PSI disconnects Canter & Siegel's Usenet access
Ron Newman
news.admin.misc earlier today. I'm taking the liberty of
reposting it to these two newsgroups as well.
If PSI comes under legal attack from C&S because of this action,
I hope that the Net community will enthusiastically support PSI.
-------------------
From: sch...@us.psi.com (Martin L. Schoffstall)
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc
Subject: The PSI Response to C&S
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 16:45:44 -0500
Organization: Performance Systems International Inc.
Message-ID: <941216164...@schoff280c.herndon.psi.com>
References: <caradoc-1512...@slip42.enet.net>
Reply-To: sch...@us.psi.com (Martin L. Schoffstall)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.127.3.21
Several days ago PSI disabled C&S's USENET access to our server as we believed
that AT THE MINIMUM they were in violation of their contractural agreement
with PSI concerning USENET.
Their general TCP/IP Internet access has not been disconnected.
PSI's lawyers (as in the first instance) have been engaged and will undoutedly
continue to be engaged on this issue.
PSI's position is that we will not now enable their USENET access under any
instance except one, a US court order, which we have some expectation that
will be attempted, and which we will fight.
PSI has remained silent till now as is our policy when lawyers are engaged in
a (again AT A MINUMUM) private dispute. We are aware of the impact on the
public, and even our public image within this piece of the community.
However, PSI is more interested in strategic objectices of network freedom,
discourse, legality, etiquette etc. We have been careful to remove ourselves
from discussions with the community or individuals to remove any opportunity
for questions of conspiracy imagined or searched for during a discovery
process.
We believe that we are in this particular case/service a neutral carrier of
information. And have the opportunity to be damaged by a number of parties.
It is possible that legal prescedent will be set in this case.
Marty Schoffstall
For PSI
-------------------
--
Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
rne...@media.mit.edu
Nico Garcia
From: sch...@us.psi.com (Martin L. Schoffstall)
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc
Subject: The PSI Response to C&S
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 16:45:44 -0500
Organization: Performance Systems International Inc.
Message-ID: <941216164...@schoff280c.herndon.psi.com>
References: <caradoc-1512...@slip42.enet.net>
Reply-To: sch...@us.psi.com (Martin L. Schoffstall)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.127.3.21
Several days ago PSI disabled C&S's USENET access to our server as we believed
that AT THE MINIMUM they were in violation of their contractural agreement
with PSI concerning USENET.
Good. Took long enough, but good.
Their general TCP/IP Internet access has not been disconnected.
Shame. Makes me wonder if PSI cannot simply refund their service
payments, and punt them altogether, or if their contract is such that
they are obligated to continue, even though they've violated *other*
parts of their contract. This is an interesting question for
sys-admins and service providers: if someone screws up on Usenet, can
and should you kick them off altogether?
PSI has remained silent till now as is our policy when lawyers are engaged in
a (again AT A MINUMUM) private dispute. We are aware of the impact on the
public, and even our public image within this piece of the community.
A polite note that PSI was aware of the C&S activities would have
helped assuage our concerns, although if PSI were actually working out
how to punt them, I can definitely see keeping quiet for a bit.
The problem with silence is that there are *many* reasons to remain
silent, such as not wanting to get sued, or not knowing about the
issues, or not caring because it was bringing PSI profitable traffic
from people buying accounts to pingstorm C&S, to C&S's activities
creating a profitable market for false and misleading commercial
advertising. We have no way to judge PSI's actions except by the
very, very late results in this matter. In fact, by taking so long to
cancel them, PSI encouraged their behavior (unless things were going
on that we were not aware of).
We believe that we are in this particular case/service a neutral carrier of
information. And have the opportunity to be damaged by a number of parties.
Many of us suspect that PSI remained completely out of it until the
mailbombs and pingstorms started overloading them, and are now
responding by deleting the cause of the mailbombs, etc. If this is
true, it implies that *only* net.terrorism will cause PSI to respond.
This is *utterly* consistent with PSI's silence until now, their late
response to C&S abuses, and PSI's desire not to discuss details of
their actions, plans, and responsibilities.
