Sanctions against PSI
Daniel Yee
to Canter & Siegel (cyber.sell.com), I have configured my Web server
to deny access to any machines within the psi.com domain.
If you want to join in, it's easy to do. If you are running httpd,
just modify the end of your access.conf file (in the conf directory) to
look like the following, and then restart your httpd process (kill -1).
<Limit GET>
order allow,deny
allow from all
deny from .psi.com .psi.net .sell.com
</Limit>
A copy of this will be mailed to PSI.
The next step is modifying the code to print a message explaining
why access has been denied, and suggesting that PSI customers find
a new access provider.
Danny Yee
Department of Anatomy
University of Sydney
Australia
Barry Margolin
>Due to displeasure with PSI's continued refusal to apply sanctions
>to Canter & Siegel (cyber.sell.com), I have configured my Web server
>to deny access to any machines within the psi.com domain.
It isn't the job of the access provider to police their customers' uses of
the net. In fact, were PSI to do this, it would probably jeopardize any
attempt they might make to claim common carrier status.
If you have a complaint with C&S, take it up with them, not PSI.
By the way, what has C&S done wrong since the big spamming episode early
this year? I know they've published a book about how to make money on the
net, but I haven't noticed any major netiquette violations like the earlier
one.
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Internet Services Corp.
bar...@near.net
John Groseclose
>the net. In fact, were PSI to do this, it would probably jeopardize any
>attempt they might make to claim common carrier status.
>
>If you have a complaint with C&S, take it up with them, not PSI.
>
>By the way, what has C&S done wrong since the big spamming episode early
>this year? I know they've published a book about how to make money on the
>net, but I haven't noticed any major netiquette violations like the earlier
>one.
You mean you missed the spams that CancelMoose (tm) took care of? The
Radial Keratotomy spam? The Ski Colorado spam? Didn't you see the little
note about the conditions under which Canter and Siegel would stay with
PSI? Something about not spamming WAS in those conditions. And now that
Canter and Siegel have decided to ignore it, PSI is not enforcing it.
*THAT* would seem to me to be begging for sanction.
--
John Groseclose <car...@enet.net> WWW site: HTTP://ias.west.asu.edu/
Another person who will NEVER buy anything inappropriately
advertised on the UseNet...
*Unsolicited Commercial EMail will be proofread for $100 per message*
Christopher Biow
Daniel Yee <da...@cs.su.oz.au> wrote:
>Due to displeasure with PSI's continued refusal to apply sanctions
>to Canter & Siegel (cyber.sell.com), I have configured my Web server
>to deny access to any machines within the psi.com domain.
I think this represents the most effective direction for dealing
with service providers who allow their users to abuse the net,
without taking any action. Their users can be denied ftp and www
access, and their sites can be aliased for nntp (mail also?)
purposes. The net is a cooperative endeavor; those who don't
cooperate are shunned. Judging from responses during the great
Green Card spam, this is the one countermeasure that scares PSI.
Any other admins willing to follow suit yet? Any willing to do
so if C&Spam continue?
Just how much of the net (measured by number of users) would we
be cutting off?
Christopher Biow
Barry Margolin <bar...@nic.near.net> wrote:
>It isn't the job of the access provider to police their customers' uses of
>the net. In fact, were PSI to do this, it would probably jeopardize any
>attempt they might make to claim common carrier status.
Since when can a *service provider* claim common carrier status?
PSI certainly has done no such thing; after the great Green Card
Spam they posted the outline of an agreement between them and
C&S about what C&S would not do (namely, spam).
MCI may be able to claim common carrier status for incoming
e-mail, in the Spam with Herbs case. I can't see any precedent
for that status for Usenet service providers.
Ron Newman
>the net. In fact, were PSI to do this, it would probably jeopardize any
>attempt they might make to claim common carrier status.
>
>If you have a complaint with C&S, take it up with them, not PSI.
On June 23, 1994, Canter & Siegel made an explicit agreement with PSI
not to spam. In case you missed it when I posted it several weeks
ago, I'll repost PSI's press release at the end of this article.
We're asking PSI to enforce their end of the agreement.
>By the way, what has C&S done wrong since the big spamming episode early
>this year?
They've spammed four times in the last month with ads for:
Grand Canyon Marketplace
Ski Colorado
A doctor who performs Radial Keratomy (sp? -- it's eye surgery)
Their own book on U.S. immigration law
You may not have seen the spams if you don't read news.admin.misc
or alt.current-events.net-abuse, because cancelbots such as
Cancelmoose[tm] have been forge-cancelling the spam quickly.
------ PSI press release follows ----------------------
JUNE 23, 1994 - Herndon, VA - Performance Systems International Inc.
(PSI) of Herndon, Virginia, which provides Internet connection services to
more people and organizations than all other providers, today disclosed
that an interim agreement had been reached with Canter & Siegel (C&S) of
Phoenix, Arizona, regarding the controversial C&S advertising over the
Internet and USENET.
Both firms concur that the continuing orderly evolution of the commercial
Internet must be preserved, and to that end, Canter & Siegel and PSI have
agreed to the following:
a) C&S will refrain from mass electronic postings of any
unsolicited, non-contextual, non-topic advetisements to the USENET
discussion group bulletin board system;
b) C&S will refrain from mass electronic postings of any
unsolicited, non-contextual, non-topic advertisements using electronic
mail or other TCP/IP Internet applications.
The worldwide Internet and USENET response to Canter & Siegel's
activities have been very strong. Many of the actions have been
particularly virulent, including the sending of "mail bombs." PSI has had
first hand experience where the actions in response to C&S were damaging
to third parties. PSI took a number of steps to remove these damaging
situations as they occurred. While the actions of C&S have been
considered by many to be completely inappropriate, the same is now being
said about the actions in response to C&S. Clearly, the ENTIRE situation
needs to be amended and will take many months, if not years, to settle out.
