Auto Cancel of Upnetnews? - or - More 'Tardness from MSN.COM
Howard Knight
microsoft.public.msn.netnews.discussion, and emailed to
ab...@classic.msn.com, msna...@microsoft.com, and le...@microsoft.com.]
Hi Everybody,
When we last left off, MSN.COM was responding to my spam reports with
this:
"After reviewing the info you sent us, it appears MSN addresses have
been forged on the 'spam' you received. Since they have 'spoofed'
their account to look as though they are coming from MSN, we do not
take this lightly. We are currently investigating the message source
and will alert the necessary ISP's, based on the header included in
your original report.
Please note in general that valid MSN email addresses cannot contain
exclamation points, pound, percentage or dollar signs, or more than
one ampersand.
I received a dozen or so of those in the last couple of weeks.
Then, this one came in:
| From: MSN Abuse Alias <msna...@microsoft.com>
| To: howardk
| Subject: RE: Spam Cancel Report, BI = 349.538 (strouse/MSN.COM/
| UU.NET): Feb 11, 1999
| Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:55:31 -0800
|
| a...@msn.com was invalid, but a related acct was terminated with the
| same message recently.
I guess the concept of "re-signing up" hasn't registered in that single
firing neuron in the MSN abuse department. The Strouse (PORNCITY.NET)
spam continues to flow from MSN.
Then, I got two of these today:
| From: MSN Abuse Alias <msna...@microsoft.com>
| To: howardk
| Subject: RE: Spam Cancel Report, BI = 225.032 (staylor/MSN.COM/
| UU.NET): Feb 13, 1999
| Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:57:56 -0800
|
| Thank you for your email to MSN.COM. Though Hotmail has become part
| of the MSN family of properties, reports dealing with mail from
| Hotmail (@hotmail.com) still need to be sent directly to
| ab...@hotmail.com. Hotmail maintains their own database of customers,
| and MSN is unable to take action on a Hotmail account per Hotmail's
| Terms of Service.
|
| Please send any reports of Hotmail members to ab...@hotmail.com, and
| be sure to include the full message header (specifically the IP
| address from which the message originated). For more information on
| Hotmail, please visit http://www.hotmail.com.
[I especially like the little plug for Hotmail at the end.]
If you read between the lines of all this confusion, I think what
MSN.COM is trying to say is, they have a wide open news server (at least
wide open to dial-ups from UUNet, ATT, NETPOINT.NET, GLOBALNET.CO.UK,
and VIRGIN.NET, to name a few.)
I propose that the spam cancellers treat MSN.COM's news servers as
they would with any other open news server...nuke everything from that
server until MSN gets it secured.
Now, I know that MSN.COM has a lot of legitimate users. However,
MSN.COM claims that any post that does not have a valid MSN email
address is a forgery. Therefore, I think that posts with a valid MSN
email addresses should of course, be spared.
This would _not_ a UDP. This is an _auto cancel_ action to rid Usenet
of forgeries (at least, that's what MSN.COM calls them) and open news
server hijackers.
Also, email notices should be sent out to the "forgers" to let them
know that their newsgroup posting was cancelled and to stop hijacking
open news servers, or use their actual MSN.COM email address.
MSN might even thank us for ridding Usenet of those nasty forgeries
spewing from their news servers.
What do you think, start Tuesday, Wednsday??
Howard
Lysander Spooner
Knight) wrote:
>What do you think, start Tuesday, Wednsday??
Why wait? These clueless fucks at MSN aren't going to understand
what we're talking about in a mere three days.
I say start immediately.
-- Rick
Rebecca Ore
Collateral damage? Or not?
--
Rebecca Ore
Paul Murray
>I propose that the spam cancellers treat MSN.COM's news servers as
>they would with any other open news server...nuke everything from that
>server until MSN gets it secured.