A policy of cautious and extreme restraint is also consistent with
these results, but it's impossible for *me*, at least, to tell the
difference as yet. We'll see what happens next time. A clear and
carefully enforced policy of "no net.abuse" would help. An easier
assistance, creatable by any competent Netnews hacker, would be to
enforce a 10 minute minimum time between posting messages to different
groups. They could be easily queued up so the person could log out
safely, but this would prevent the worst Usenet abuses we've seen
lately, and give administrators time to respond to the others before
they get to more than a few groups. You might seriously consider
this policy.
Nico Garcia
ra...@athena.mit.edu
Robt Martin
: In article <1994Dec17....@news.media.mit.edu> rne...@media.mit.edu (Ron Newman) writes:
: Several days ago PSI disabled C&S's USENET access to our server as we believed
: that AT THE MINIMUM they were in violation of their contractural agreement
: with PSI concerning USENET.
: Good. Took long enough, but good.
Note that they are using lawyers, and are probably taking their lawyers'
advice. Since C&S are lawyers themselves, PSI's counsel no doubt
proceeded with caution -- i.e., suggested several clear warnings before
more immediate actions were taken.
: Their general TCP/IP Internet access has not been disconnected.
: Shame. Makes me wonder if PSI cannot simply refund their service
: payments, and punt them altogether, or if their contract is such that
: they are obligated to continue, even though they've violated *other*
: parts of their contract. This is an interesting question for
: sys-admins and service providers: if someone screws up on Usenet, can
: and should you kick them off altogether?
PSI expects a court order to resume USENET for C&S. Denial of access to
USENET, under the given circumstances, will be far more defensible in court
than the discontinuation of all service. PSI's lawyers are not dummies.
: PSI has remained silent till now as is our policy when lawyers are engaged in
: a (again AT A MINUMUM) private dispute. We are aware of the impact on the
: public, and even our public image within this piece of the community.
: A polite note that PSI was aware of the C&S activities would have
: helped assuage our concerns, although if PSI were actually working out
: how to punt them, I can definitely see keeping quiet for a bit.
Exactly. Do you imagine C&S don't read net-abuse? Also, as explained in
the next paragraph, PSI would like to be considered a common carrier. If
they mother-hen the net, they will destroy any credibility for that status.
: We believe that we are in this particular case/service a neutral carrier of
: information. And have the opportunity to be damaged by a number of parties.
: Many of us suspect that PSI remained completely out of it until the
: mailbombs and pingstorms started overloading them, and are now
: responding by deleting the cause of the mailbombs, etc. If this is
: true, it implies that *only* net.terrorism will cause PSI to respond.
: This is *utterly* consistent with PSI's silence until now, their late
: response to C&S abuses, and PSI's desire not to discuss details of
: their actions, plans, and responsibilities.
There it is - the vigilante rhetoric that makes this group, however
necessary, so frequently ugly.
: A policy of cautious and extreme restraint is also consistent with
: these results, but it's impossible for *me*, at least, to tell the
: difference as yet.
It's impossible for me, as well. But the 'net is not going to explode
tomorrow. Time will certainly tell.
: We'll see what happens next time. A clear and
: carefully enforced policy of "no net.abuse" would help.
???
Run usenet like a bbs? an interesting idea. Who do you suppose should be
sysop?
: An easier
: assistance, creatable by any competent Netnews hacker, would be to
: enforce a 10 minute minimum time between posting messages to different
: groups. They could be easily queued up so the person could log out
: safely, but this would prevent the worst Usenet abuses we've seen
: lately, and give administrators time to respond to the others before
: they get to more than a few groups. You might seriously consider
: this policy.
Oh, I get it -- this is a troll, right?
: Nico Garcia
: ra...@athena.mit.edu
--
>>>ELDERS in 1996<<<
Brad Templeton
they are involved in legal battles. The instant back-forth of e-mail and
the net have spoiled us, and real world and real business can't take
place at net speed all the time. It would kill everybody involved from
overwork.
I am sure that PSI, trying to build a large internet business, has many
more important things to worry about than these two lawyers, whose only
claim to fame is that they know how to annoy people and make people engage
in endless net debate about them so that they can get more infamous.
From my own personal take, I can't imagine why Marty even wants these
guys as customers et all, IP or otherwise, but I haven't seen his contract
with them or his other customers, or the policies he may want to set in
order to maintain status as an enhanced services provider. It is also
true that in business one generally considers refusing business to be
a last resort, so one always expects such decisions to be slow. I've
only refused the net business of one person, John Palmer, and that was only
after aggregious violation of contract.
