list you as "Producer and overall sass-master".
Despite all your claims about having identified yourself to the group, you
have yet to give us your title--just complaining that we're guessing
wrong.
>Not on company time.
I guess I was assuming two in the afternoon was company time. My mistake.
des...@crl.com /\ AOL employees, alt.aol-sucks, adventurous hackers
David Cassel
: Nope. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the
: line attributing text to me fell far above my actual paragraph and
: attributed to me some text that I didn't write.
That isn't true. The notation clearly indicated you quoted material--
which in fact you did--without then responding to it. This lack of
familiarity with quoting notation isn't surprising for someone who a few
months ago was defending the AOL-style <<blurb>> quoting.
: The only thing I'm confused about is why you think I'm highly paid.
Maybe because after Mark posted some critical comments about you in the
newsgroup, you had AOL's legal staff contact him.
It's ironic--because Mark posted in a thread about AOL legal threats, he
becomes the *target* of them.
des...@crl.com /\ Threats Against Critics - the AOL way
tre...@sirius.com
>What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
>any online service. Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
Oh, that is SUCH a stupid statement!
Exactly how is phishing supposed to go "on all the time all over the
Internet?"
tre...@sirius.com
>This is what blows my mind. What is so goddamned hard about password
>phishing that it would require any software to actually help you out with
>it?
With AOHell, AFAIK, you can setup a predefined message, and send it to
every person in the room. EVERY person at once. Then, you can capture the
incoming IMs and save them to a file.
Are you saying the regular AOL software gives you that ability?
tre...@sirius.com
>dfr...@ix.netcom.com (Dave) wrote:
>> finger bar...@phantom.com
>> Login Name TTY Idle When Where
>> barton Negative Creep pts/6 <Apr 19 18:01> 152.163.52.16
>I'm well aware of the finger command. I was saying you couldn't tell from
>the newsgroup header.
But it still remains that you telnetted in from AOL...
Mimi Kahn
>What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
>any online service. Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
>You don't need AOHell to do it. You don't have to do it on AOL. In fact,
>you can phish for credit card numbers or phone card numbers or any
>sensitive information (online or not).
>
>When you got a credit card, did you feel that the company should tell you
>the obvious security risks inherent in owning a card? Should they put you
>through a seminar on how not to give people your credit card number? Of
>course not. Lots of people on this newsgroup seem to think AOL should do
>this. I don't agree.
I have had a CompuServe account since long before I had an AOL
account. Nobody on CompuServe has ever asked me for my password or my
credit card number. I have had an Internet account since three or
four months after joining AOL. Nobody on the Internet has ever asked
me for my password or my credit card number.
OTOH, on AOL....
Guess which of the three I've quit?
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
Mimi Kahn
>In article <317ad743....@news.hooked.net>, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi
>Kahn) wrote:
>> So the same ungrammatical paragraph she chastised David for *not*
>> quoting is the same ungrammatical paragraph David quoted.
>
>Ungrammatical? Huh?
Yeah. You had, as I recall, a plural subject with a singular verb.
Go back and look.
>> Um -- is our highly paid troll a bit confused?
>
>Nope. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that the
>line attributing text to me fell far above my actual paragraph and
>attributed to me some text that I didn't write. The only thing I'm
>confused about is why you think I'm highly paid.
I think I was paying more attention than you were.
Be that as it may, I'm relieved to know that you're not highly paid.
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
M. Whittington
>In article <4l91hh$1g...@mule2.mindspring.com>, cbi...@bham.mindspring.com wrote:
>> MY attempts? Are you accusing me of attempting to gain illegal access
>> to AOL? Please Barton, clarify your statement. I was simply inquiring
>> whether AOL has taken steps to prevent illegal use. Surely by now they
>> go to the trouble of verifying the account.
>Sorry. Didn't mean "your" as in you but as a general pronoun.
>> The way I read your post, one would conclude that you do consider AOL's
>> attempts at security to be pathetic. If this is not true, then please
>> explain it to us instead of blowing smoke.
>What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
>any online service. Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
>You don't need AOHell to do it. You don't have to do it on AOL. In fact,
>you can phish for credit card numbers or phone card numbers or any
>sensitive information (online or not).
Okay, let's take a poll. Who reading any of these newsgroups has ever had
someone attempt to get your credit card info, phone card numbers, or any
other sensitive information (online or not) anywhere on the internet,
*outside* of AOL? Speak up, folks, let's help barton expose this seamy
underbelly of the net once and for all.
>When you got a credit card, did you feel that the company should tell you
>the obvious security risks inherent in owning a card? Should they put you
>through a seminar on how not to give people your credit card number? Of
>course not. Lots of people on this newsgroup seem to think AOL should do
>this. I don't agree.
It's tied directly to AOL relentless pursuit of new users, barton. Will
AOL go under suddenly if they stop signing up half a million people a
month? And, if they will, then what does that tell us about the 'service'?
Methinks ye might be a bit close to the problem to see it clearly.
Claude D. Bilbo
>bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
<S>
>>What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
>>any online service. Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
>>You don't need AOHell to do it. You don't have to do it on AOL. In fact,
>>you can phish for credit card numbers or phone card numbers or any
>>sensitive information (online or not).
>Okay, let's take a poll. Who reading any of these newsgroups has ever had
>someone attempt to get your credit card info, phone card numbers, or any
>other sensitive information (online or not) anywhere on the internet,
>*outside* of AOL? Speak up, folks, let's help barton expose this seamy
>underbelly of the net once and for all.
<S>
Not me. The closest I've seen is a few idiots saying "Make me rich,
send money to my P.O. Box XXXXX, Vienna, VA, XXXXX".
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Claude D. Bilbo | |
| cbi...@mindspring.com | All of my opinions are |
| bilb...@eng.uab.edu | completely uncorrelated.|
| http://www.mindspring.com/~cbilbo/ | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark G. Scheuern
>barton (bar...@phantom.com) wrote:
>: The only thing I'm confused about is why you think I'm highly paid.
>Maybe because after Mark posted some critical comments about you in the
>newsgroup, you had AOL's legal staff contact him.
>It's ironic--because Mark posted in a thread about AOL legal threats, he
>becomes the *target* of them.
So typical of a bully, isn't it? In her mind, it was okay for her and her
boss to threaten, harass, and lie about me as a fellow AOL employee and
as a customer. The reaction of this champion of free speech, when I
presented a factual account of her actions, is to make yet more false
accusations and more threats. No, she's not "just playing with power".
Rather than making the slightest attempt to defend herself she goes
running off to "Mommy". Her true character comes shining through, just
as it does in the posts she has made here over the last few months. If
she wants to avoid public embarrassment the proper place for her to begin
is with some quiet self-reflection and not a phone call to the Legal
Department, though I do welcome the opportunity to, as "barton" says,
throw back the covers.
Mark
barton
> But it's much much easier when you have a free account with no name on it
> on a system that markets itself to new users. And when there's a piece of
> software specifically designed to automate the process. And when the
> system you're exploiting chooses not to plug the security holes because it
> might cut into their bottom line.
I think you're being unreasonable here. Are you saying that AOL should
take some of the functionality out of its tools in order to make it harder
for people to fish? Isn't it easier to educate people or hope that people
have one ounce of common sense?
Scams go on every day--just walk down a downtown DC street (or any street
in any major city) and you're treated to a host of scams. People have to
take some responsibility for their actions. I strongly believe AOL has
done their part in helping their members not get taken for a ride.
You're arguing that AOHell helps phishers. You could also argue that
macros help phishers. Let's take all the macro functions out of all the
software. Whatever we can to prevent people from getting phished! I don't
think so.
> I think you're deliberately sidestepping the fact that it's easier on
> AOL--both technically, and because of AOL's official PR-induced silence on
> security issues, combined with mass-marketing aimed a new users.
I'm not side-stepping. AOL makes a lot of things easier. Perl makes it
easier to post a message to every group on Usenet. I guess we oughta get
rid of Perl.
You're saying it's "worse" on AOL. My point is not whether it's better or
worse anywhere. My point is that AOL has done its job here--they've gone
beyond what credit cards do to protect their members against credit card
scammers. They've gone beyond what many city's police departments do to
protect their citizens from being scammed. We simply disagree on this
point.
> You're deliberately twisting what I said. I wrote that the
> messages in effect say we're powerless against AOHell.
You put quotes around your sentence, which implied that you had taken the
text off the screen. That's misleading, whether you intended it or not.
> Interesting that you quoted 14 lines, deleting only the text where the
> poster quotes you as saying "If I was telnetting from the AOL building
> to an ISP, you wouldn't know it". (Which is obviously untrue...)
It's actually correct in the sense I meant it, which was: if I telnetted
to an ISP, typed "tin," and wrote a post, you wouldn't know where the hell
I actually was physically. I should have wrote just what I meant.