>
>Now, I know that MSN.COM has a lot of legitimate users. However,
>MSN.COM claims that any post that does not have a valid MSN email
>address is a forgery. Therefore, I think that posts with a valid MSN
>email addresses should of course, be spared.
>
>This would _not_ a UDP. This is an _auto cancel_ action to rid Usenet
"I did not have sex with that woman."
>of forgeries (at least, that's what MSN.COM calls them) and open news
>server hijackers.
>
>Also, email notices should be sent out to the "forgers" to let them
>know that their newsgroup posting was cancelled and to stop hijacking
>open news servers, or use their actual MSN.COM email address.
So anyone munging their email-address is now fair game for cancelling?
Anyone using a return address not on their ISP is fair game?
>MSN might even thank us for ridding Usenet of those nasty forgeries
>spewing from their news servers.
>
>What do you think, start Tuesday, Wednsday??
The weeks notice thing lasted a long time didn't it?
-Paul Murray
Andrew Gierth
Howard> When we last left off, MSN.COM was responding to my spam
Howard> reports with this:
[clueless responses from ab...@msn.com snipped]
Here's one that I just got:
We were unable to take action against this reported MSN address
because the full message header was not included in the message
that you sent us. We specifically need the IP address and
timestamp of the email from which the message originated. Please
send an unedited copy of the header to ab...@msn.com.
Here is a modified sample of an email header:
It was, of course, a report of *Usenet* spam (not email), and contained
a full news header and supplementary list of additional message-ids.
--
Andrew.
Lysander Spooner
>"I did not have sex with that woman."
Lucky thing for her.
>So anyone munging their email-address is now fair game for cancelling?
No.
>Anyone using a return address not on their ISP is fair game?
No.
>The weeks notice thing lasted a long time didn't it?
That's for UDPs. A UDP is when we cancel articles from a provider's
server.
These aren't from MSN's server. Just ask them. They'll tell you.
-- Rick
Lysander Spooner
wrote:
>Lysander Spooner wrote:
>>
>> Why wait? These clueless fucks at MSN aren't going to understand
>> what we're talking about in a mere three days.
>>
>> I say start immediately.
>
>Collateral damage?
What collateral damage?
From da Hippo...
>Date Rank Server Total Spam %Spam KB
>990213 12 upnetnews04 1173 1173 100 28613
>990212 21 upnetnews04 1116 1116 100 34799
>990211 7 upnetnews04 2156 2156 100 85047
>990210 5 upnetnews04 1938 1938 100 71990
>990209 11 upnetnews04 1681 1681 100 77778
>990208 10 upnetnews04 1963 1963 100 60588
>990207 11 upnetnews04 1787 1787 100 51033
>990206 9 upnetnews04 1981 1981 100 72056
>990205 14 upnetnews04 1423 1423 100 74866
>990204 11 upnetnews04 1992 1992 100 35045
Should I continue?
-- Rick
Rebecca Ore
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:46:53 GMT, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Lysander Spooner wrote:
> >>
> >> Why wait? These clueless fucks at MSN aren't going to understand
> >> what we're talking about in a mere three days.
> >>
> >> I say start immediately.
> >
> >Collateral damage?
>
> What collateral damage?
<Snipped stats that look like "go for it">
> Should I continue?
>
If the stats aren't so coarse grained that they're missing something, go
for it. They've also been among those sending out the free trial
account discs, so that's probably also a factor here, too.
--
Rebecca Ore
r...@netgate.net
>If you read between the lines of all this confusion, I think what
>MSN.COM is trying to say is, they have a wide open news server (at least
>wide open to dial-ups from UUNet, ATT, NETPOINT.NET, GLOBALNET.CO.UK,
>and VIRGIN.NET, to name a few.)
Wow. I looked between the lines, and didn't see any network names at
all. ;-)
Rather than go by inference and guesswork, it seems to me that it's a
relatively simple matter to confirm most/all of those security leaks,
given the breadth of ISPs being used by n.a.n-a.u regulars.