So give PSI a break on this.
--
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp. | www.clarinet.com
The net's #1 Electronic newspaper (circulation 80,000) | in...@clarinet.com
Werner Uhrig
on news.admin.policy,alt.current-events.net-abuse:
|>>.. PSI disabled C&S's USENET access
>
> [ PSI's lawyers probably counseled ] to proceed with caution -- i.e.,
> suggested several clear warnings before more immediate actions were taken.
one would have thought that the rigamarole of the past led to a
contract, which, once broken, means an automatice complete break
of the business relationship; no need for any more warnings...
|>> Their general TCP/IP Internet access has not been disconnected.
|
|> Shame. Makes me wonder if PSI cannot simply refund their ...payments
|> and punt them altogether....
Exactly. On one hand it is good to see that someone who can
afford the lawyers stares C&S down (and doesn't simply send them
packing to pester the next service provider). On the other hand,
I am not that thrilled to think of PSI and C&S involved in
establishing precedent. I don't know how, but somehow the net
community should get their say into the records of any such trial...
(and I don't mean a transcript of a.c-e.n-a either, likely as that
could turn out to be...)
|> they are obligated to continue, even though they've violated *other*
|> parts of their contract.
that would be a sign of a poorly written contract if one side
breaking it would not allow the other side to discontinue the
business relationship completely, not something I'd expect from
an outfit of the size of PSI.
> PSI expects a court order to resume USENET for C&S.
I seriously doubt it (both that they expect and that it would be
forthcoming)
> PSI would like to be considered a common carrier.
TCP/IP connectivity may have aspects similar to "common carrier"
but not a news-feed... providing a newsfeed is a personal
one-to-one relationship.
|> Many of us suspect that PSI remained completely out of it until the
|> mailbombs and pingstorms started overloading them, and are now
|> responding by deleting the cause of the mailbombs, etc. If this is
|> true, it implies that *only* net.terrorism will cause PSI to respond.
|> This is *utterly* consistent with PSI's silence until now, their late
|> response to C&S abuses, and PSI's desire not to discuss details of
|> their actions, plans, and responsibilities.
>
> There it is - the vigilante rhetoric that makes this group, however
> necessary, so frequently ugly.
bull-shit ! this is not vigilante rhetoric, it is as good a
analysis of what has likely happened as any other I have read...
|> We'll see what happens next time. A clear and carefully enforced policy
|> of "no net.abuse" would help.
>
>???
> Run usenet like a bbs? an interesting idea. Who do you suppose should be sysop?
oh, baloney! if abuse (whatever that may be) spills forth on USEnet
from one host/site, then if the news-admin at that site does not care
to see his way to stopping it, then the down-stream sites will cut
off their connectivity to the problem site. After all, there is no
law of physics that makes neighboring news sites propagate news, this
is not acoustics or electromagnetism, this is a VOLUNTARY act of
cooperation after all (and where there is a will, there is a won't!)
The way I see it, the Information Highway is all about gaining
access to information (i.e. the fee you pay your access-provider
gets you access to it) and an opportunity to make information
available (passively, as for FTP, or other kinds of servers for
people to visit and peruse), NOT to provide a bull-horn to annoy
and anger a whole lot of people with.
USEnet is that subset of newsgroups that was created under the
AUP and in the mutual understanding among founders and users that
commercial use is not acceptable. The changes in conditions as to
who can gain access to Internet and for what purposes has not changed
the charter of USEnet newsgroups automatically or in any way at all
(is my contention anyways). Other group hierarchies have been created
since to accomodate the commercializing of the net, while at the same
time trying to preserve the interests of a commercial-free USEnet. As
in all human endavours, when it comes to disrespect and abuse, it's a
recurring "because I can" phenomenon... Some will not notice, some
remain unaffected and ignore it, others suffer it quietly, and some
will try to make that kind of behavior "unattractive" to avoid that
the abuser benefits (and if that means causing trouble to abusers
and inconveniences to those who, conveniently, ignore the fact that
they are facilitating the abuse, so be it)
Nothing new under the sun, I guess....
--
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
-> Tiananmen Square: 5 years later, ignoring it becomes official US policy <--
Mark Eckenwiler
>that AT THE MINIMUM they were in violation of their contractural agreement
>with PSI concerning USENET.