Better education will be key to Internet evolution with books like "Net
Etiquette" and the Internet Business Association (IBA) of Washington,
D.C. facilitating those changes. In addition, mediation and discussion
instead of unilateral confrontation, threats, and disconnection will be
required to develop the general framework for operating on the Internet
as it continues to evolve. Several other application-oriented Internet
service providers have taken this approach successfully with C&S and
others in parallel with PSI.
------ End of PSI press release -------
--
Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
rne...@media.mit.edu
Charles Eicher
Margolin) wrote:
> By the way, what has C&S done wrong since the big spamming episode early
> this year? I know they've published a book about how to make money on the
> net, but I haven't noticed any major netiquette violations like the earlier
> one.
And you didn't see the discussion of C&S putting bogus 'Authorized' lines
in their message headers, to post spam to moderated newsgroups?
-----------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@ins.infonet.net
-----------------------
Robert Uomini [CONTRACTOR]
I agree wholeheartedly. The arrogance displayed by C&S needs to be
punished. These two seem to think that we, the Internet community,
are just a bunch of disorganized techies who can only bitch and
moan about louts like C&S. I think it's about high time we work
together to lock them out. Count my company IN on this packet-filtering
idea; it's great!
Yes, this may be "frontier justice", but until laws are created to punish
individuals like C&S we will have to dispense justice in this way.
Robert Uomini
The Fractal Images Company
http://www.fractals.com
David Craven
appeared in today's Chcaig Tribune signed by Martha Siegel. In it, on
one hand she called for free speech (for commercial speech) an don the
otehr advocated regulating behavior and making providers common
carriers. (Piece sub titled "A plea for internet laws to protect the
innocent") The interesting thing is taht if we substituted "speech" for
the phrase internet or the phrase "polticial Opinion" for the phrase
internet the article would be revealed for what it is, an attempt to
control true unfettered speech and substituted the power of the dollar
for the power of thought. Further, what she fails to understand is that
the speech and its content is NOT what is being challenged, rather it is
the method of the speech which is being challenged. This is similar to a
goverment saying you may hold your political rallies but not at 2:00 am
in the morning next door to a hospital. The analagous regulation is that
commercial speech is fine, if it is not in usenet. In contrast, she
wants to regulate the type of speech (i.e. "regulating behavior" (her
words not mine). This is similar to saying you may have a rally as long
as you don't speak ill of the Mayor.
Of course what business wants is to set up a situation where real
discussions can be limited and the clever spiel of the advertiser
predominates.
--
djcr...@netcom.com who believes what he hears:
"And I am right, And you are right, And all is right as right can be!"
"I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and virtue
is triumphant only in theatrical performances."
Public Service Announcement for the Holidays: Alcohol can be a serious
problem. If you have a friend or a loved one with a drinking problem, you
can contact Al-Anon on the WWW at http://solar.rtd.utk.edu/~al-anon/.
Andrew Gideon
>Due to displeasure with PSI's continued refusal to apply sanctions
>to Canter & Siegel (cyber.sell.com), I have configured my Web server
>to deny access to any machines within the psi.com domain.
>
I would imagine that most PSI customers have their own domains.
This effort would make little difference to users of those
networks.
- Andrew
---
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew Gideon | TAG Systems inc. |
| Consultant | Suite 333 |
| | 41 Watchung Plaza |
| Tel: (201) 783-5583 | Montclair, N.J. 07042 |
| Fax: (201) 783-5334 | |
| and...@tagsys.com | http://www.tagsys.com/ |
-----------------------------------------------------------
justin wells
>By the way, what has C&S done wrong since the big spamming episode early
>this year? I know they've published a book about how to make money on the
>net, but I haven't noticed any major netiquette violations like the earlier
>one.
Have you looked at the book? It's basically got big long sections rambling
on about how their spamming episode was such a good idea, how everyone else
should do this too, and how all of us on the net who complained about it are
just "geeks" who should be ignored.
I think that's justification enough not to like them.
Justin
--
<html><title>.signature</title><h1> Enhanced 911 Services </h1><hr><ul><li>
<a href="mailto:rjw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca"> Send me email. </a><li>
<a href="http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/~rjwells/911.html"> WWW page.
</a></ul><em> "One Policy, One System: Universal Service." </em></html>
justin wells
Christopher Biow <bi...@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
>>the net. In fact, were PSI to do this, it would probably jeopardize any
>>attempt they might make to claim common carrier status.
How about just taking down a list of all the businesses that try to
operate via. cyber.sell.com and writing them a letter telling them of
how disgusting that association is. Maybe if these businesses perceive
association with cyber.sell.com as negative publicity, they'll switch
to a more pleasant site.
After all, cyber.sell clients might not realize how bad it makes them
look to be associated with these dorks. You might be doing them a
favour --
Jon Tara
>Subject: Sanctions against PSI
>Date: 12 Dec 1994 19:25:39 +1100
Though I doubt that PSI customers will be up in arms about the loss of access
to the Department of Anatomy at the University of Sydney, bravo anyway!
What would we do without the Australians and the Norwegians? :)
For those that have missed the latest spam, Canter & Siegel, "The Green Card
Lawyers" (I HOPE there isn't anyone here for whom I have to explain any more
than that...) are again spamming Usenet through their cyber.sell.com site,
after having agreed with PSI not to do so.
So, what does this have to do with web providers?
The twist is that they are using indiscriminate postings to inappropriate
Usenet newsgroups to draw attention to their web server, and to advertise the
companies that have home pages there. Apparently, it's some sort of "package
deal"...
________________________
A new picture of San Diego Bay every half hour:
<A HREF ="http://www.cts.com/~jtara/baycam.html">San Diego BayCam</A>
jt...@cts.com
justin wells
>The twist is that they are using indiscriminate postings to inappropriate
>Usenet newsgroups to draw attention to their web server, and to advertise the
>companies that have home pages there. Apparently, it's some sort of "package
>deal"...