>I propose that the spam cancellers treat MSN.COM's news servers as
>they would with any other open news server...nuke everything from that
>server until MSN gets it secured.
My contempt for Microsoft and all its works notwithstanding, I consider
this A Very Bad Idea. A UDP of msn should be handled the same way that
psi and earthlink were (except for cutting msn less slack on a deadline,
because they have several hundred metric shitloads of resources to throw
at implementing a solution, and they've had lots of warning from the
debacles that led up to those near-UDPs that they were going to have
to Do Something Eventually).
>Therefore, I think that posts with a valid MSN
>email addresses should of course, be spared.
Oooo, good plan: I'm sure Saylor's new partner will welcome the
opportunity to update his spamware to start lifting real msn email
addresses from other groups to use in running the blockade...
>What do you think, start Tuesday, Wednsday??
Saturday: we know that the tools are there for msn to achieve a
significant improvement using brute force that will start to show up by
Thursday. And that they can borrow a few warm bodies from the
Mothership if they need to. If they reassign a couple of the lawyers
they currently have working on figuring out how to hijack Java and get
away with it, they can have a couple of requests for preliminary
injunctions against the most obnoxious spammers filed by Friday.
Those who don't find the virtue of sticking to a consistent standard,
even when dealing with the Evil Empire, to be its own reward, might
wish to consider how a 5-day countdown to a UDP because of Microsoft's
inability to secure its own servers will play in the media...
Ran
r...@netgate.net
> I say start immediately.
You realize, of course, that Choo-choo et al are going to see this as
a transparent ploy to divert attention from the discussion of UDP'ing
AOL?
Ran
"Squawk! ...afraid of AOL's lawyers! Squawk!"
Paul Murray
>On 15 Feb 1999 09:37:07 GMT, murra...@usa.net (Paul Murray) wrote:
>>"I did not have sex with that woman."
>Lucky thing for her.
[snip]
>>The weeks notice thing lasted a long time didn't it?
>That's for UDPs. A UDP is when we cancel articles from a provider's
>server.
>These aren't from MSN's server. Just ask them. They'll tell you.
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:24:20 GMT, Howard Knight <how...@connectnet.com> wrote:
>I propose that the spam cancellers treat MSN.COM's news servers as
>they would with any other open news server...nuke everything from that
>server until MSN gets it secured.
'... MSN.COM's news servers ... nuke everything from that server...'
That isn't a UDP how exactly?
-Paul Murray
Brad Cochran
appears that all of the posts from the person "Lysander Spooner" have been
removed. I see people's replies, but the original post is nowhere to be
found. Was there something wrong with the post, or are the news servers
just plain crazy?
--
Brad
brm...@email.msn.com
<r...@netgate.net> wrote in message news:7a95t4$okc$2...@remarQ.com...
David Ritz
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:08:57 GMT, "rebecca.ore" == Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
rebecca.ore: Lysander Spooner wrote:
: > On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:46:53 GMT, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net>
: > wrote:
: >
: > >Lysander Spooner wrote:
: > >>
: > >> Why wait? These clueless fucks at MSN aren't going to understand
: > >> what we're talking about in a mere three days.
: > >>
: > >> I say start immediately.
: > >
: > >Collateral damage?
: >
: > What collateral damage?
rebecca.ore: <Snipped stats that look like "go for it">
: > Should I continue?
rebecca.ore: If the stats aren't so coarse grained that they're
rebecca.ore: missing something, go for it. They've also been among
rebecca.ore: those sending out the free trial account discs, so that's
rebecca.ore: probably also a factor here, too.
There is only one factor involved in this instance: MSN's abuse
staff is incompetent, regarding the reading of Usenet headers.
It appears they only look at the From line, in attempting to figure
out whether any Usenet post originated through their system. This
is grossly negligent and irresponsible on their part.