Though the mills of PSI grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small.
Gaudeamus igitur!
David Lesher
>In the real world, people need time to make decisions, especially when
>they are involved in legal battles. The instant back-forth of e-mail and
>the net have spoiled us, and real world and real business can't take
>place at net speed all the time. It would kill everybody involved from
>overwork.
I propose a new time scale for net activities. Note it is
log-based, NOT linear. Each level is pi*e^n faster than the one
below it....
Warp
Impulse
Congress-speed
Netcom-support-reply
PSI/C&S action
I can accept a delay initally. I *cannot* accept:
the prolonged denial/silence
delay on this offense -- They negotiated a contract; and PSI
could have written whatever action timeframe they wanted into
it.
PSI's past threats to other Netters, to my knowledge still
outstanding. (Has Marty posted a retraction or apology? When
Bob Reiger *really* stepped in it, HE did.)
John Palmer
[...]
"a last resort, so one always expects such decisions to be slow. I've
"only refused the net business of one person, John Palmer, and that was only
"after aggregious violation of contract.
"
How about telling the truth? More like "I needed eyeglasses and therefore
didn't read the message that he sent me telling me that his BBS was going
back online and to change the rate structure again".
I make this solemn promise to you, Mr. Templeton: If your ****EVER*****
mention my name in a derogatory manner again on USENET, I will set
up a cancelbot to cancel every ClairNet article that gets posted. Chew
on that one for awhile.
Don't fuck with me - I've had enough of you.
--
Fight Socialism and the destruction of our nation: TOSS CLINTON OUT IN
NOVEMBER OF 1996. REMEMBER: A nation of consumers without producers
cannot survive. Which are you??
Nico Garcia
What a ridiculous threat: In similar circumstances, I would speak to
my service provider about the potential problem, then post a factual
and detailed explanation of what a wiener they were. *If* their threat
is carried out, they'll lose their service for network abuse. If it
is not, they are proven to be the loud-mouthed blowhard they seem to
be.
It does raise an interesting question. What happens when the group of
technically somewhat clever and juvenilely malicious people overlap,
as the Cracker Buster seems to, or as Mr. Palmer would if he were
capable of writing such a bot? Is the Net ready to deal with the
vandalism and crudity? I suspect not. It's fairly easy to protect
individual sites from such efforts, but as the Net becomes more and
more cross-connected, it will get much harder. Firewalls? Usenet
chokepoints, to throttle and isolate the flow of problem traffic
on demand? Legions of cancelmoose?
Nico Garcia
ra...@athena.mit.edu
In article <D10r0...@uuhare.rabbit.net> j...@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
[endless argument deleted to save space]
John Hascall
}I make this solemn promise to you, Mr. Templeton: If your ****EVER*****
}mention my name in a derogatory manner again on USENET, I will set
}up a cancelbot to cancel every ClairNet article that gets posted. Chew
}on that one for awhile.
}
}Don't fuck with me - I've had enough of you.
Does this promise go for everyone you spoiled little crybaby?
--
John Hascall ``An ill-chosen word is the fool's messenger.''
Systems Software Engineer, ISU Comp Center + Ames, IA 50011 + 515/294-9551
George Herbert
j...@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>I make this solemn promise to you, Mr. Templeton: If your ****EVER*****
>mention my name in a derogatory manner again on USENET, I will set
>up a cancelbot to cancel every ClairNet article that gets posted. Chew
>on that one for awhile.
Wow, I didn't know anyone else in the world cared about ClairNet,
our happy set of 3 teeny newsgroups discussing Clearing the Air
in the bay area. I didn't know they even propogated to Michigan...
OH, you're confused again and meant to threaten ClarInet. Ahh, I see.
>Don't fuck with me - I've had enough of you.
If you keep this up, talk.bizarre is going to call the truce off.
Then you'll really be sorry.
-george
David DeLaney
those tuning in to a.f.j-p):
>I make this solemn promise to you, Mr. Templeton: If your ****EVER*****
>mention my name in a derogatory manner again on USENET, I will set
>up a cancelbot to cancel every ClairNet article that gets posted. Chew
>on that one for awhile.
Just one question: What in the world is ClairNet, and why should Brad take
any notice of it?