> Newsgroup Scoop's credits list you as "Producer and overall sass-master".
> Despite all your claims about having identified yourself to the group, you
> have yet to give us your title--just complaining that we're guessing
> wrong.
I don't owe you my title. If you want to swap resumes, just say so.
> >Not on company time.
>
> I guess I was assuming two in the afternoon was company time. My mistake.
Apology accepted.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Mark G. Scheuern
belated attempt to redeem herself and save face:
>I'm not side-stepping. AOL makes a lot of things easier. Perl makes it
>easier to post a message to every group on Usenet. I guess we oughta get
>rid of Perl.
An extremely poor analogy. Perl is a programming language. AOL is
an online service. I don't remotely see a conneciton.
>You're saying it's "worse" on AOL. My point is not whether it's better or
>worse anywhere. My point is that AOL has done its job here--they've gone
>beyond what credit cards do to protect their members against credit card
>scammers. They've gone beyond what many city's police departments do to
>protect their citizens from being scammed. We simply disagree on this
>point.
What, and you're not going to engage in your usual namecalling? We've
taken note of the fact that you are currently making a concerted effort
to behave like an adult. Many of us know why. Too little, too late.
Mark
Mark G. Scheuern
>In article <4lh5aq$m...@crl6.crl.com>, des...@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
>> But it's much much easier when you have a free account with no name on it
>> on a system that markets itself to new users. And when there's a piece of
>> software specifically designed to automate the process. And when the
>> system you're exploiting chooses not to plug the security holes because it
>> might cut into their bottom line.
>I think you're being unreasonable here. Are you saying that AOL should
>take some of the functionality out of its tools in order to make it harder
>for people to fish? Isn't it easier to educate people or hope that people
>have one ounce of common sense?
You _still_ continue to miss the point. Does AOL's TOS staff have the
right to tell someone to take AOHell off of their website or not?
>> Interesting that you quoted 14 lines, deleting only the text where the
>> poster quotes you as saying "If I was telnetting from the AOL building
>> to an ISP, you wouldn't know it". (Which is obviously untrue...)
>It's actually correct in the sense I meant it, which was: if I telnetted
>to an ISP, typed "tin," and wrote a post, you wouldn't know where the hell
>I actually was physically. I should have wrote just what I meant.
Writing what you mean often is preferable to writing nonsense and then
retroactively deciding what you "meant". And your statement here is
untrue. Obviously one could finger the ISP and see where you are, so I
_still_ don't know what you're trying to say.
Also, please recall the reason for this discussion in the first place.
You said you were posting from a non-AOL account. We proved you were
telling a lie. Correct?
>> >Not on company time.
>>
>> I guess I was assuming two in the afternoon was company time. My mistake.
>Apology accepted.
So your claim is that, when you made each of these posts that frizz
told us about, _none_ were on company time?
5 Feb 1996 20:34:44 GMT 3:34p
1 Mar 1996 22:30:13 GMT 5:30p
13 Mar 1996 21:33:05 GMT 4:33p
19 Mar 1996 01:41:07 GMT 8:41p
21 Mar 1996 17:38:05 GMT 12:38p
22 Mar 1996 00:14:52 GMT 7:14p
25 Mar 1996 22:17:41 GMT 5:17p
25 Mar 1996 22:31:30 GMT 5:31p
25 Mar 1996 23:27:00 GMT 6:27p
27 Mar 1996 19:19:20 GMT 2:19p
27 Mar 1996 19:22:58 GMT 2:22p
28 Mar 1996 17:58:06 GMT 12:58p
2 Apr 1996 19:43:28 GMT 2:43p
2 Apr 1996 21:18:48 GMT 4:18p
3 Apr 1996 15:07:02 GMT 10:07a
4 Apr 1996 15:27:49 GMT 10:27a
4 Apr 1996 15:37:28 GMT 10:37a
5 Apr 1996 17:48:51 GMT 12:48p
8 Apr 1996 15:53:48 GMT 11:53a
9 Apr 1996 14:56:22 GMT 10:56a
10 Apr 1996 14:24:31 GMT 10:24a
10 Apr 1996 22:43:09 GMT 6:43p
11 Apr 1996 14:06:49 GMT 10:06a
12 Apr 1996 13:43:39 GMT 9:43a
15 Apr 1996 15:19:43 GMT 11:19a
15 Apr 1996 15:26:04 GMT 11:26a
17 Apr 1996 13:48:45 GMT 9:48a
Your current politeness act, intended in part to win you credibility,
does not make you any less a liar.
Mark
Christie Keith
>bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
I never really knew what AOHell was, other than a stupid macro
generator.. but.. you can do the above with PowerTools, too....
--
Christie Keith
This message is protected by the following amendment to the constitution of
the United States of America. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press."
Claude D. Bilbo
<S>
>I think you're being unreasonable here. Are you saying that AOL should
>take some of the functionality out of its tools in order to make it harder
>for people to fish? Isn't it easier to educate people or hope that people
>have one ounce of common sense?
>Scams go on every day--just walk down a downtown DC street (or any street
>in any major city) and you're treated to a host of scams. People have to
>take some responsibility for their actions. I strongly believe AOL has
>done their part in helping their members not get taken for a ride.
>You're arguing that AOHell helps phishers. You could also argue that
>macros help phishers. Let's take all the macro functions out of all the
>software. Whatever we can to prevent people from getting phished! I don't
>think so.
Well done Barton! You have just argued a point *for* AOHELL! Is this
the new position of the company? Perhaps next, AOL will offer a watered-
down version of the utility, phake account creator stripped of course,
and then add KEYWORD AOHELL.
<S>
Art Stone
>
>Okay, let's take a poll. Who reading any of these newsgroups has ever had
>someone attempt to get your credit card info, phone card numbers, or any
>other sensitive information (online or not) anywhere on the internet,
>*outside* of AOL? Speak up, folks, let's help barton expose this seamy
>underbelly of the net once and for all.
>
local bbs/compuserve/prodigy/aol/isp
AOL is the only place where that has happened.
In fact, the week AOL turned on the access to the Internet is when it
started happening. At the time, I called AOL and made a suggestion
that they consider shutting down inbound TCP/IP connections until they
got a clue about what the implications were.
I guess they ignored my suggestion.
Art Stone (ex-AOL customer since 3/1/96)
--
Thank Gawd Almighty, I'm free at last.
http://www.concentric.net/~artstone
David Cassel
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access (415) 705-6060 [Login: guest]
Distribution: inet
Blues (bl...@cais.cais.com) wrote:
: : Hutchinson joins a campaign against "anti-AOL bias" in the mass media.
: : Take this letter to "The Net" magazine...
: :
: : "over the past couple of issues, I've noticed a disturbing trend that
: : being AOL bashing...why must we be treated to a monthly tirade of your
: : obvious hostility toward it?... I was shocked to see you jump head-first
: : into the foray, and help foster an atmosphere of hatred and mistrust."
: Pretty cool. But I didn't write that letter. Misattributing quotes will not
: help your argument.
MisREADing quotes won't help yours.
"It was signed only 'dir...@primenet.com'." I wrote. "However, his Web
page identifies him as Michael Pellerin, who works for 'a very large
online service'. In fact, it's AOL's Customer Service building in
Arizona."
I can only assume you deleted that maliciously.
: : The Net published a similar letter one month earlier from a paid AOL
: : staffer who also didn't identify their affiliation.
: : Hutchinson's cais.com account.
: 1. You write a piece bashing AOL security. Said piece is published in The
: Net magazine. No mention is made of your "affiliation" with alt.aol-sucks.
My "affiliation"?
You're paid by AOL.
I post to Usenet on my own time.
: 2. I respond to the editor from a personal ISP account, tagging you and
: questioning the validity of your source and your implied objectivity.
My editor said they wouldn't have run your letter had they known you were
an AOL employee. As was Michael Pellerin, the author of the letter they
ran the month after.
: 3. After my letter is published, you write to me from one of your AOL
: screen names. Paraphrased: "Gosh, you shure did git that fancy writer in
: The Net! Howdja do it?" Oops, you forgot to "identify your affiliation"
: again, Dave.
: 4. I play along and respond, handing you the clue phone as to my identity.
I sent you mail from my AOL account, Mike.
How'd you get my name?
Without violating the law, I mean....
des...@crl.com /\ Time magazine and alt.aol-sucks: the connection
Adam Bailey
> >You're arguing that AOHell helps phishers. You could also argue that
> >macros help phishers. Let's take all the macro functions out of all the
> >software. Whatever we can to prevent people from getting phished! I don't
> >think so.
>
> Well done Barton! You have just argued a point *for* AOHELL! Is this
> the new position of the company? Perhaps next, AOL will offer a watered-
> down version of the utility, phake account creator stripped of course,
> and then add KEYWORD AOHELL.