You might put something in your .login file to mail them a note everytime
you log in, telling them what you think of their spamming. Everytime you
see one of their spams, add it to the the message that goes out. Not too
huge, and not a massive mailing -- unless a lot of people do this. The
extent to which this overloads them will be a direct function of the number
of times they spam and the number of people they annoy.
I wouldn't advocate sending them a whole ton of stuff at once, since that
would be overtly destructive and my irritate someone besides them (like
your own site, and everyone elses along the route that has to process
a lot of mail at once.)
Justin
who does not usually advocate this kind of thing, but...
Mike Scher
: In article <3ch1e3$6...@staff.cs.su.oz.au> da...@cs.su.oz.au (Daniel Yee) writes:
: >Due to displeasure with PSI's continued refusal to apply sanctions
: >to Canter & Siegel (cyber.sell.com), I have configured my Web server
: >to deny access to any machines within the psi.com domain.
: It isn't the job of the access provider to police their customers' uses of
: the net. In fact, were PSI to do this, it would probably jeopardize any
: attempt they might make to claim common carrier status.
It most certainly IS their job. C&S are in contractual privity ONLY with
PSI. PSI is in privity through express and implied contracts with a
number of other major carriers, and in a trade association. They profit
from the desirability of a USENET that actually has the millions of
messages sorted by topic. Spamming by definition decreases that utility,
and ergo profitability to the general business market. Even spamming
will eventually prove fruitless, as newgroups become so clogged they'll
be worse than the home shopping network -- because the ads are continuous
on every channel.
: If you have a complaint with C&S, take it up with them, not PSI.
If by not enforcing its contract with C&S, PSI violates other contracts of
theirs, or worse, makes a situation where they are profiting at the
expense of the marketplace (rather than in the market).
: By the way, what has C&S done wrong since the big spamming episode early
: this year? I know they've published a book about how to make money on the
: net, but I haven't noticed any major netiquette violations like the earlier
: one.
Besides some questionably misleading articles and op ed pieces, they have
been spamming for money; or more accurately, taking a fee from someone to
use huge amounts of other service providers' hard disks for their
ads--something for which they never could have contracted, and for which
certainly just about no one would give them permission if asked.
-Mike
--
Michael Brian Scher | TEZCAT.COM Staff and In-House Counsel
str...@xochi.tezcat.com | Wicker Park's own connectivity provider
http://tezcat.com/~strange/ | "The Good Guys" Info:(312) 850-0181
I'm a legal anthropologist; what's an illegal anthropologist?
Stewart Stremler
[snip]
> So, where does that put us? The real problem is that "the net", as a
> society, is still very young, and doesn't have any formal body of rules
> that govern what people can and cannot do. I think it's fair to say that
> in C&S's case, what they did was viewed as "illegal" by the vast majority
> of the old timers (myself most emphaticly included), yet there is no
> mechanism in place to prevent it from happening again or for punishing
> them. There have always been jokes about net.cops and net.lawyers. The
> sad fact is that without them, you will always have people like C&S who
> break the rules, but I suspect the cure might be worse than the disease.
If I remember my Locke correctly, an anarchy requires the equivalent
of the net.cops -- and not jokingly. *Every* member of society is a cop,
and must engage in some form of policing. Any stable, or semi-stable
form of anarchy requires this.
Locke went on to find problems in the "Natural State", and justified
government, but that's a different philosophical pie. The advantage of
the 'Net is that errors in justice result in far less drastic consequences.
Nobody is going to starve to death because of some flamewar. Nobody
is going to be deprived of their freedome because they ticked somebody
off (unless old Ms. Siegel gets her way...). . .
*sigh* It's been too long. Anyone actually _have_ some Locke on their
bookshelf? :)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If it was so, it might be; | Stewart Stremler
and if it were so, it would be; | stre...@ucssun1.sdsu.edu
but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." | FidoNet: 1:202/1103
-- Tweedledee (Lewis Carroll) | stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Rynd
(Stewart Stremler) wrote:
> Locke went on to find problems in the "Natural State", and justified
> government, but that's a different philosophical pie. The advantage of
> the 'Net is that errors in justice result in far less drastic consequences.
> Nobody is going to starve to death because of some flamewar. Nobody
> is going to be deprived of their freedome because they ticked somebody
> off (unless old Ms. Siegel gets her way...). . .
>
> *sigh* It's been too long. Anyone actually _have_ some Locke on their
> bookshelf? :)
Yep, I had to read it for British History this semester. Didn't give
myself enough time to though; and I didn't get as much out of it as I
could. My history prof was intersted in State of Nature, so he had us
focus on that. I'm not sure I understood locke fully; it sounded like a
self-contradiction.
I agree--consequences here are not as drastic. If a spammer gets
cancelled, they will either post again, post somewhere else, or give up.
Hopefully if they had something good to say they will say it again and
more intelligently.
Mailbombs come close to the line of being truly harmful, because they clog
up disk space and infringe on the property of uninvolved parties.
Chuck Wegrzyn
Internet we love - it will either adapt or die, and the choice is yours. As an
internet access provider (destek.net), we pay $10,000/ year for commercial
internet carriage. What this implies is that we pay for the privilege of
carrying commercial traffic.
While there is a significant momentum on the current Internet to not tolerant
what C&S did, you need to be ready to accept change! Why do I say that it is
inevitable? Well, companies are footing the bill for the Internet now -
whether it is IBM, DEC, my company Destek, or any other. We are in the
business to make money. And yes, the users are on for access to news, etc. but
very few of them pay the bills. But even this isn't the point.