Dave "Is that short for 'Clairol'? News.groups.shampoo?" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney d...@panacea.phys.utk.edu "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. Disclaimer: IMHO; VRbeableWIKTHLC
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ / CanterSiegelKibozeBait!!
Mike Knell
Nico Garcia <ra...@athena.mit.edu> wrote:
>>The problem with silence is that there are *many* reasons to remain
>silent, such as not wanting to get sued, or not knowing about the
>issues, or not caring because it was bringing PSI profitable traffic
>from people buying accounts to pingstorm C&S, to C&S's activities
(snip)
Hold on. Pingstorming I've never heard of.
This sounds extremely nasty to me - are we talking flood pinging as in..
(man page extract)
# -f Flood ping. Outputs packets as fast as they come back or one
# hundred times per second, whichever is more. For every
# ECHO_REQUEST sent a period `.'' is printed, while for ever
# ECHO_REPLY received a backspace is printed. This provides a
# rapid display of how many packets are being dropped. Only the
# super-user may use this option. This can be very hard on a net-
# work and should be used with caution.
I'd just like to suggest that this is a totally cretinous thing to do to get
revenge on someone who you might not like. It is, in fact, a totally
excellent way to completely bugger up the entire network path between you
and your target. This includes all the network backbones, transoceanic pipes
and other jiggery-pokery which makes the networks work. It's only hurting
yourself, folks - very much cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Flood pinging is a useful diagnostic tool in certain, restricted
circumstances. Using it over the network at large for kicks is just plain
vandalism. You're as bad as C&S if you do it..
I'd suggest that fighting spam with _different_ sorts of spam is
counterproductive. Mailbombing only hurts the network at large, after all,
as does such cretinousness as is described above.. It is, of course, C&S's
right to make a Web server available if they so wish. It is their open abuse
of Usenet and advocacy of spamming mailing lists / newsgroups that people
are objecting to (quite rightly too, blah blah). Nobody should try and force
them off the net for simply being there, however odious their ideas are...
All IMHO, of course.
Opinions, please?
Followups set to alt.current-events.net-abuse.
-- mpK.
--
+--- Mike Knell --- Squashed Lagomorpha on the Information Superhighway(tm) --+
|Supreme Glorious Leader and Head Megalomaniac of alt.fan.pratchett.announce. |
|SMTP mail thing: m...@frink.demon.co.uk. PGP guacamole-making thing available.|
+ Just to keep the spambots happy: Canter, Seigel, Card, Green, Lemur, Fnord. +
The Right Reverend Master Tweek
>
>How about telling the truth? More like "I needed eyeglasses and therefore
>didn't read the message that he sent me telling me that his BBS was going
>back online and to change the rate structure again".
>
>I make this solemn promise to you, Mr. Templeton: If your ****EVER*****
>mention my name in a derogatory manner again on USENET, I will set
>up a cancelbot to cancel every ClairNet article that gets posted. Chew
>on that one for awhile.
>
>Don't fuck with me - I've had enough of you.
Gotta be a forgery. No ASSHOLE, No Lawyers...
--
tw...@io.com tw...@tweekco.ness.com WW4Net-1@11551 DoD #MCMLX N6QYA
**** Regarding the Internet><WWIVNet gateway and other assorted stuff: ****
http://io.com/user/tweek/homepage.html IM: Michael D. Maxfield
Ron Kirkpatrick
|> quoting fli...@news.dorsai.org (Robt Martin), Nico Garcia, Ron Newman
|> on news.admin.policy,alt.current-events.net-abuse:
|>
|> |>>.. PSI disabled C&S's USENET access
|> >
|> > [ PSI's lawyers probably counseled ] to proceed with caution -- i.e.,
|> > suggested several clear warnings before more immediate actions were taken.
|>
|> one would have thought that the rigamarole of the past led to a
|> contract, which, once broken, means an automatice complete break
|> of the business relationship; no need for any more warnings...
Automatic? In law nothing is 'automatic'.
If I'd been PSI's lawyers, I would have written C&S a letter reminding
them of the contract/agreement and asking them 'why shouldn't your Usenet
access be terminated'. The letter would include a response deadline.
After the deadline had passed without a response OR the response was
insufficient to sway PSI's lawyers, a second letter would have been
sent setting the date that the Usenet access would be terminated.