How many times have I said that simply owning AOHell (or any macro
program) is not illegal? It's the usage of such software to disrupt the
service that makes it wrong.
Actually, when you get into copyright law, any program that modifies the
AOL software without license would also be illegal, even if you only use
it for good.
--
Adam Bailey
ad...@tezcat.com ada...@aol.com
wys...@ripco.com www.tezcat.com/~adamb
~I'm not paranoid, it's just that everyone's out to get me...~
Dave
where you were did not follow a statement about the message header,
It followed a statement about telenet sessions. You made it following
a message where someone ran whois on you. I like how you edited it
out of your reply to me though. Show's that you know you were BUSTED.
While on this silly rollercoaster we call life bar...@phantom.com
(barton) wrote:
>> Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
>> wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
>> telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
>> Better think of something different to try and impress people with,
>> cause you computer knowledge definately isn't doing it.
>>
>> finger bar...@phantom.com
>> Login Name TTY Idle When Where
>> barton Negative Creep pts/6 <Apr 19 18:01> 152.163.52.16
>I'm well aware of the finger command. I was saying you couldn't tell from
>the newsgroup header.
Don't try and cover, you weren't talking about the header, you were
talking about telenet sessions. You even stated so.
QUOTE
>:::Message-ID: <barton-1904...@152.163.52.16>
>:::Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but you're wrong
>:::here. If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
>:::know it. Tsk. Tsk.
END QUOTE
Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but GOTCHA!
>I first started playing with Unix in 1989, so while I'm relatively new at
>it, I have been using it for 7 years now. In fact, at my old job, we coded
>all out documents in troff coding using emacs as an editor.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you were... a data entry clerk? I'd call that typing experience
before calling it Unix experience.
> So bite me
I wouldn't want to risk catching what you have.
Dave
different accounts with public ISP's, ten or twelve with
schools/freenets and four different office accounts. But then again
I've never had an account on AOL. Maybe I should join so I too can
have a twelve year old ask me for my password and CC#. Seems like it
would be such a rush.
Moments before receiving the Nobel prize for irony st...@eden.com (M.
Whittington) wrote:
>bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
>>In article <4l91hh$1g...@mule2.mindspring.com>, cbi...@bham.mindspring.com wrote:
>>> MY attempts? Are you accusing me of attempting to gain illegal access
>>> to AOL? Please Barton, clarify your statement. I was simply inquiring
>>> whether AOL has taken steps to prevent illegal use. Surely by now they
>>> go to the trouble of verifying the account.
>>Sorry. Didn't mean "your" as in you but as a general pronoun.
>>> The way I read your post, one would conclude that you do consider AOL's
>>> attempts at security to be pathetic. If this is not true, then please
>>> explain it to us instead of blowing smoke.
>>What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
>>any online service. Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
>>You don't need AOHell to do it. You don't have to do it on AOL. In fact,
>>you can phish for credit card numbers or phone card numbers or any
>>sensitive information (online or not).
>Okay, let's take a poll. Who reading any of these newsgroups has ever had
>someone attempt to get your credit card info, phone card numbers, or any
>other sensitive information (online or not) anywhere on the internet,
>*outside* of AOL? Speak up, folks, let's help barton expose this seamy
>underbelly of the net once and for all.
>>When you got a credit card, did you feel that the company should tell you
Dave
>I should have wrote just what I meant.
That's normally how people communicate. Give it a try sometime.
Blues
: AOL's Webmaster--the 24-year-old Michael Hutchinson--was *also* telnetting
: from the AOL building and posting to alt.aol-sucks without identifying
: himself.
Yup, that's me. And I am, in fact, 24 years old. Wouldn't want to confuse
me with other AOL Webmasters named Michael Hutchinson.
: But it's more sinister.
Call Oliver Stone! It's a conspiracy!
: Hutchinson joins a campaign against "anti-AOL bias" in the mass media.
: Take this letter to "The Net" magazine...
:
: "over the past couple of issues, I've noticed a disturbing trend that
: being AOL bashing...why must we be treated to a monthly tirade of your
: obvious hostility toward it?... I was shocked to see you jump head-first
: into the foray, and help foster an atmosphere of hatred and mistrust."
Pretty cool. But I didn't write that letter. Misattributing quotes will not
help your argument. Or what's left of your credibility.
: The Net published a similar letter one month earlier from a paid AOL
: staffer who also didn't identify their affiliation.
: Hutchinson's cais.com account.
Pot? Kettle? Black?
1. You write a piece bashing AOL security. Said piece is published in The
Net magazine. No mention is made of your "affiliation" with alt.aol-sucks.
2. I respond to the editor from a personal ISP account, tagging you and
questioning the validity of your source and your implied objectivity.
3. After my letter is published, you write to me from one of your AOL
screen names. Paraphrased: "Gosh, you shure did git that fancy writer in
The Net! Howdja do it?" Oops, you forgot to "identify your affiliation"
again, Dave.
4. I play along and respond, handing you the clue phone as to my identity.
5. You tell a friend... and they tell two friends... and they tell two
friends, etc. You were pissed, weren't you, Dave? You even posted
my home address and phone number to Usenet like any good journalist.
So here we are. You continue to insist that any AOL employee posting in a
public forum must immediately identify him/herself as such. Posting on
company time as a company representative... sure. Posting on personal
time from a personal account... I don't think so.
I've given you a topic. Talk amongst yourselves.
Oh, btw, Dave, Chip Douglas is _not_ in charge of TOS. Nice work once again.
--
Mike Hutchinson
bl...@cais.com
M. Whittington
[bartonoia snipped]
>Well done Barton! You have just argued a point *for* AOHELL! Is this
>the new position of the company? Perhaps next, AOL will offer a watered-
>down version of the utility, phake account creator stripped of course,
>and then add KEYWORD AOHELL.
><S>
Of course, they'd call it AOSWELL.
Blues
: MisREADing quotes won't help yours.
: "It was signed only 'dir...@primenet.com'." I wrote. "However, his Web
: page identifies him as Michael Pellerin, who works for 'a very large
: online service'. In fact, it's AOL's Customer Service building in
: Arizona."
: I can only assume you deleted that maliciously.
I can only assume you were implying that I _was_ Michael Pellerin.
I also suspect you'd ascribe malicious intent to _anything_ I do.
: My "affiliation"?
: You're paid by AOL.
: I post to Usenet on my own time.
And you run an FTP site for the alt.aol-sucks newsgroup. Your byline on
any articles you write about AOL for mainstream media should note that
fact. You're as objective as I am on this particular topic.
: My editor said they wouldn't have run your letter had they known you were
: an AOL employee. As was Michael Pellerin, the author of the letter they
: ran the month after.
That's unfortunate, but moot.
: : 4. I play along and respond, handing you the clue phone as to my identity.
: I sent you mail from my AOL account, Mike.
: How'd you get my name?
: Without violating the law, I mean....
I got a well-timed piece of email from one of your overenthusiastic pals.
It was sent to this account days after I counter-trolled what I suspected
to be your AOL alter-ego. And it put several pieces of information together
which, prior to my counter-troll, had only existed separately.
Nice try, though.
One final point: No one at AOL is paid or encouraged to monitor or post to
alt.aol-sucks, overtly or covertly. So you can put that old warhorse to rest.
--
Mike Hutchinson
bl...@cais.com
Statement of the obvious: I don't speak for AOL.
Claude D. Bilbo
>How many times have I said that simply owning AOHell (or any macro
>program) is not illegal? It's the usage of such software to disrupt the
>service that makes it wrong.
Then why is AOL trying to shut down another web site?
http://www.zoom.com/personal/bell103/aol.msg
If owning AOHELL is legal, and AOL knows this, then wouldn't the following
sentence be harassment?
"Due to the malicious nature and possible illegality of these files, we
would appreciate any efforts you could take to remove it from your
server."
>Actually, when you get into copyright law, any program that modifies the
>AOL software without license would also be illegal, even if you only use
>it for good.
No. AOL sends me *unsolicited* copies of software in the mail all the
time. If someone sends you something in the mail that you didn't ask
for, guess what? It's yours. Short of selling it, I can disassemble
and modify to my lil' ol' heart's content. Which is beside the point.
A program which performs the same function as another program, but uses
different code is not a copyright infringement. You could figure out
all the protocols, and write a script in something like CrossTalk.
>--
>Adam Bailey
> ad...@tezcat.com ada...@aol.com
> wys...@ripco.com www.tezcat.com/~adamb
>~I'm not paranoid, it's just that everyone's out to get me...~
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kirchherr
> David Cassel (des...@crl.com) wrote:
>
> : AOL's Webmaster--the 24-year-old Michael Hutchinson--was *also* telnetting
> : from the AOL building and posting to alt.aol-sucks without identifying
> : himself.