Returning to Howard's message, at the beginning of this thread:
]From: how...@connectnet.com (Howard Knight)
]Subject: Auto Cancel of Upnetnews? - or - More 'Tardness from MSN.COM
]Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,microsoft.public.msn.discussion,
microsoft.public.msn.netnews.discussion
]Message-ID: <EYPx2.132$1k3....@news.connectnet.com>
]Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:24:20 GMT
<...>
]Then, I got two of these today:
]
] | From: MSN Abuse Alias <msna...@microsoft.com>
] | To: howardk
] | Subject: RE: Spam Cancel Report, BI = 225.032 (staylor/MSN.COM/
] | UU.NET): Feb 13, 1999
] | Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 12:57:56 -0800
] |
] | Thank you for your email to MSN.COM. Though Hotmail has become part
] | of the MSN family of properties, reports dealing with mail from
] | Hotmail (@hotmail.com) still need to be sent directly to
] | ab...@hotmail.com. Hotmail maintains their own database of customers,
] | and MSN is unable to take action on a Hotmail account per Hotmail's
] | Terms of Service.
] |
] | Please send any reports of Hotmail members to ab...@hotmail.com, and
] | be sure to include the full message header (specifically the IP
] | address from which the message originated). For more information on
] | Hotmail, please visit http://www.hotmail.com.
]
][I especially like the little plug for Hotmail at the end.]
In order to see just how badly <msnabuse> has blown the
interpretation of the headers, I looked up Howard's report.
<url:news:staylor....@news.iswest.com>
(available at <http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=443829299&fmt=raw>)
<quote>
}From: how...@iswest.com
}Subject: Spam Cancel Report, BI = 225.032 (staylor/MSN.COM/UU.NET): Feb 13, 1999
}Date: 13 Feb 1999 00:00:00 GMT
}Message-ID: <staylor....@news.iswest.com>
}Approved: news-admin-bul...@math.psu.edu
}Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
}Reply-To: how...@iswest.com
}Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.bulletins
}
}To: ab...@classic.msn.com,
} msna...@microsoft.com,
} spam-co...@uu.net,
} ad...@VIRTUALCOMMUNITIES.COM
<...>
}Path: colby.direct.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.68.152.1
} 4!upnetnews04!upnetnews03
}Subject: nice and wet 1! 1!!
}From: "Becky" <swea...@hotmail.com>
}Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 00:12:34 -0800
}Message-ID: <#jLY72ZV#GA.120@upnetnews03>
}NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust87.tnt24.sfo3.da.uu.net [208.255.67.87]
}Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.centerfolds,alt.binaries.pictu
} res.erotic.female,alt.binaries.pictures.erotica,alt.binaries.pictur
} es.erotica.butts
</quote>
It is obvious, to even the most casual observer, these are the
headers from an article posted to upnetnews03. I mean, look at
that Path! There's only a single hop between bbs.msn.com
[207.68.152.1] and Direct.CA--and that's the one which stamped the
IP address of the MSN.com server. Where, other that a MSN.com
server, could this Usenet EMP spam have been posted?
Yet <msnabuse> washes their hands of the abuse coming through their
server, by saying Howard's report is misdirected and should have
been sent to <ab...@hotmail.com>. This is despite the likelihood
that the HotMail.com address used in this EMP spam,
<swea...@hotmail.com>, is bogus.
It also entirely ignores the FACT that the message was originated
through a MSN.com news server. It seems that <mnsabuse> intends
to deny that their servers are being abused, regardless of the
data, information and facts provided to them.
The situation at MSN is so egregious, that I included a preface to
a report I filed, earlier today, even though I'd already
identified their account for them. I did not wish to see a
message coming from <msnabuse> stating that they "don't have a
registered user, <getafuck@thissite>. The post is a forgery."
(This is not an exaggeration.)