Both letters would have been sent Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested.
|> |>> Their general TCP/IP Internet access has not been disconnected.
|> |
|> |> Shame. Makes me wonder if PSI cannot simply refund their ...payments
|> |> and punt them altogether....
|>
|> Exactly. On one hand it is good to see that someone who can
|> afford the lawyers stares C&S down (and doesn't simply send them
|> packing to pester the next service provider). On the other hand,
|> I am not that thrilled to think of PSI and C&S involved in
|> establishing precedent. I don't know how, but somehow the net
|> community should get their say into the records of any such trial...
|> (and I don't mean a transcript of a.c-e.n-a either, likely as that
|> could turn out to be...)
...
The action by C&S that is under discussion here only involves Usenet and
does not involve Internet access which includes WWW and E-Mail. PSI
would have a harder time cutting off E-mail access then they would Usenet
access.
--
Ron Kirkpatrick
Tektronix, Inc
503-627-3434
Chris Keroack
that particular kind of message would be to garner sympathy, and
threatening to cancel an entire site because one person wounded one other
person's ego and (vaguely arguably) reputation hardly generates any sympathy.
As you would say, chew on that. =)
Chris
---
John Palmer (j...@tygra.Michigan.COM) wrote:
Christopher Biow
Ron Kirkpatrick <Ron.C.Ki...@tek.com> wrote:
>If I'd been PSI's lawyers, I would have...
[long, drawn out process deleted]
>The action by C&S that is under discussion here only involves Usenet and
>does not involve Internet access which includes WWW and E-Mail. PSI
>would have a harder time cutting off E-mail access then they would Usenet
>access.
Balderdash. Netcom and at least one other provider simply terminated
C&S's accounts within a reasonable (few days) reaction time. It would
seem that PSI has the sort of corporate lawyers who enhance their own
apparent utility to the company by exaggerating legal threats and then
taking credit for saving the company from such phantoms. Worse yet,
it would seem that PSI management believe these exaggerations, to
the point of presenting the net with weeks of total silence, followed
by an inadequate response that fails to preclude further spamming.
PSI has followed this pattern twice during C&S spamming periods.
If I'd been PSI's lawyers, I'd have told them that they were wasting
the legal department's time--a management, not a legal decision was
required. Once the descision was made, it could be presented to the
legal deapartment for a quick review.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and don't want to be.
Werner Uhrig
>|> one would have thought that the rigamarole of the past led to a
>|> contract, which, once broken, means an automatice complete break
>|> of the business relationship; no need for any more warnings...
>
>Automatic? In law nothing is 'automatic'.
>
>If I'd been PSI's lawyers, I would have written C&S a letter reminding
>them of the contract/agreement and asking them 'why shouldn't your Usenet
>access be terminated'. The letter would include a response deadline.
>
>After the deadline had passed without a response OR the response was
>insufficient to sway PSI's lawyers, a second letter would have been
>sent setting the date that the Usenet access would be terminated.
>
>Both letters would have been sent Certified Mail/Return Receipt Requested.
hmmm, the law sure provides a lot of job security, doesn't it?!! :-(
> The action by C&S that is under discussion here only involves Usenet
> and does not involve Internet access which includes WWW and E-Mail.
> PSI would have a harder time cutting off E-mail access then they would
> Usenet access.
I would make a complete break with someone if s/he EITHER lies,
steals or cheats, I would not wait until all 3 occur.
And given email abuse of mailing-lists and mail-to-news gateways,
and the repeated public statements it is not very hard to recognize
"bad news" business partners.
But whatever. I don't expect this to end up in a courtroom, but
if so, we will end up wishing that the USEnet community could get
in a word, edgewise, to protect our best interests...
--
"Free Advice and Opinions -- Refunds Available"
-> Tiananmen Square: 5 years later, ignoring it becomes official US policy <--
---> ( I believe in emailing courtesy copies of follow-up articles ) <---
David Canzi
>Several days ago PSI disabled C&S's USENET access to our server as we believed
>that AT THE MINIMUM they were in violation of their contractural agreement
>with PSI concerning USENET.
>
>Their general TCP/IP Internet access has not been disconnected.
Ie. PSI has done nothing of any worth. TCP/IP access is all Canter
and Siegel actually need to spam again. As everybody knows by now,
Canter and Siegel have experimented with a mail-to-news gateway.
Finding an alternative NNTP server would have worked too.