What I would suggest is that the Internet must adapt or die! Microsoft's
Marvel, Apple's network, etc. are coming and will provide a level of services
that will cost much more (per hour) than the most users pay for Internet
access. I would suggest that the IETF and the Internet Society work to
establish sensible guidelines to allow the commercial use of the Internet.
What sorts of things might be useful? For one, mail (or news) might have a
keyword field that says "ADVERTISEMENT"; we could set our mail readers and
news readers to look for that and ignore it if we don't wish to see them. This
could be done automagically! There are many other ways to do it as well.
People such as C&S will continue to use the Internet in whatever form they
need to. PSI and others like us at Destek, can't really do much - we are
common carriers and regulated by Federal and state laws.
Please don't take offense at what I say, but we must adapt or lose the whole
thing, so lets take a constructive approach!
Thanks for the time,
Chuck Wegrzyn
The Destek Group, Inc.
West Newbury MA & Pelham, NH
Roman Gollent
: very few of them pay the bills. But even this isn't the point.
What planet do you live on? Almost everybody pays for their internet
access in one way or another. It might not be printed out on my bursar
bill, but there is no way in hell that you're going to convince me
that part of my tuition doesn't pay for my access. Stop smoking the
whacky weeds and find a more realistic perspective.
: What I would suggest is that the Internet must adapt or die! Microsoft's
No, Internet companies must adapt or die. Do you ever see companies
like MICROSOFT, SGI, INTEL, SUN, etc., spamming the newsnet? I sure haven't!
(Disclaimer: The abovementioned names are trademarks of the respective
companies)
: People such as C&S will continue to use the Internet in whatever form they
: need to.
Then the "fictional" net community will continue to mail complaints
and cancel their articles.
: Please don't take offense at what I say, but we must adapt or lose the whole
: thing, so lets take a constructive approach!
Well, I did take offense at your implications.
You and other access providers should realize the following:
a) Users are not going to put up with it.
b) Just because it works on TV or in a book, doesn't mean that it is going
to work "here".
c) There are more than enough companies that are content not to
advertise through intrusion.
d) The internet has, is, will be self-governing.
Roman
Steve Rubin
Count me in! As soon as I find the manuals for my Cisco 2501, I will lock
them our of our network as well.
Steve Rubin
NetUSA Communications.
--
Steve Rubin / Senior System Administrator s...@netusacom.com
NetUSA Communications (408)522-8450
Mike Wyman
>>By the way, what has C&S done wrong since the big spamming episode early
>>this year? I know they've published a book about how to make money on the
>>net, but I haven't noticed any major netiquette violations like the earlier
>>one.
>Have you looked at the book? It's basically got big long sections rambling
>on about how their spamming episode was such a good idea, how everyone else
>should do this too, and how all of us on the net who complained about it are
>just "geeks" who should be ignored.
>I think that's justification enough not to like them.
Apparently it is not just us geeks who do not like their behavior. This is
from an article entitled "Sneering at a virtual lynch mob" in the May 11, 1994
issue of the New York Times:
"The lawyers, who were suspended from the bar associations in Tennessee
and Florida in 1987 for conduct "contrary to honesty," point out that their
Usenet advertisements are not in any way illegal."
-Mike Wyman
wy...@tiac.net
Jon Fetter
>While there is a significant momentum on the current Internet to not
>tolerant what C&S did, you need to be ready to accept change! Why do I say
>that it is inevitable? Well, companies are footing the bill for the
>Internet now - whether it is IBM, DEC, my company Destek, or any other. We
>are in the business to make money. And yes, the users are on for access to
>news, etc. but very few of them pay the bills. But even this isn't the
>point.
>Internet. What sorts of things might be useful? For one, mail (or news)
>might have a keyword field that says "ADVERTISEMENT"; we could set our mail
>readers and news readers to look for that and ignore it if we don't wish to
>see them. This could be done automagically! There are many other ways to do
>it as well.
I agree with you that things are going to change as the Net grows
explosively, and carries more and more commercial traffic. I also agree
that the changes aren't necessarily a bad thing. Just because change is
inevitable, though, doesn't mean that any kind of change should be
tolerated. Were you following news.admin.policy back when C&S (hi!)
posted for the first time? These kinds of proposals were brought up and
hashed over pretty thoroughly. Here are some basic problems with them:
- Massive postings do have a cost which is borne by the user or
service provider: disk space and inodes, bandwidth, connect time...
Many users do, in fact, pay the bills. Even .edu users help pay them,
through tuition. There are lots of providers which provide commercial
services as a sideline, if at all.
- Massive _off-topic_ postings kill the signal to noise ratio.
There is wide agreement that brief on-topic commercial postings are
acceptable. (Loud flashy on-topic commercial postings with fifteen
stars in the all-caps subject field aren't going to be killed, either,
but they'll probably turn off potential customers.) There is also wide
agreement that it's tough to be on topic in 20 newsgroups at the same
time. If the signal to noise plummets, readership does too, and that
hurts advertisers just as much as the rest of the world.
- A subject or keyword tag is not enforceable, and if everyone
is killing or filtering it, there's a pretty strong incentive to break
the rule. If lots of advertisers do use it, it's hard to believe that
even users who are interested in advertising won't filter the tag.
After all, there are other ways to see ads if you want to.
The ad-spam distinction is an important one. The Marvelous Moose
doesn't go after ads, just spam. Of course ads are going to be a part
of the Net, and that goes way beyond news; there are a lot of ideas out
there, and I think most of them are pretty good ones.
I hope you'll agree that spam--be it commercial or not--is ultimately
destructive. Whether sanctions against PSI are appropriate is another
question; there seem to be decent arguments on both sides.
>need to. PSI and others like us at Destek, can't really do much - we are
>common carriers and regulated by Federal and state laws.
I'm basically pretty ignorant on the technical points, but there does
seem to be active debate over providers' status as common carriers.
Here's a question: if PSI is a common carrier, would its contract with
Canter and Siegel, which is widely believed to specify that they won't
spam, be valid?