>
> Yup, that's me. And I am, in fact, 24 years old. Wouldn't want to confuse
> me with other AOL Webmasters named Michael Hutchinson.
I'm sure the other Michael Hutchinsons concur with that. I for one sure as
hell wouldn't want to be confused with an AOL Webmaster.
>
> : But it's more sinister.
>
> Call Oliver Stone! It's a conspiracy!
A feeble attempt to discredit Dave, if ever I've seen one.
>
> : Hutchinson joins a campaign against "anti-AOL bias" in the mass media.
> : Take this letter to "The Net" magazine...
> :
> : "over the past couple of issues, I've noticed a disturbing trend that
> : being AOL bashing...why must we be treated to a monthly tirade of your
> : obvious hostility toward it?... I was shocked to see you jump head-first
> : into the foray, and help foster an atmosphere of hatred and mistrust."
>
> Pretty cool. But I didn't write that letter. Misattributing quotes will not
> help your argument. Or what's left of your credibility.
ROFLMAO!! That's a hoot! A Webmaster with the most reviled online service
in the history of personal computing attacking the credibility of one
person who's got the brain and guts to expose your sleazy employer for
what it is. I'm surprised Hutchinson hasn't had AOL's lawyers contact his
ISP (again). Or have they??
>
> : The Net published a similar letter one month earlier from a paid AOL
> : staffer who also didn't identify their affiliation.
> : Hutchinson's cais.com account.
>
> Pot? Kettle? Black?
>
> 1. You write a piece bashing AOL security. Said piece is published in The
> Net magazine. No mention is made of your "affiliation" with alt.aol-sucks.
How can you compare your status as an AOL employee with Dave's
participation in a.a-s? I guess being an AOL employee means you surrender
all logic. We've certainly seen enough evidence of _that_ in this
newsgroup.
<bullshit snipped>
> So here we are. You continue to insist that any AOL employee posting in a
> public forum must immediately identify him/herself as such. Posting on
> company time as a company representative... sure. Posting on personal
> time from a personal account... I don't think so.
AOL employees have so little credibility in a.a-s precisely because they
don't identify themselves as paid stooges for The Man. And you're not
helping the credibility of yourself or AOL by implying that the problem is
with everyone else.
>
> I've given you a topic. Talk amongst yourselves.
>
> Oh, btw, Dave, Chip Douglas is _not_ in charge of TOS. Nice work once again.
Is anyone?
Thanks for your thoughts, Hutchinson. Now go away.
> --
> Mike Hutchinson
> bl...@cais.com
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
"There is a type of personality that needs to be abused by
authority, who needs to be censored, that enjoys this crap."
-The legendary DAwn McGatney, commenting on America Online
Alison Rosenstengel
Adam Bailey <ad...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>How many times have I said that simply owning AOHell (or any macro
>program) is not illegal? It's the usage of such software to disrupt the
>service that makes it wrong.
Just like owning a crowbar is not illegal unless you use it as a breaking
(asn in breaking and entering) tool.
>Actually, when you get into copyright law, any program that modifies the
>AOL software without license would also be illegal, even if you only use
>it for good.
Doesn't that depend on whether its based on (and actually makes us of) the
original code, as opposed to just an independent add-on?
-- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * --
BOYCOTT AMERICA ONLINE
Censorship * Excessive Pricing Schemes * Unfair Employment Practices
* Inadequate Features * Poor Customer Service * False Advertising *
Net Leach Philosophy * Frivolous Legal Threats to Critics
http://www.cloud9.net/~jegelhof
barton
(Dave) wrote:
> Chuckle-chuckle. I have to laugh. Your statement that no one would
> where you were did not follow a statement about the message header,
> It followed a statement about telenet sessions. You made it following
> a message where someone ran whois on you. I like how you edited it
> out of your reply to me though. Show's that you know you were BUSTED.
Actually, it shows that I don't really give a shit. But you guys can have
fun with it. I'd hate to break up a good party.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
bar...@phantom.com http://www.phantom.com/~barton
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Mark G. Scheuern
bar...@phantom.com (AOL's Finger wizard) urgues thusly:
>In article <4liq44$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, dfr...@ix.netcom.com
>(Dave) wrote:
>> Chuckle-chuckle. I have to laugh. Your statement that no one would
>> where you were did not follow a statement about the message header,
>> It followed a statement about telenet sessions. You made it following
>> a message where someone ran whois on you. I like how you edited it
>> out of your reply to me though. Show's that you know you were BUSTED.
>Actually, it shows that I don't really give a shit. But you guys can have
>fun with it. I'd hate to break up a good party.
My, my. Poor Catherine. She lies, we catch her, she spends hours of
work time posting irrelevant nonsense in an attempt to obfuscate, and now
she announces that she "doesn't give a shit". Yes, we _did_ have fun
with it. Thank you.
Mark
Ed Ruane
>bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
>
>>I'm well aware of the finger command. I was saying you couldn't tell from
>>the newsgroup header.
>
>But it still remains that you telnetted in from AOL...
You mean AOL finally got telnet access? Last I had heard they didn't have
telnet because they "weren't quite sure what it was yet."
-Ed
-=<<do...@raven.cybercomm.net>>=-
Alison Rosenstengel
>I also suspect you'd ascribe malicious intent to _anything_ I do.
Maybe it's because you're so nasty to people.
>And you run an FTP site for the alt.aol-sucks newsgroup. Your byline on
>any articles you write about AOL for mainstream media should note that
>fact. You're as objective as I am on this particular topic.
There's a distinct difference between journalistic bias and journalism
that examines and issue and comes out on the side opposite of yours. A
journalist can be as biased in his own views as the Simpson jury but
still produce an objective piece of work (unlike the Simpson jury). You
have yet to do anything but make accusations about the article, but then
again, I also suspect you'd ascribe malicious intent to _anything_ David
does.
>One final point: No one at AOL is paid or encouraged to monitor or post to
>alt.aol-sucks, overtly or covertly. So you can put that old warhorse to rest.
In fact, they're "encouraged" not to post here, especially if they have
anything even mildly critical to say about the service. It is strange,
however, that such a large percentage of the trolls and apologists do
turn out to be AOL employees in hiding. Coincidence? Maybe.
M. Whittington
>In article <4liq44$3...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, dfr...@ix.netcom.com
>(Dave) wrote:
>> Chuckle-chuckle. I have to laugh. Your statement that no one would
>> where you were did not follow a statement about the message header,
>> It followed a statement about telenet sessions. You made it following
>> a message where someone ran whois on you. I like how you edited it
>> out of your reply to me though. Show's that you know you were BUSTED.
>Actually, it shows that I don't really give a shit. But you guys can have
>fun with it. I'd hate to break up a good party.
Why does this image of PeeWee Herman come so easily to mind. "I meant to
do that!"
Mark G. Scheuern
> You mean AOL finally got telnet access? Last I had heard they didn't have
>telnet because they "weren't quite sure what it was yet."
> -Ed
> -=<<do...@raven.cybercomm.net>>=-
Yeah, AOL does provide telnet access to customers, though, not
surprisingly, it neither works very well nor is cost effective.
"Barton", however, as an AOL employee, telnets out from a machine on a
dedicated line to the 'Net, located behind an AOL firewall--not from the
AOL client software or with a dialup.
Mark
Adam Bailey
> ad...@tezcat.com (Adam Bailey) wrote:
>
> >How many times have I said that simply owning AOHell (or any macro
> >program) is not illegal? It's the usage of such software to disrupt the
> >service that makes it wrong.
>
> Then why is AOL trying to shut down another web site?
>
> http://www.zoom.com/personal/bell103/aol.msg
>
> If owning AOHELL is legal, and AOL knows this, then wouldn't the following
> sentence be harassment?
>
> "Due to the malicious nature and possible illegality of these files, we
> would appreciate any efforts you could take to remove it from your
> server."
I don't see AOL making any legal threats in the passage you quoted. They
just ask that it be removed. If a program is used 99% of the time for
illegal actions, I can understand the effort to get rid of it, even if
it's not legally sound.
> >Actually, when you get into copyright law, any program that modifies the
> >AOL software without license would also be illegal, even if you only use
> >it for good.
>
> No. AOL sends me *unsolicited* copies of software in the mail all the
> time. If someone sends you something in the mail that you didn't ask
> for, guess what? It's yours. Short of selling it, I can disassemble
> and modify to my lil' ol' heart's content. Which is beside the point.
> A program which performs the same function as another program, but uses
> different code is not a copyright infringement. You could figure out
> all the protocols, and write a script in something like CrossTalk.
Your argument is very logical. Too bad copyright law isn't based on logic,
but who's got the better lawyers.