In article <1994Dec17....@news.media.mit.edu>,
Ron Newman <rne...@media.mit.edu> wrote:
>If PSI comes under legal attack from C&S because of this action,
>I hope that the Net community will enthusiastically support PSI.
Nah.
What PSI have done is merely cosmetic. It allows them to put up an
appearance of having done something, but leaves Canter and Siegel free
to use PSI's network to spam. The bit in Schoffstall's letter about
a possibility of C&S getting a court order for restored NNTP access
is ridiculous -- why would they bother?
PSI's actions towards Canter and Siegel are observationally
indistinguishable from collaboration.
--
David Canzi
Jay Maynard
John Palmer <j...@tygra.Michigan.COM> wrote:
>I make this solemn promise to you, Mr. Templeton: If your ****EVER*****
>mention my name in a derogatory manner again on USENET, I will set
>up a cancelbot to cancel every ClairNet article that gets posted. Chew
>on that one for awhile.
Ask your virtual lawyers what the term "tortious interference" means. Then
contemplate what would happen when a bunch of Clarinet customers sue you for
it.
My employer has real lawyers, apparently unlike you...
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
8 November 1994: It's the guns, stupid! (Thanks, America...)
Sean Eric Fagan
Obviously.
Equally obviously, you don't know about any of PSI's goals.
PSI wants to be given "common carrier" status. A 'common carrier' CANNOT,
repeat can *NOT*, refuse service to anyone (with some narrow exceptions),
nor can they terminate service based on non-illegal behaviour. Simply being
an ass is not illegal, and, therefore, not grounds for, for example, the
phone company to terminate your phone line.
PSI does not have that status right now; however, I bet the lawyers have
advised PSI to start behaving as if they did, in an effort to get it granted
to them.
(There are certain advantages to being a 'common carrier,' such as not being
legally responsible for what you carry. For example, a phone company can
not be arrested for distributing child pornography, even if it is carried
across the phone company's wires. An ISP, on the other hand, *can*.
There's also something called an "enhanced service provider," but I'm not
sure what that entails, or if PSI has gotten that status.)
Vincent Archer
>The action by C&S that is under discussion here only involves Usenet and
>does not involve Internet access which includes WWW and E-Mail. PSI
>would have a harder time cutting off E-mail access then they would Usenet
>access.
Exactly. Everything that they've done wrong is in regard to Usenet, not
the IP world. If you check, they're doing nothing wrong over IP, except maybe
putting hideous WWW pages. In which case there are dozen of internet sites
that should have their IP access revoked :-)
Revoking the Usenet access is the proper way of doing this. Somebody please
tell uunet to disable any access to NNTP from sell.com?
--
Vincent Archer Email: arc...@frmug.fr.net
Noyeux Joel!!!
Peter Vorobieff
>[...]
>"a last resort, so one always expects such decisions to be slow. I've
>"only refused the net business of one person, John Palmer, and that was only
>"after aggregious violation of contract.
>"
>
>How about telling the truth? More like "I needed eyeglasses and therefore
>didn't read the message that he sent me telling me that his BBS was going
>back online and to change the rate structure again".
>
>mention my name in a derogatory manner again on USENET, I will set
>up a cancelbot to cancel every ClairNet article that gets posted. Chew
>on that one for awhile.
I fear, oh Mighty John Palmer, that your cancelbot will not run correctly, as
you fail to spell Clarinet properly.
>Don't fuck with me - I've had enough of you.
Was it an attempt to insult? An average alley cat makes them better - and
scratches dirt over them.
Thus spake Kalmoth the Vile, Slayer of One Robot and Seven Pigs.
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in the article above, if any, are channeled from
the Fungi of Yuggoth and do not necessarily represent the views of
my other employers.
Billy D
: PSI wants to be given "common carrier" status.
CLose. Maybe. Almost. They might like to have common carrier
status, as you put it, but I'll just bet they don't want to
have any of the other obligations that such a status would
entail.
Anybody who knows anything about the telecommunications
industry knows exactly what those obligations are. If you
are one of them, then I would be patronizing you by
continuing. If you're not one of them, then you might
reconsider your previous claim about what PSI does or
doesn't want.
My guess is that they would NOT want to be regulated by PUC.
My guess is that they would NOT want to be regulated by COngress.