I'm a little worried that I'm not getting at the point of your post. If
you're just saying that providers can't enforce customs, well, maybe
you're right. But users can, and do. There are a lot of interesting
and open questions about advertising on the Net, but for the moment,
this particular one is pretty well closed, IMHO.
jon
--
Jon Fetter, fet...@wisnuf.physics.wisc.edu
"Data simply _occur_ to me." --Dr. Science
justin wells
Chuck Wegrzyn <weg...@tribble.lkg.dec.com> wrote:
>While there is a significant momentum on the current Internet to not tolerant
>what C&S did, you need to be ready to accept change! Why do I say that it is
>inevitable? Well, companies are footing the bill for the Internet now -
>whether it is IBM, DEC, my company Destek, or any other. We are in the
>business to make money. And yes, the users are on for access to news, etc.
>but very few of them pay the bills. But even this isn't the point.
Guess again. Where does the money that funds the backbone come from? Who
did you say was paying the bills? At a site like netcom, who pays the bills?
At a school, who pays the bills? Why should these people have to carry
advertising they don't want? Why should they have to PAY to receive your
company's advertising? It is not a "privilege" -- I can turn on my TV
for that privilege: notice I don't pay for the airwaves.
>What sorts of things might be useful? For one, mail (or news) might have a
>keyword field that says "ADVERTISEMENT"; we could set our mail readers and
>news readers to look for that and ignore it if we don't wish to see them.
We already have something like this: Alternate news hierarchies for
commercial traffic. What's wrong with that solution? This way if
someone doesn't want to carry commercial traffic, they simply drop
the hierarchies that include commercial traffic. Not only do they not
have to read it -- they don't have to pay to transmit it either.
>This
>could be done automagically! There are many other ways to do it as well.
>People such as C&S will continue to use the Internet in whatever form they
>need to. PSI and others like us at Destek, can't really do much - we are
>common carriers and regulated by Federal and state laws.
Nothing in your common carrier status prevents you from telling your clients
that you will not tolerate massive postings to multiple groups. There is
no screening by content in saying, "No bulk posting."
Define yourself: "We are a common carrier who transmit news postings to
a maximum of ten newsgroups."
>Please don't take offense at what I say, but we must adapt or lose the whole
>thing, so lets take a constructive approach!
We will lose if the net turns into a big mire of spam. As more spam
builds up in news, fewer people will read news. As fewer people read
news fewer people will post true content. As fewer people post true
content, the proportion of spam will increase.. vicious circle, ending
not in the death of the net, but in the death of USENET.
Notice there is a difference between "the net" and "usenet."
Jon Tara
>From: weg...@tribble.lkg.dec.com (Chuck Wegrzyn)
>Subject: Re: Sanctions against PSI - Wrong approach!
>Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 12:13:30
>Might I offer another opinion. One of two things are going to happen to the
>Internet we love - it will either adapt or die, and the choice is yours. As an
>internet access provider (destek.net), we pay $10,000/ year for commercial
>internet carriage. What this implies is that we pay for the privilege of
>carrying commercial traffic.
But not for the privilege of mis-using other people's facilities.
>While there is a significant momentum on the current Internet to not tolerant
>what C&S did, you need to be ready to accept change! Why do I say that it is
>inevitable? Well, companies are footing the bill for the Internet now -
>whether it is IBM, DEC, my company Destek, or any other.
But not C&S, who's costs to the Internet far away exceed their monetary
contribution.
>What I would suggest is that the Internet must adapt or die! Microsoft's
>Marvel, Apple's network, etc. are coming and will provide a level of services
>that will cost much more (per hour) than the most users pay for Internet
>access.
You haven't been reading the news, have you? These are going to be very
low-cost services, way below what most individuals now pay for Internet
access. (I think they will also fail, but that's beyond the scope of this
post.)
I would suggest that the IETF and the Internet Society work to
>establish sensible guidelines to allow the commercial use of the Internet.
>What sorts of things might be useful? For one, mail (or news) might have a
>keyword field that says "ADVERTISEMENT"; we could set our mail readers and
>news readers to look for that and ignore it if we don't wish to see them. This
>could be done automagically! There are many other ways to do it as well.
How about posting to appropriate newsgroups?
Who's going to "automagically" do this? Is it the user's responsability? This
still skirts the issue of who pays. The fundamental problem with what C&S is
doing - besides the inappropriate topic issue, which is very serious, as it
undermines the whole purpose of having specific newsgroups in the first place
- is that they are expending other people's resources at a much higher level
than what they are paying for.
>People such as C&S will continue to use the Internet in whatever form they
>need to. PSI and others like us at Destek, can't really do much - we are
>common carriers and regulated by Federal and state laws.
Not true - you're not common carriers and (unfortunately) not under the
regulations that common carriers are subject to.
Might I also suggest that providers who are so misinformed and trumpet it in
Usenet news might tend to be shunned?
>Please don't take offense at what I say, but we must adapt or lose the whole
>thing, so lets take a constructive approach!
Huh? There isn't much short of a nuclear bomb that's going to stop the
Internet, and, anyway, it was designed to withstand even that...
Dave Hayes
>If I remember my Locke correctly, an anarchy requires the equivalent
>of the net.cops -- and not jokingly. *Every* member of society is a cop,
>and must engage in some form of policing. Any stable, or semi-stable
>form of anarchy requires this.
You forgot one thing in this...the policing must be turned inward...not
outward.
--
Dave Hayes -- Institutional NETworks - Section 394 -- JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh
A man who was handsome, intelligent, and elegant, was asked who he was.
"I am the Devil", he replied. "But that cannot be," said the questioner,
"for the Devil is evil and ugly!"
"My friend," was the reply, "you have been listening to my detractors."