Last time I checked, the software companies had the better lawyers.
AOL software is "Freeware." That means it can be distributed without
charge. But it's not "Public Domain," which gives anyone the right to rip
it apart and screw with it. If you don't believe me, look up the
defintions of those terms.
Adam Bailey
> Oh, btw, Dave, Chip Douglas is _not_ in charge of TOS. Nice work once again.
Who the hell is Chip Douglas? I don't suppose you're referring to _Chris_
Douglas, who is definately not in charge of TOS.
Bud E. Love
don't identify themselves as paid stooges for The Man. And you're not
helping the credibility of yourself or AOL by implying that the problem
is
with everyone else.
well then, as a point of honor, i must reveal i get checks from AOL.
Flame if you will, or just ask any question i can answer. i wont lie and
i wont BS. i dont defend nor deny anything i dont know about.
there is some BS from both sides in here, but i do se many valid
complaints. too bad most of them just dont have a really nice answer
except "Damn that sucks".
I don't feel stoogish, i do my job to the best of my ability. most of the
people i talk to are satified with the results. sometimes all i can do is
apologize for the problem, when thats the case i try and explain whats
going on and when it should be resolved. sometimes i'm wrong. i'm not one
of the top brass and they dont always let me in on the big stuff.
but i dont think most of you have a problem with me, just the groups i
have worked for (i have worked for 3 online services, 5 software co's).
some of the reasons are valid, some seem like frustrated venting over
insolvable problems. wish something could be done to solve all the
problems, but dont think that will happen in the near future.
well to wrap it up, i'm not claiming to know it all or to be a defender
of the faith, just IDing myself so i can at least have the credibility
granted anyone else who posts.
Bud E. Love
>
>
> I'm quite certain that you wouldn't have the right to copy and distribute
> the software.
they wont chase you down if you do, feel free to make and distribute as
many copies of an ORIGINAL disk as you'd like.
If someone sent you a book for free, they wouldn't be
> surrendering their copyright. But as far as tinkering with your own
> copy, looking to see what's inside, I can't imagine there being anything
> illegal in that. It's like someone mailing you a magazine and telling
> you you can't read it. I'll just not believe you until someone shows
> me otherwise. If there is precedent for what you say, then it's just
> plain stupid.
>
It would be illegal to distribute any altered version of the software.
but to disassemble, alter or edit on your own system as long as you don't
try to connect to the service, there's not a whole lot they could do
about it.
Joseph K. Shraibman
:
: Moments before receiving the Nobel prize for irony st...@eden.com (M.
: Whittington) wrote:
:
Yes, we know what he wrote. You do not need to quote the entire post, a
few lines would have done.
--
<*> Entering signature...
Joseph Shraibman http://pages.nyu.edu/~jks2557
jks...@is4.nyu.edu a.k.a. yk...@aol.com
"The United States Navy will not be caught napping"
- some admiral, Dec 3 1941
<*> Exiting signature.
Claude D. Bilbo
>In article <4lkd47$v...@mule2.mindspring.com>, cbi...@bham.mindspring.com wrote:
>> sentence be harassment?
>>
>> "Due to the malicious nature and possible illegality of these files, we
>> would appreciate any efforts you could take to remove it from your
>> server."
>I don't see AOL making any legal threats in the passage you quoted. They
>just ask that it be removed. If a program is used 99% of the time for
>illegal actions, I can understand the effort to get rid of it, even if
>it's not legally sound.
Yes, that's right. There is not a legal threat. There is a *hint* of a
legal threat, with the added disclaimer "possible illegality". That's
why I used the word harassment. It appears that they are trying to imply
that legal action will be taken against Zoom, when they know that this is
not the case. You yourself have said it is not illegal.
>> >Actually, when you get into copyright law, any program that modifies the
>> >AOL software without license would also be illegal, even if you only use
>> >it for good.
>>
>> No. AOL sends me *unsolicited* copies of software in the mail all the
>> time. If someone sends you something in the mail that you didn't ask
>> for, guess what? It's yours. Short of selling it, I can disassemble
>> and modify to my lil' ol' heart's content. Which is beside the point.
>> A program which performs the same function as another program, but uses
>> different code is not a copyright infringement. You could figure out
>> all the protocols, and write a script in something like CrossTalk.
>Your argument is very logical. Too bad copyright law isn't based on logic,
>but who's got the better lawyers.
Does this mean that AOL acts in ways it knows to be illegal, but relies
on the skill of lawyers to circumvent the law? No, that wouldn't be
logical.
>Last time I checked, the software companies had the better lawyers.
Of course. I wouldn't expect integrity. That'd be too much to ask.
>AOL software is "Freeware." That means it can be distributed without
>charge. But it's not "Public Domain," which gives anyone the right to rip
>it apart and screw with it. If you don't believe me, look up the
>defintions of those terms.
I'm quite certain that you wouldn't have the right to copy and distribute
the software. If someone sent you a book for free, they wouldn't be
surrendering their copyright. But as far as tinkering with your own
copy, looking to see what's inside, I can't imagine there being anything
illegal in that. It's like someone mailing you a magazine and telling
you you can't read it. I'll just not believe you until someone shows
me otherwise. If there is precedent for what you say, then it's just
plain stupid.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Bailey
> ad...@tezcat.com (Adam Bailey) wrote:
> >In article <4lkd47$v...@mule2.mindspring.com>,
cbi...@bham.mindspring.com wrote:
> <S>
> >> If owning AOHELL is legal, and AOL knows this, then wouldn't the following
> >> sentence be harassment?
> >>
> >> "Due to the malicious nature and possible illegality of these files, we
> >> would appreciate any efforts you could take to remove it from your
> >> server."
>
> >I don't see AOL making any legal threats in the passage you quoted. They
> >just ask that it be removed. If a program is used 99% of the time for
> >illegal actions, I can understand the effort to get rid of it, even if
> >it's not legally sound.
>
> Yes, that's right. There is not a legal threat. There is a *hint* of a
> legal threat, with the added disclaimer "possible illegality". That's
> why I used the word harassment. It appears that they are trying to imply
> that legal action will be taken against Zoom, when they know that this is
> not the case. You yourself have said it is not illegal.
Lawyers play those kinds of games.
> >> >Actually, when you get into copyright law, any program that modifies the
> >> >AOL software without license would also be illegal, even if you only use
> >> >it for good.
> >>
> >> No. AOL sends me *unsolicited* copies of software in the mail all the
> >> time. If someone sends you something in the mail that you didn't ask
> >> for, guess what? It's yours. Short of selling it, I can disassemble
> >> and modify to my lil' ol' heart's content. Which is beside the point.
> >> A program which performs the same function as another program, but uses
> >> different code is not a copyright infringement. You could figure out
> >> all the protocols, and write a script in something like CrossTalk.
>
> >Your argument is very logical. Too bad copyright law isn't based on logic,
> >but who's got the better lawyers.
>
> Does this mean that AOL acts in ways it knows to be illegal, but relies
> on the skill of lawyers to circumvent the law? No, that wouldn't be
> logical.
My statements don't go directly to AOL, but to all lawyers. Like them or
not, they're a definite presence in our society.
> >Last time I checked, the software companies had the better lawyers.
>
> Of course. I wouldn't expect integrity. That'd be too much to ask.
>
> >AOL software is "Freeware." That means it can be distributed without
> >charge. But it's not "Public Domain," which gives anyone the right to rip
> >it apart and screw with it. If you don't believe me, look up the
> >defintions of those terms.
>
> I'm quite certain that you wouldn't have the right to copy and distribute
> the software. If someone sent you a book for free, they wouldn't be
> surrendering their copyright. But as far as tinkering with your own
> copy, looking to see what's inside, I can't imagine there being anything
> illegal in that. It's like someone mailing you a magazine and telling
> you you can't read it. I'll just not believe you until someone shows
> me otherwise. If there is precedent for what you say, then it's just
> plain stupid.
You can argue my point all you want, but if you'd actually look up
copyright law, you'd see that I am correct. As I've said a dozen times,
law isn't always logical. I don't give my approval or disapproval. I'm
merely stating fact.
Art Stone
>
>well then, as a point of honor, i must reveal i get checks from AOL.
>
>Flame if you will, or just ask any question i can answer. i wont lie and
>i wont BS. i dont defend nor deny anything i dont know about.
>
That was exactly what I pointed out, in my own subtle way. I think
-most- of the newsgroup "got it". Your Usenet headers made it
-extremely- obvious that you are an AOL/GNN employee because you
posted to an NNTP server using an IP address in the AOL IP address
block. Since you are behind a firewall, and that IP address is not in
DNS - the -only- way you could have posted your messages was from
inside AOL.