My guess is that they would NOT want to be subjected to either
the old/new Telecommunications Bills or the Digital Wiretap Bill
as "common carrier". No, PSI is not a common carrier. PSI is
a "service provider".
Christopher Biow
>In article <3d4tn1$4...@moonpie.cs.umd.edu>,
>Christopher Biow <bi...@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
>>Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
>Obviously.
>Equally obviously, you don't know about any of PSI's goals.
>PSI wants to be given "common carrier" status.
Do you have a reference for your claim that PSI is seeking common carrier status
for their Usenet feeds in a way that Netcom and others are not?
Or are you guessing?
> A 'common carrier' CANNOT,
>repeat can *NOT*, refuse service to anyone (with some narrow exceptions),
>nor can they terminate service based on non-illegal behaviour.
This does not seem to describe their approach to C&S and spamming.
While they may have been very halfhearted and dithered for extended
periods, they have taken *some* action based upon spamming. Either
they can take action or they can't.
> Simply being
>an ass is not illegal, and, therefore, not grounds for, for example, the
>phone company to terminate your phone line.
>PSI does not have that status right now; however, I bet the lawyers have
>advised PSI to start behaving as if they did...
E.G. you are guessing...
>, in an effort to get it granted
>to them.
By whom? You sound as if there is some Great Grantor of Common Carrier
Status in the sky. So far as I am aware, it would take either new legislation
or a court decision that existing legislation somehow applies to them.
>(There are certain advantages to being a 'common carrier,' such as not being
>legally responsible for what you carry. For example, a phone company can
>not be arrested for distributing child pornography, even if it is carried
>across the phone company's wires. An ISP, on the other hand, *can*.
>There's also something called an "enhanced service provider," but I'm not
>sure what that entails, or if PSI has gotten that status.)
If anyone ever starts claiming common carrier status for their Usenet
service, that would probably be a good basis for aliasing them out of
nntp feeds. Usenet as it is currently constituted is based upon a level of
cooperation between newsadmins that *does* require removing users
who engage in certain types of legal but destructive behavior.
That said, I have seen no evidence that PSI has claimed any such
status. I advocate that newsadmins alias their users out of nntp
feeds as well as www and ftp access during any period when they
are allowing C&S to spam. At the moment, it's not clear if that
is the case or not.
Disclaimer: I am not a newsadmin, either.
Christopher Biow
Christopher Biow <bi...@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
>E.G. you are guessing...
Oops, uh, that's I.E.
Disclaimer: Latin is not my first language.
Ron Kirkpatrick
|> Schoffstall said:
|> >Several days ago PSI disabled C&S's USENET access to our server as we believed
|> >that AT THE MINIMUM they were in violation of their contractural agreement
|> >with PSI concerning USENET.
|> >
|> >Their general TCP/IP Internet access has not been disconnected.
|>
|> Ie. PSI has done nothing of any worth. TCP/IP access is all Canter
|> and Siegel actually need to spam again. As everybody knows by now,
|> Canter and Siegel have experimented with a mail-to-news gateway.
|> Finding an alternative NNTP server would have worked too.
True. it appears that C & S have experimented with a mail-to-news gateway.
True, they could use one of the 'open' NNTP servers.
However, the agreement between C & S and PSI was broad enough to covere
E-Mail and (I believe) any other means of massive spaming. (They didn't
use the word 'spam' of course.)
Any further attempts by C & S *could* result in their *total* loss of
network connectivity. (I can hear the cheering now.) We'll just have to
wait and see how the sequel is played out.
John Groseclose
>True. it appears that C & S have experimented with a mail-to-news gateway.
>True, they could use one of the 'open' NNTP servers.
>
>However, the agreement between C & S and PSI was broad enough to covere
>E-Mail and (I believe) any other means of massive spaming. (They didn't
>use the word 'spam' of course.)
>
>Any further attempts by C & S *could* result in their *total* loss of
>network connectivity. (I can hear the cheering now.) We'll just have to
>wait and see how the sequel is played out.
From what I recall of PSI's published agreement with C&S, there's a clause
in there covering "electronic mail" as well.
Should they abuse a mail2news gateway, I hope PSI sees clear to dumping
their connection completely, or reducing their account to incoming mail
only on a shell.
--
John Groseclose <car...@enet.net> WWW site: HTTP://ias.west.asu.edu/
Another person who will NEVER buy anything inappropriately
advertised on the UseNet...