Dave Hayes
>that govern what people can and cannot do. I think it's fair to say that
>in C&S's case, what they did was viewed as "illegal" by the vast majority
>of the old timers (myself most emphaticly included), yet there is no
>mechanism in place to prevent it from happening again or for punishing
>them. There have always been jokes about net.cops and net.lawyers. The
>sad fact is that without them, you will always have people like C&S who
>break the rules, but I suspect the cure might be worse than the disease.
Exactly. Which is why I keep saying "ignore them and they will go away".
Interestingly enough many people have ignored me, and to them I've gone
away. I guess if I spammed the net, people would stop ignoring me.
Eli the bearded
>them. There have always been jokes about net.cops and net.lawyers. The
>sad fact is that without them, you will always have people like C&S who
>break the rules, but I suspect the cure might be worse than the disease.
While the technique of mailbombing the offending user is not
held in high reguard here, it is not entirely ineffective.
If it is miror enough to not require sys-admin assistance,
then chances are it was a minor infraction of the rules. If
it does require sys-admin assistance it was a major
infraction. In the later case the sys-admin will take steps
to prevent the offending user from doing this again, and
will re-evaluate new user education techniques and/or other
methods to keep others from doing this in the future.
I followed up on an irratating post virus with about a 1000
lines recently. It was an anti-troll in that I figured an
ungodly number of nearly identical lines would prevent any
one from following up again. It seemed to work. I figured
one 30k post was better than ten more 6k posts. For this,
however, I suffered through five to ten people mailing me
back the whole thing. I expected this and consider it an
appropriate response. Those who asked me why I did it, I
responded to with nice short letters. Those who made no
comments got no response.
Elijah
------
an example of a troll on this group is the original beeble
post
Roy Smith
>The twist is that they are using indiscriminate postings to inappropriate
>Usenet newsgroups to draw attention to their web server, and to advertise the
>companies that have home pages there. Apparently, it's some sort of "package
>deal"...
Far be it from me to espouse net.terrorism, but I am compelled to wonder, on
a purely hypothetical basis, you understand, what would happen if enough
people ran scripts which made random requests of the C&S http server? Sort
of the Internet version of a sit-in? True, it burns CPU time and network
bandwidth on our machines, but there's a lot more of us then there are of
them. Eventually their server, and/or network connection, will melt down.
Is 1000 http requests a day from each of 1000 sites too much to ask?
Or, as they say, what's spam for the goose is spam for the gander :-)
--
Roy Smith <r...@nyu.edu>
Hippocrates Project, Department of Microbiology, Coles 202
NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"This never happened to Bart Simpson."
Jamie Andrews
>Marvel, Apple's network, etc. are coming and will provide a level of services
>that will cost much more (per hour) than the most users pay for Internet
>access.
If by "the Internet" you mean "Usenet", then it doesn't
have to adapt or die. If users go to other services, Usenet
will carry on in the same co-operative way it always has.
It doesn't need commercial providers to work.
Commercial Usenet-access providers, OTOH, truly must adapt
or die.
--Jamie.
ja...@cs.sfu.ca
"Could you do the egg bacon spam and sausage without the spam then?"
Robt Martin
: While the technique of mailbombing the offending user is not
: held in high regard here, it is not entirely ineffective.
This statement brings to mind reports that the latest victim of Unabomb,
the Young & Rubicam exec, had recently begun handling the accounts of DEC
and Xerox...there has been some speculation in the news here in NYC that he
had net.advertising plans.
There are solid reasons why vigilantism is shunned by the civilized.
>>>ELDERS in 1996<<<
Vivek Khera
CW> Might I offer another opinion. One of two things are going to
CW> happen to the Internet we love - it will either adapt or die, and
CW> the choice is yours. As an internet access provider (destek.net),
CW> we pay $10,000/ year for commercial internet carriage. What this
CW> implies is that we pay for the privilege of carrying commercial
CW> traffic.
If you as an Internet provider do not understand the distinction
between Usenet and Internet, I pity your customers.
I'm all for more commercial use of the Internet; I make my living that
way. I'm *not* for posting inappropriate message to all Usenet
newgroups. The furor arose, in my opinion, not because of the content
of the messages posted by C&S, but because of the method they used --
if they had targeted specific *relevant* newsgroups, there would never
have been such an outcry.
Like someone else pointed out recently, the difference is similar to
holding a protest rally during the day in front of city hall as
opposed to holding it at 3 am in front of a hospital. The message
should not be opressed, but the way the message is delivered needs to
be controlled to prevent total collapse of the communication media
used.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: kh...@kciLink.com Rockville, MD
PGP/MIME spoken here http://www.kciLink.com/
Daniel Yee
>to the Department of Anatomy at the University of Sydney, bravo anyway!
Yeah, I'm just a small leaf site running a minor Web server. I
was hoping my example would cause others to follow suit -- perhaps
those with news servers on backbones, or running major Web sites.
Danny Yee.
J.D. Falk
advertisements. Off-topic advertising, espeically that which is posted
seperately to a large number of groups (thus becoming termed "spam," as
defined in the alt.current-events.net-abuse FAQ) is not appreciated and
will not be tolerated.
Yes, the 'net is becoming more commercial -- we have no choice in
this, and it is IMHO not in and of itself a bad thing. Spams are a
totally unrelated issue.
-------------========== J.D. Falk <jdf...@cais.com> =========-------------
| "It involves such a marked departure from normal human conduct |
| that we can't help being drawn to it." -Edward L. Greenspan |
--------========== http://www.cais.com/jdfalk/home.html ==========--------
Jon Tara
>Subject: Re: Sanctions against PSI
>Date: 16 Dec 1994 01:47:40 GMT
>jt...@cts.com (Jon Tara) writes:
>>The twist is that they are using indiscriminate postings to inappropriate
>>Usenet newsgroups to draw attention to their web server, and to advertise the
>>companies that have home pages there. Apparently, it's some sort of "package
>>deal"...