Got it? :)
BTW, I try very hard to listen to AOL people based on their
willingness to discuss the issues, and their willingness to do so in a
reasonably honest way. Those who try to B/S their way past people who
know better, or resort to profanity or name calling do nothing to
improve AOL's corporate image. So far, your posts seem to be fairly
resonable :)
I would be interested in hearing, for instance, some of the challeges
involved in supporting such a huge cusomter base. (without divulging
anything of a security/confidential nature, of cousre)
Mark G. Scheuern
>AOL employees have so little credibility in a.a-s precisely because they
>don't identify themselves as paid stooges for The Man. And you're not
>helping the credibility of yourself or AOL by implying that the problem
>is
>with everyone else.
This is one of many reasons why another individual who has been posting
here, also paid by AOL, has no credibility. That you have identified
yourself, though a bit late, is to your credit. That your posts have
some value and you don't come off as a lying lunatic also puts you in a
far different category. I don't think many people here would object to
an AOL employee making contributions to this newsgroup. In fact, many
welcome it.
Mark
Bud E. Love
Sorry for waiting so long to "come out", did not realize the importance of the
distiction until i read the post about it. hope my most obvious disclaimer will
help me to be forgiven. also it appears that any attempt at hiding would have
been most futile :)
as to fellow workers, I guess some people feel a need to defend something even if
they aren't sure what it is they are defending. i could go psychological and make
guesses at the reason but i deal with like minded individuals every day here and
i prefer to avoid them if possible. commenting on thier reasoning would probably
be a bad thing, plus i haven't read any of the posts.
As to prior comments, my basic question was perhaps too blunt. here's a different
tack.
Why retain a service that YOU feel does not perform as advertised?
I wont argue the particular reason you are insatisfied, there seems to be many
people here who have had bad experiences with online services. i can not present
an argument that these services are error free and no problems ever exist, i dont
believe any honest person could.
but maybe i have the complaint wrong, perhaps its not an overall dis-satisfaction
but a feature/concept specific complaint.
eitherway i figure i can't lose reading your posts, you will show me the dark
side of the service and hopefully i can turn that into better service from
myself. at least i'll get to see the problem from a different perspective.
Lindell B. Jones, Jr
>bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
<snippety do dah>
>>What none of you seem to get is that phishing is not reserved to AOL or
>>any online service. Phishing goes on all the time all over the Internet.
>>You don't need AOHell to do it. You don't have to do it on AOL. In fact,
>>you can phish for credit card numbers or phone card numbers or any
>>sensitive information (online or not).
>
>Okay, let's take a poll. Who reading any of these newsgroups has ever had
>someone attempt to get your credit card info, phone card numbers, or any
>other sensitive information (online or not) anywhere on the internet,
>*outside* of AOL? Speak up, folks, let's help barton expose this seamy
>underbelly of the net once and for all.
>
<more snippage>
I'm afraid I'll be of no help to barton. I have used three online services:
Prodigy, CompuServe, and AOL, three local BBS's, and six ISPs.
I remember being phished for credit card numbers and/or passwords at least eight
times, maybe more, but I was never dumb enough to fall for it (on three
occasions I gave them bogus passwords, like "blowme" or "fuckyou"). Of the
twelve services listed, I never saw a single attempt at phishing on eleven of
them, and *every* attempt I did get came from the remaining one. You get one
guess which one.
----
-^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-
- I need a good screw! Preferrably drywall, Philips. -
- -
^^^^Lindell B. Jones, Jr.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^lind...@mo.net^^^^
Dave
Moments before climbing up to the top of the bell tower with her
trusty .308 bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
>Actually, it shows that I don't really give a shit.
No, what would show that you didn't give a shit would be if you just
dropped out of the thread. Of course we would read that as you being
a coward, but you wouldn't care because then you would be off really
not giving a shit. Continuing to try and salvage some piece of your
dignity means that you do care. And I for one am profoundly moved.
Or is that the pizza I had last night?
Dave
Moments before the school locked the doors to the science building
jks...@is4.nyu.edu (Joseph K. Shraibman) wrote:
>:
>Yes, we know what he wrote. You do not need to quote the entire post, a
>few lines would have done.
>--
If you don't have anything to add besides critics of peoples quoting
styles and begging for hints on hacking then go get your nose pierced,
head over to St. Marks and sit around at @ cafe. Maybe you can get
someone over there to think you're eLiTe. BotSB
Adam Bailey
In article <Pine.LNX.3.92.960424...@raven.cybercomm.net>,
Ed Ruane <do...@raven.cybercomm.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 1996 tre...@sirius.com wrote:
>
> >bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote:
> >
> >>I'm well aware of the finger command. I was saying you couldn't tell from
> >>the newsgroup header.
> >
> >But it still remains that you telnetted in from AOL...
>
> You mean AOL finally got telnet access? Last I had heard they didn't have
> telnet because they "weren't quite sure what it was yet."
Windows AOL has had the ability to use Winsock applications since 2.5 was
released.
x25
In article <barton-2304...@152.163.52.16>,
barton <bar...@phantom.com> wrote:
>In article <4lh5aq$m...@crl6.crl.com>, des...@crl.com (David Cassel) wrote:
[...]
>> Newsgroup Scoop's credits list you as "Producer and overall sass-master".
>> Despite all your claims about having identified yourself to the group, you
>> have yet to give us your title--just complaining that we're guessing
>> wrong.
>
>I don't owe you my title. If you want to swap resumes, just say so.
You do if you want to make the claim of having identified yourself here.
-x25
Joseph K. Shraibman
I think most of the students who pierce their nose end up dropping out
first semester, because even though I saw a bunch of them at orientation
I haven't seen many since.
Dave (dfr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: If you don't have anything to add besides critics of peoples quoting
: styles and begging for hints on hacking then go get your nose pierced,
: head over to St. Marks and sit around at @ cafe. Maybe you can get
: someone over there to think you're eLiTe. BotSB
:
: dfr...@ix.netcom.com
:
:
:
David Cassel
: > You mean AOL finally got telnet access? Last I had heard they didn't have
: > telnet because they "weren't quite sure what it was yet."
: Windows AOL has had the ability to use Winsock applications since 2.5 was
: released.
Macintosh AOL does not. It accounts for 20% of AOL's membership.
Humorous sidenote: Steve Case promised it in 1994.
des...@crl.com /\ Barton & Bailey's 3-Ring Circus! Coming 4/27
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ BudELove! INetGuru2U!
Dave
That's funny, the week after NYU's orientation I noticed a large
number of new pierced-nosed bike-messengers in midtown.
Moments before being elected mayor of DC jks...@is4.nyu.edu (Joseph
David Cassel
Mimi Kahn (njk...@hooked.net) wrote:
: Does anyone else get the feeling that there are more AOL staffers here
: than regular posters?
I count six.
des...@crl.com /\ Flacks, hacks, Macs, and FAQs.
/ \ http://www.crl.com/~destiny/time.htm
==============================================================================
/__________\ Snow White and the Seven Flacks.
Mimi Kahn
>In article <4ljss8$a...@news2.cais.com>, bl...@cais.cais.com (Blues) wrote:
>
>> David Cassel (des...@crl.com) wrote:
>>
>> : AOL's Webmaster--the 24-year-old Michael Hutchinson--was *also* telnetting
>> : from the AOL building and posting to alt.aol-sucks without identifying
>> : himself.
>>
>> Yup, that's me. And I am, in fact, 24 years old. Wouldn't want to confuse
>> me with other AOL Webmasters named Michael Hutchinson.
>
>I'm sure the other Michael Hutchinsons concur with that. I for one sure as
>hell wouldn't want to be confused with an AOL Webmaster.
Does anyone else get the feeling that there are more AOL staffers here
than regular posters? And that doesn't even count the lurkers, who
are countless....
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
Claude D. Bilbo
njk...@hooked.net (Mimi Kahn) wrote:
<S>
>Does anyone else get the feeling that there are more AOL staffers here
>than regular posters? And that doesn't even count the lurkers, who
>are countless....
That's OK. Once the panic sets in from CS's new marketing attack,
there won't be much time for trollin'. They'll all be pretty busy
holdin' down the fort. Which is a shame. They are often the very
genesis of new reasons that AOL sucks.
Adam Bailey
> : > You mean AOL finally got telnet access? Last I had heard they didn't have
> : > telnet because they "weren't quite sure what it was yet."
>
> : Windows AOL has had the ability to use Winsock applications since 2.5 was
> : released.
>
> Macintosh AOL does not. It accounts for 20% of AOL's membership.
You won't hear me denying that AOL shafted Mac users over the past couple
years, David. I'm one of the biggest Mac AOL advocates around.
tre...@sirius.com
st...@eden.com (M. Whittington) wrote:
>Okay, let's take a poll. Who reading any of these newsgroups has ever had
>someone attempt to get your credit card info, phone card numbers, or any
>other sensitive information (online or not) anywhere on the internet,
>*outside* of AOL? Speak up, folks, let's help barton expose this seamy
>underbelly of the net once and for all.