<url:news:Pine.BSI.3.96.99021...@usr10.primenet.com>
)Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.sightings
)Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:19:03 -0700
)From: David Ritz <dr...@primenet.com>
)To: MSN Abuse <ab...@classic.msn.com>,
) MSN Abuse Alias <msna...@microsoft.com>,
) UUNET UK Corporate Support <sup...@uunet.pipex.com>,
) postm...@uudial.com, sup...@uk.uu.net,
) Abuses of the Internet <ab...@microsoft.com>
)cc: Andy John Heron <jdb...@msn.com>, ad...@vcommunities.com,
) ad...@mama.vcommunities.com, da...@exodus.net, ab...@mail.WebSideStory.com,
) postm...@veriosd.net, m...@cyberhq.com, hostm...@cyberhq.com,
) ab...@ni1.ni.net, wel...@compute.compute.com
)Subject: EMP: BI=1557.6564 - Andy John Heron <jdb...@msn.com> (voyeur.sexhound.net/andy65) [uudial.com=>upnetnews03]
)Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.99021...@usr10.primenet.com>
)Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet
<...>
)NOTE: All items were posted to upnetnews03. If this is not from an
) MSN.COM customer, it means that this server is unsecured.
) Please either sercure this server or take it off-line.
)
) If these posts were originated by Andy John Heron
) <jdb...@msn.com>, please remove this accout from your roles.
)
) It will go a way toward improving the image of the MSN abuse
) desk, were they to learn how to read Usenet headers.
)
) If MSN.COM has any questions, please do not hesitate to
) contact me.
<..>
)From: "XXX Contacts" <getafuck@thissite>
)Subject: I would like to film 2 men having sex with my wife - any takers?
)Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:44:08 -0000
)Lines: 91
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
) boundary="----=_NextPart_000_039B_01BE58B6.F807B760"
)X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5
)X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
)Message-ID: <#0sRGdLW#GA.170@upnetnews03>
)Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.orientals
)NNTP-Posting-Host: userp167.uk.uudial.com [193.149.91.166]
)Path: newstank.sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!207.68.152.14!
)upnetnews04!upnetnews03
Like Andrew, I have received responses from <msnabuse>, to _Usenet_
EMP reports, suggesting that the full _email_ headers have not
been provided. If <msnabuse> is unable to distinguish between
Usenet and email headers, you may be able to understand that they
are also incapable of reading and correctly interpreting Usenet
headers of any sort.
The help is available, to MSN. Now all they have to do is find
someone with two firing neurons to rub together, who will take the
initiative and request that help. Moving <msnabuse> from utterly
clueless to being able to recognize Usenet abuse being originated
through their servers, is the goal. Unfortunately, it appears
this cannot be accomplished in-house.
If the only way to find this person is to cancel all articles
MSN.com claims are forgeries (posted through the MSN.com servers,
but not showing a From line with a valid MSN.com address), its
high time to help them out. I mean, if these are forgeries, as
<msnabuse> claims, they should be happy to have these items
removed from spool, on all servers processing cancels.
--
David Ritz <dr...@primenet.com>
"Nothing happens, nobody comes, nobody goes, it's awful."
Samuel Beckett (1906-89)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
Comment: Finger:dr...@primenet.com for public keys
iQCVAwUBNsh/w9zLrWGabIhRAQE0BwQAm8g6o65jMN2dQk9mbLJp/cTjqX38m/bj
OQPw8HYDTH3sIP7zHDC6LKXaIywhZ1i3WihqeFRHaAjRJwEikWyfXxNA3f06Y8KM
e4TPwoavTrubpqnYWbYyw6NKdNvkZoCjciPf4Lyqo23Wc7c5ud71hkovT1CUKunb
HVjHCFzqJn8=
=hqQl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Murray
>Paul Murray (murra...@usa.net) wrote:
>: So anyone munging their email-address is now fair game for cancelling?
>: Anyone using a return address not on their ISP is fair game?
>Apparently so. MSN claims that they are all "forgiers".
But they are wrong, and you know they are wrong.