>Far be it from me to espouse net.terrorism, but I am compelled to wonder, on
>a purely hypothetical basis, you understand, what would happen if enough
>people ran scripts which made random requests of the C&S http server? Sort
>of the Internet version of a sit-in? True, it burns CPU time and network
>bandwidth on our machines, but there's a lot more of us then there are of
>them. Eventually their server, and/or network connection, will melt down.
>Is 1000 http requests a day from each of 1000 sites too much to ask?
>Or, as they say, what's spam for the goose is spam for the gander :-)
Besides being uncool, this is not at all necessary.
C&S's HTTP server is unusably slow as it is.
Ron Newman
refusing WWW connections or aliasing your Usenet site to psinntp,
I suggest you lift that sanction now.
PSI has acted responsibly by terminating Canter & Siegel's access to
PSI's NNTP server. In fact, they did this several days ago, but did
not inform the Net community until yesterday.
For more information, look for my other recent posting to
alt.current-events.net-abuse (and the discussion that will inevitably
follow).
--
Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
rne...@media.mit.edu
John Groseclose
rob...@steffi.dircon.co.uk (Robert Nicholson) wrote:
><rne...@media.mit.edu> writes:
>>PSI has acted responsibly by terminating Canter & Siegel's access to
>>PSI's NNTP server. In fact, they did this several days ago, but did
>>not inform the Net community until yesterday.
<snip>
>Won't they just go and find some mail2news gateway?
I'm hoping that anyone who's running a mail2news gateway is doing
something to filter spam. Maybe, comparing crosspostings vs.
non-crosspostings with a check for congruence in the message body itself?
--
John Groseclose <car...@enet.net> WWW site: HTTP://ias.west.asu.edu/
Another person who will NEVER buy anything inappropriately
advertised on the UseNet...
*Unsolicited Commercial EMail will be proofread for $100 per message*
Trif
>Internet we love - it will either adapt or die, and the choice is yours. As an
>internet access provider (destek.net), we pay $10,000/ year for commercial
>internet carriage. What this implies is that we pay for the privilege of
>carrying commercial traffic.
As a supposed Internet access provider, you show a remarkable ignorance
about the difference between the Internet and Usenet. No one here protests
the commercial use of the Internet. Usenet is different because the
receiver pays for the sender's message.
Robert Nicholson
Won't they just go and find some mail2news gateway?
--
"Oh no, actually darling I don't have time for games."
(PGP key: send email with Subject: request pgp key)
(ASCII for text only messages)
Ian Wilson
> In article 6...@staff.cs.su.oz.au, da...@cs.su.oz.au (Daniel Yee)
> writes:
> >Due to displeasure with PSI's continued refusal to apply sanctions
> >to Canter & Siegel (cyber.sell.com), I have configured my Web server
> >to deny access to any machines within the psi.com domain.
> >
> > I would imagine that most PSI customers have their own domains.
> This effort would make little difference to users of those
> networks.
Well, I guess they mostly (all?) use IP-addresses from the range
allocated to PSI so you could deny access to that range of addresses.
Ian.
Jon Tara
>From: i...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Ian Wilson")
>Subject: Re: Sanctions against PSI
If they have their own domain, then it's likely that they also have their own
network, in which case the IP addresses would bear no relationship whatsoever
to that of their interconnectivity provider. (did I just coin a new term?)
In fact, my provider has SEVERAL networks, and I'll bet that this is the case
with a lot of local providers. CTS had a single Class C network when I signed
up with them. They now have gobs of them, as they've gone from a handful of
PPP users when I signed up to a couple of thousand now. (And all with
staticly-allocated addresses.) Every time they get 255 more users, they get
another Class C network.
justin wells
>In fact, my provider has SEVERAL networks, and I'll bet that this is the case
>with a lot of local providers. CTS had a single Class C network when I signed
>up with them. They now have gobs of them, as they've gone from a handful of
>PPP users when I signed up to a couple of thousand now. (And all with
>staticly-allocated addresses.) Every time they get 255 more users, they get
>another Class C network.
So... how long before we run out of IP numbers?
Justin
Michael P. Clemens
rjw...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (justin wells) wrote:
> In article <jtara.883...@cts.com>, Jon Tara <jt...@cts.com> wrote:
>
> >In fact, my provider has SEVERAL networks, and I'll bet that this is
the case
> >with a lot of local providers. [...] Every time they get 255 more
users, they get
> >another Class C network.
>
> So... how long before we run out of IP numbers?
Hopefully not before the old IP system is revamped with the newer, bigger
numbers. Anyone know what the timetable is on that project, btw?
Brian Combs
but it's not the most effective approach. We need to hit them
in the pocket book.
When someone spams to UseNet, refuse to *ever* give them any
business.
Better yet, send them email to let them know this.
Even better yet, send snailmail to the president of the company
letting him know that due to their inappropriate use of the
Internet, you are boycotting their company.
We have to reach the point where spamming is not economical.
Brian Combs
--
**********************************************************************
* Brian Combs * Tel: 512-346-9199 Fax: 512-346-8990 *
* Quadralay Corporation * FTP Address: ftp.quadralay.com *
Andrew DeLancey
incident? I'm pretty new here, and haven't heard about it.
TIA
Steve Birnbaum
Brian Combs <co...@quadralay.com> wrote:
>Even better yet, send snailmail to the president of the company
>letting him know that due to their inappropriate use of the
>Internet, you are boycotting their company.
It would be nice if this worked, but the problem is that they don't
always see it as it really is. I called the manager of the Ski Colorado
place to explain it to him right after the spam. His response what simply
that C&S told him it was ok and he knows nothing about the net. I couldn't
really understand why commercial posts aren't allowed and what is bad about
spamming.