Heh, heh... certainly not me. Of course, I've only be on the Net since last
July, less than a year.
On the other hand, I've been on and off BBSes since 1988. I have run into
more jerks than I can remember, but I've never had someone try to phish me
- other than on AOL, of course.
What it really shows is that only on AOL do people like phisherz expect to
find users so naive that they would give out their passwords and credit
card numbers.
tre...@sirius.com
"Bud E. Love" <bude...@gnn.com> wrote:
>as to fellow workers, I guess some people feel a need to defend something
>even if they aren't sure what it is they are defending.
I'm not all that surprised when AOL employees and users defend or, more
accurately, refuse to accept that AOL is as bad is it is. As employees or
customers, we are - to degrees that vary from individual to individual -
committed to the brand, trademark or business name in question.
Take me, for instance, I drive a LeCar <pause while guffaws subside>. Yea,
I know... but it really isn't that bad, really (see? there I go), it, uh,
fits in small places. Gotta face it, it's not exactly a babe-magnet, it's a
dorky car.
I can deal with dorky, but AOL leaves dorky in the dust.
If the LeCar's repair prices were ten times more expensive than average, if
the LeCar's performance and and reliability were widely known among
motorists for being the worst, if the LeCar's mechanics were known for
their poor repairs and bad manners, if the LeCar's garages were known to
harbor dangerous people, and if the LeCar's service managers refused to
sign in my car because I had violated the provisions of a vaguely worded,
illogical, incomplete, previously unread contract, the I would have to
admit that the LeCar-sucks.
But the LeCar is just dorky, that's all, not at all like AOL.
DAwn McGatney, (hv)
In article <barton-2204...@152.163.52.16>, on Mon, 22 Apr 1996
11:20:26 -0500, bar...@phantom.com (barton) wrote-->
>As for your remarks on what I didn't remark on--I'm not going to comment
>on something that I am not 100% of the answer. [sic, but I think I know
>what she's struggling to say]
DAwn Replies----->>>
Bart-
I think you'd do the world a favour if you'd apply your above
maxim to your lurid (sorry) Web site of sexual advice for the
libido-lorn. Your comments and answers are both foolish and
wrong (at once).
(Geeze... is she really is an AOLer/ employee?)
-----DAwn McGatney
mcga...@access.digex.net
You *WILL* find an ISP when you consult our List of Lists
of Lists, by the Super-Gurus of Alt.AOL-Sucks-->
http://www.access.digex.net/~mcgatney/isplist.html
mag...@softcom.net
On Tue, 23 Apr 1996 02:37:35 GMT, st...@eden.com (M. Whittington) wrote:
>Okay, let's take a poll. Who reading any of these newsgroups has ever had
>someone attempt to get your credit card info, phone card numbers, or any
>other sensitive information (online or not) anywhere on the internet,
>*outside* of AOL? Speak up, folks, let's help barton expose this seamy
>underbelly of the net once and for all.
Outside of America Off-Line I've never been asked for my credit card info by
anyone on the Internet or any part of it. I am an active Internet user of IRC
(Internet Chat) as well as the web. The only time I've been asked for credit
card information is when I'm purchasing information or services off of the
web...in which case the documents are certified so I don't have to worry about
my security being compromised. On AOL, I would average 3 requests per day for my
information....far too many.
-pk
Dave (dfr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Chuckle-chuckle. I have to laugh. Your statement that no one would
This is the second time I've seen this from you. Shows how knowledgable
*you* are. He used a "telenet session" to connect to phantom from AOL?
Please.
: where you were did not follow a statement about the message header,
: It followed a statement about telenet sessions. You made it following
Once.
: a message where someone ran whois on you. I like how you edited it
: out of your reply to me though. Show's that you know you were BUSTED.
: While on this silly rollercoaster we call life bar...@phantom.com
: (barton) wrote:
: >> Have to disagree with you on that one (this is why shells are a
: >> wonderful thing). As we can all see from the following, you did
: >> telenet from 152.163 (AOL) to Phantom last at 6:01pm on 19 April.
Twice.
: >> Better think of something different to try and impress people with,
: >> cause you computer knowledge definately isn't doing it.
: >>
: >> finger bar...@phantom.com
: >> Login Name TTY Idle When Where
: >> barton Negative Creep pts/6 <Apr 19 18:01> 152.163.52.16
: >I'm well aware of the finger command. I was saying you couldn't tell from
: >the newsgroup header.
: Don't try and cover, you weren't talking about the header, you were
: talking about telenet sessions. You even stated so.
Thrice.
: QUOTE
: >:::Message-ID: <barton-1904...@152.163.52.16>
: >:::Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but you're wrong
: >:::here. If I was telnetting from the AOL building to an ISP, you wouldn't
: >:::know it. Tsk. Tsk.
: END QUOTE
: Not that this matters (although I do like to say it), but GOTCHA!
: >I first started playing with Unix in 1989, so while I'm relatively new at
: >it, I have been using it for 7 years now. In fact, at my old job, we coded
: >all out documents in troff coding using emacs as an editor.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: So you were... a data entry clerk? I'd call that typing experience
: before calling it Unix experience.
: > So bite me
: I wouldn't want to risk catching what you have.
Afraid of getting a clue?
--
*hackPHREAKwarezNSAcommunismWACOpgpENCRYPTfbiSEXchildANARCHYbombAOLkiboCIA*
* Pope Poster Child -- False Christian Modem Scum -- FOR HIRE! *
* http://www.valleynet.com/~posterkid -- A Better Waste Of Bandwidth <tm> *
* ours is a society lacking vision reaching for a future without hope *
*fnordSLACKradioheadNIRVANAposterchildrenFRONT242deadkennedysTWINPEAKSspam*
Dave
That post...@mammoth.valleynet.com (-pk) wrote:
>This is the second time I've seen this from you. Shows how knowledgable
>*you* are. He used a "telenet session" to connect to phantom from AOL?
>Please.
Yeah, telenet sessions (same thing as telnet but spelled an extra "e"
in it - sorry to confuse your limited mind). Any other words you need
explained?
Oh yes, you would note if you were actually reading posts rather than
just scanning over looking for typos that you could gratify yourself
with, Barton is a she not a he. So keep that clue, you need it too.
Try to discuss the substance, not semantics.
Ken Williams
In article:<4m1q38$p...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
dfr...@ix.netcom.com (Dave) wrote:
>That post...@mammoth.valleynet.com (-pk) wrote:
>
>>This is the second time I've seen this from you. Shows how knowledgable
>>*you* are. He used a "telenet session" to connect to phantom from AOL?
>
>>Please.
>
>Yeah, telenet sessions (same thing as telnet but spelled an extra "e"
>in it - sorry to confuse your limited mind). Any other words you need
>explained?
That is all you could come up with? For your information, most ISP's
I have used will accept the command 'telnet' as well as 'telenet'
since they are easily switched, even by people who are experienced
with telent.
It looks like you are a newbie who want to pretend to be experienced.
>Oh yes, you would note if you were actually reading posts rather than
>just scanning over looking for typos that you could gratify yourself
>with, Barton is a she not a he. So keep that clue, you need it too.
That's stupid. Gender is irrelevant to what is being discussed. When
a person avoids mentioning their gender, people who followup will
often use 'he' instead of 'she' rather than being politically correct
and using 's/he'. Please explain to everyone why barton being female
has ANYTHING to do with what is being discussed.
>Try to discuss the substance, not semantics.
Try to discuss substance, not typos and 'he' vs 'she'.
-pk
On Mon, 29 Apr 1996, Mark G. Scheuern wrote:
> In alt.aol-sucks you make a fool of yourself and write:
Mmhm.
> >Dave (dfr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> >: Chuckle-chuckle. I have to laugh. Your statement that no one would
>
> >This is the second time I've seen this from you. Shows how knowledgable
> >*you* are. He used a "telenet session" to connect to phantom from AOL?
>
> >Please.
>
> Here's a clue for you, Junior: you clearly don't understand what these
> posts are about. Try reading them before you respond. You'll look much
> less stupid that way.
<yes, I did leave the entire post in on purpose>
I clearly don't understand. Right. I see some guy who claims he has "UNIX
experience" referring to a "telenet session" to connect from AOL to
phantom.com. Now, at first glance, is it a simple typo for 'telnet'?
Let's find out. Look up at the quoted material. He says it three times.
I think you're the one who doesn't have a damn clue what you, I, or
anyone else on USENET is talking about.
Dave
Moments before complete insanity Ke...@sojourn.com (Ken Williams)
wrote:
>That is all you could come up with? For your information, most ISP's
>I have used will accept the command 'telnet' as well as 'telenet'
>since they are easily switched, even by people who are experienced
>with telent.
>It looks like you are a newbie who want to pretend to be experienced.
Actually we are arguing the same point here. -pk was harping on me
for typing telenet instead of telnet in a previous post.
>Please explain to everyone why barton being female
>has ANYTHING to do with what is being discussed.
-pk pointed out my typo so I succumbed to the self-serving urge to
point out -pk's typo. Eye for and eye and all that.
Dave
Moments before recess ended -pk <post...@mammoth.valleynet.com>
wrote:
>I clearly don't understand. Right. I see some guy who claims he has "UNIX
>experience" referring to a "telenet session" to connect from AOL to
>phantom.com. Now, at first glance, is it a simple typo for 'telnet'?
>Let's find out. Look up at the quoted material. He says it three times.
>I think you're the one who doesn't have a damn clue what you, I, or
>anyone else on USENET is talking about.
Chill Ace, telenet and telnet are interchangeable, at least they used
to be. Any other old Unix types out there can vouch for my memory.
Sorry to disturb your ordered balance of the world but I've been
calling them telenet sessions probably longer than you've been alive.
Just because you say potato doesn't mean I don't have the right to say
potatoe (hey look, Dan Quayle was actually good for something).
defereo...@iexe.neeeteceoeme.ceoeme
Art Stone
rezz waub <bow...@aros.net> wrote:
>It's been a while, but isn't Telenet the name for the network that Sprint used to
>provide services like PC Pursuit with? Or >something to do with it. It's been a
>while since PC Pursuit has been discontinued.
I've resisted answering this thread up until now.
Telnet is the TCP/IP protocol used to implement terminal access to a
remote host computer. If is defined in a number of RFC's.
see: http://www.ftc.nrcs.usda.gov/./doc/rfc/kx144.html
TelEnet was the X.25 based packet-switching network run by Sprint.
Following several mergers/reorginations, it is now known as Sprintnet.
If a Unix system implements a telEnet command, it is only an alias set
up because so many people have Telenet confused with telnet.
I would bet that when you type telenet in Unix, the program starts up
with a prompt of telnet> :P
rezz waub
It's been a while, but isn't Telenet the name for the network that Sprint used to provide services like PC Pursuit with? Or
TWYG
Ke...@sojourn.com (Ken Williams) writes:
>In article:<4m1q38$p...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
>dfr...@ix.netcom.com (Dave) wrote:
>
>>Yeah, telenet sessions (same thing as telnet but spelled an extra "e"
>>in it - sorry to confuse your limited mind). Any other words you need
>>explained?
>
>That is all you could come up with? For your information, most ISP's
>I have used will accept the command 'telnet' as well as 'telenet'
>since they are easily switched, even by people who are experienced
>with telent.
>
>It looks like you are a newbie who want to pretend to be experienced.
um... yeah. i type "telenet" on any box i'm on and nada.
>>Oh yes, you would note if you were actually reading posts rather than
>>just scanning over looking for typos that you could gratify yourself
>>with, Barton is a she not a he. So keep that clue, you need it too.
>
>That's stupid. Gender is irrelevant to what is being discussed. When
>a person avoids mentioning their gender, people who followup will
>often use 'he' instead of 'she' rather than being politically correct
>and using 's/he'. Please explain to everyone why barton being female
>has ANYTHING to do with what is being discussed.
how about being logically correct and not assuming information,
such as the sex of the poster? you wouldn't guess their age and
weight for them, would you? then don't be so damn stupid. geez.
twyg
Adam Bailey
In article <31880b4c....@news.hooked.net>, njk...@hooked.net (Mimi
Kahn) wrote:
> On 25 Apr 1996 09:28:38 -0500, mgsc...@io.com (Mark G. Scheuern)
> wrote:
>
> >I don't think many people here would object to
> >an AOL employee making contributions to this newsgroup. In fact, many
> >welcome it.
>
> Deborah Levinson -- who told us *immediately* that she moderated an
> AOL forum -- was welcomed here (and is missed now).
>
> My only objections are to staffers who hide the fact and try to make
> believe that they're posting as disinterested parties who just happen
> to like AOL -- TriciaJT, as a prime example.
Whatever happened to Tricia? I haven't seen one of her posts in quite some time.
Oh well...
Mimi Kahn
>I don't think many people here would object to
>an AOL employee making contributions to this newsgroup. In fact, many
>welcome it.
Deborah Levinson -- who told us *immediately* that she moderated an
AOL forum -- was welcomed here (and is missed now).
My only objections are to staffers who hide the fact and try to make
believe that they're posting as disinterested parties who just happen
to like AOL -- TriciaJT, as a prime example.
Mimi
http://www.hooked.net/users/njkahn/
-pk
TWYG (tda...@ivory.trentu.ca) wrote:
: Ke...@sojourn.com (Ken Williams) writes:
: >In article:<4m1q38$p...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
: >dfr...@ix.netcom.com (Dave) wrote:
: >
: >>Yeah, telenet sessions (same thing as telnet but spelled an extra "e"
: >>in it - sorry to confuse your limited mind). Any other words you need
: >>explained?
: >
: >That is all you could come up with? For your information, most ISP's
: >I have used will accept the command 'telnet' as well as 'telenet'
: >since they are easily switched, even by people who are experienced
: >with telent.
: >
: >It looks like you are a newbie who want to pretend to be experienced.
: um... yeah. i type "telenet" on any box i'm on and nada.
mammoth% telenet
telenet: Command not found.
Ditto here. Then again, if someone wished to, they could very easy set up
an alias from telenet to telnet, which would fix that problem.
: >>Oh yes, you would note if you were actually reading posts rather than
: >>just scanning over looking for typos that you could gratify yourself
: >>with, Barton is a she not a he. So keep that clue, you need it too.
: >
: >That's stupid. Gender is irrelevant to what is being discussed. When
: >a person avoids mentioning their gender, people who followup will
: >often use 'he' instead of 'she' rather than being politically correct
: >and using 's/he'. Please explain to everyone why barton being female
: >has ANYTHING to do with what is being discussed.
: how about being logically correct and not assuming information,
: such as the sex of the poster? you wouldn't guess their age and
: weight for them, would you? then don't be so damn stupid. geez.
Calling someone who's gender you are not sure of, and have no wish to
determine, a 'he' is not 'assuming information'. It's common practice.
As far as age and weight go, by your posts here, and to other newsgroups,
I'd say your age is somewhere around 13.
Why?
sender: ne...@blaze.trentu.ca (USENET News System)
x-nntp-posting-host: trentu.ca
references: <4lc4l6$9...@news.ios.com>
<317c8c73...@news.netvision.net.il>
<318183...@europa.com>
organization: Trent University, Peterborough
reply-to: tda...@ivory.trentu.ca
newsgroups: alt.2600
Ed Hurtley <e...@europa.com> writes:
>Gil Kushilevitz wrote:
>
>> CYCLONE <chee...@wavenet.com> wrote:
>> >I was wondering how people get other peoples credit card #'s.?
>> Keep wondering.
you have someone in mind? go through their garbage. you'll
be blown away by the sheer amount of info you'll get...
twyg
****
--
*thisISmyNEWsigFILEiHOPEthatYOUlikeITifYOUdontLIKEitWELLthatsTOOdamnBAD*
* opinions expressed herein are not necessarily my own *
* unsolicited commercial email is immediately reported *
* http://www.valleynet.com/~posterkid *
*theySAYthePROPERsizeFORaSIGisFOURlinesWELLgoshDARNitIthinkFIVEisCOOLER*
-pk
: >This is the second time I've seen this from you. Shows how knowledgable
: >*you* are. He used a "telenet session" to connect to phantom from AOL?
: >Please.
: Yeah, telenet sessions (same thing as telnet but spelled an extra "e"
: in it - sorry to confuse your limited mind). Any other words you need
: explained?
Telenet is ALSO (for YOUR limited mind) a packet switching network
similar to Sprintnet which has absolutely nothing to do with the Internet
telnet protocol.
: Oh yes, you would note if you were actually reading posts rather than
: just scanning over looking for typos that you could gratify yourself
: with, Barton is a she not a he. So keep that clue, you need it too.
Uhm, is this relevant?
: Try to discuss the substance, not semantics.
If your posts did not lack substance, I would be more than happy to
discuss substance.
Dave
Moments before complete insanity post...@mammoth.valleynet.com (-pk)
wrote:
>Uhm, is this relevant?
You're the one who wanted to start nit-picking words. If you are
going to dish over what you see as someone's typo's, then prepare to
receive when you make a mistake. Don't make up rules for everyone
else then starting crying when you get caught by the same net.