When I told him that some were thinking of cancelling any messages that came
out of C&S, his response was simply that he thinks that's what should be
done if indeed they are doing something wrong. He never really grasped the
significance of what happened since he was told by C&S repeatedly that there
was nothing wrong with what they were doing. He told me he was going to
look elsewhere but I don't know how serious that was.
l8r...
Steve
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Steve Birnbaum | My opinions don't reflect those of BNR. |
| sb...@bnr.ca | |
| aa...@freenet.carleton.ca | Phone: (613) 763-3722 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
siproj
Chuck Wegrzyn <weg...@tribble.lkg.dec.com> wrote:
>Might I offer another opinion. One of two things are going to happen to the
>Internet we love - it will either adapt or die, and the choice is yours. As an
>internet access provider (destek.net), we pay $10,000/ year for commercial
>internet carriage. What this implies is that we pay for the privilege of
>carrying commercial traffic.
Considering that CIX is as likely an anti-trust lawsuit waiting to
happen... adapt and be named in a suit? Implies does not mean
explicit, so therefore if you do C&S or even defend such tactics,
do you think that will gain your respect?
>While there is a significant momentum on the current Internet to not tolerant
>what C&S did, you need to be ready to accept change! Why do I say that it is
>inevitable? Well, companies are footing the bill for the Internet now -
>whether it is IBM, DEC, my company Destek, or any other. We are in the
>business to make money. And yes, the users are on for access to news, etc. but
>very few of them pay the bills. But even this isn't the point.
Then why even mention it if it is not the point!
>What I would suggest is that the Internet must adapt or die! Microsoft's
>Marvel, Apple's network, etc. are coming and will provide a level of services
>that will cost much more (per hour) than the most users pay for Internet
>access. I would suggest that the IETF and the Internet Society work to
>establish sensible guidelines to allow the commercial use of the Internet.
>What sorts of things might be useful? For one, mail (or news) might have a
>keyword field that says "ADVERTISEMENT"; we could set our mail readers and
>news readers to look for that and ignore it if we don't wish to see them. This
>could be done automagically! There are many other ways to do it as well.
Thanks NetCrockMinister! Why should the onus be on every reader of the net?
Does that mean that people should be given the devine right to put
billboards from horizon to horizon, remember when people started to chainsaw
those down C&S take heed plus any idiot foll enough to follow a like example!
Chainsaw their IP number ranges!
>People such as C&S will continue to use the Internet in whatever form they
>need to. PSI and others like us at Destek, can't really do much - we are
>common carriers and regulated by Federal and state laws.
So that means you need to submit to a whole slew of public utility
commissions! Fools you are!
>Please don't take offense at what I say, but we must adapt or lose the whole
>thing, so lets take a constructive approach!
You offer little, with that offer it ends up being a net negative
so let us block the IP number ranges and to hell with PSI, antitrust CIX
hucksterism with Cybersell sleeze!
>Thanks for the time,
>Chuck Wegrzyn
>The Destek Group, Inc.
>West Newbury MA & Pelham, NH
No thanks for letting your true colors show!
--
sip...@rci.ripco.com Creator of alt.inventors and keeper of the Official
alt.inventors FAQ despite what some alt.config
sysadmin/waste of time/bandwidth actions.
d...@barc.com
>In article <wegrzyn.2...@tribble.lkg.dec.com>,
>Chuck Wegrzyn <weg...@tribble.lkg.dec.com> wrote:
>>Might I offer another opinion. One of two things are going to happen to the
>>Internet we love - it will either adapt or die, and the choice is yours. As an
>>internet access provider (destek.net), we pay $10,000/ year for commercial
>>internet carriage. What this implies is that we pay for the privilege of
>>carrying commercial traffic.
>
>Considering that CIX is as likely an anti-trust lawsuit waiting to
>happen... adapt and be named in a suit? Implies does not mean
>explicit, so therefore if you do C&S or even defend such tactics,
>do you think that will gain your respect?
>
>
difference between INTERNET and USENET. Sure... he pays CIX for
routing, and expects to be able to use the INTERNET for commercial
purposes. So what... businesses have been doing that for some time.
However, the INTERNET is the transportation mechanism, and most
companies have not used USENET for commercial purposes, leaving it's
non-commercial status intact. His analogy is like saying that becuase
he's a business and pays his phone bill, he has a right to expect to
be able to put his advertisements in the telephone company phone bills
when they are mailed to all telco customers.
David L. Cathey
Instead of boycotting PSI (which really hasn't been the one doing
something wrong, just slow to react to anything), why not take the tack that
Rahul did, but with cyber.sell.com instead:
Alias your News server as cyber.sell.com so your site refuses all
Usenet articles from them. C-and-S might not like it, but boycotts are
legal in the real world and so should they be in the virtual world.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David L. Cathey |Inet: dav...@montagar.com
Montagar Software Concepts |UUCP: ...!montagar!davidc
P. O. Box 260776 |Fone: (214)-578-5036
Plano TX 75026-0772 |http://www.montagar.com/~davidc/
Rahul Dhesi
Cathey) writes:
>Instead of boycotting PSI (which really hasn't been the one doing
>something wrong, just slow to react to anything), why not take the tack that
>Rahul did, but with cyber.sell.com instead:
Just to clarify, I aliased my site to psinntp only for about half a day
in June. I undid that when PSI requested in email (subsequent to its
legal threats) that I not take this action and that something was about
to be done about the C&S situation. I'm a nice guy even if you send me
nasty threats. :-)
At that time the headers of the spam emanating from C&S did not include
their own host name, so aliasing psinntp was the only viable course of
action.
This time around, cyber.sell.com is in the headers. Unfortunately I am
now using inn rather than C-News, and inn does not support aliasing out
of a site in this way for the ME entry in the newsfeeds file. I will
soon try to apply a patch to fix this, and will then alias out all
postings from cyber.sell.com and sell.com.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>