Someone elses ignorance is no defence.
>: The weeks notice thing lasted a long time didn't it?
>The week's notice is for UDPs. According to MSN, all posts that do not
>have a valid "From" line are forgeries, and therefore, not legititmate
>posts. Since legitimate posts from MSN would be spared, I do not see
>how this action could be considered a UDP. There is no collateral
>damage!
I refer you to my first paragraph again.
Anyone posting with a spam-blocked address, or simply with an address
on a different ISP or mail server would have their posts cancelled. If
I were on MSN, you would cancel my posts. From where I stand that is
collateral damage.
-Paul Murray
Paul Murray
>In <slrn7cie2t.fr...@unix3.netaxs.com>, murra...@usa.net
>>But they are wrong, and you know they are wrong.
>posting through their servers without a valid msn email address is not a
>legitimate use, well, "They own the machines"...
Exactly. And so *they* have the right to cancel the messages if they
so choose. Noone else should be going round cancelling their 'forgeries'
for them.
>>Someone elses ignorance is no defence.
>On the contrary: it's an *excellent* defense. If msn is really as dumb
>as they look (based on their replies), it justifies almost any lawful
>action that the rest of Usenet might take to protect itself.
No.
I simply and totally disagree with you here.
Besides, this is not a sudden 'we need to cut this off today or the
net will die' situation, there is no pressing need which means the
normal notice period should hold.
>>I were on MSN, you would cancel my posts. From where I stand that is
>>collateral damage.
>If you were on msn, you would be (according to msn's silly definition
>of "legitimate" posting) a net-abuser. Thus, no collateral damage.
Thus they would have the right to cancel my posts, noone else would.
-Paul Murray
r...@netgate.net
>But they are wrong, and you know they are wrong.
Wrong to call them "forgeries", yes. But, if msn wants to assert that
posting through their servers without a valid msn email address is not a
legitimate use, well, "They own the machines"...
>Someone elses ignorance is no defence.
On the contrary: it's an *excellent* defense. If msn is really as dumb
as they look (based on their replies), it justifies almost any lawful
action that the rest of Usenet might take to protect itself.
>I were on MSN, you would cancel my posts. From where I stand that is
>collateral damage.
If you were on msn, you would be (according to msn's silly definition
of "legitimate" posting) a net-abuser. Thus, no collateral damage.
Ran
Rebecca Ore
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:08:57 GMT, "rebecca.ore" == Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net> wrote:
>
> rebecca.ore: Lysander Spooner wrote:
>
> : > On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:46:53 GMT, Rebecca Ore <rebec...@op.net>
> : > wrote:
> : >
> : > >Lysander Spooner wrote:
> : > >>
> : > >> Why wait? These clueless fucks at MSN aren't going to understand
> : > >> what we're talking about in a mere three days.
> : > >>
> : > >> I say start immediately.
> : > >
> : > >Collateral damage?
> : >
> : > What collateral damage?
>
> rebecca.ore: <Snipped stats that look like "go for it">
>
> : > Should I continue?
>
> rebecca.ore: If the stats aren't so coarse grained that they're
> rebecca.ore: missing something, go for it. They've also been among
> rebecca.ore: those sending out the free trial account discs, so that's
> rebecca.ore: probably also a factor here, too.
>
> There is only one factor involved in this instance: MSN's abuse
> staff is incompetent, regarding the reading of Usenet headers.
>
> It appears they only look at the From line, in attempting to figure
> out whether any Usenet post originated through their system. This
> is grossly negligent and irresponsible on their part.
>
The trial disc periods may not get tracked, but I think the uptick in
spam from both AOL and from MSN maps fairly closely with free trial
discs (I probably got my MSN trial about two weeks before the AOL discs
showed up in building foyer addressed to non-existing addresses).
I don't know how easy or not getting *this* practice stopped would be --
most likely quite difficult -- but I do think the anti-abuse community
needs to start tracking it for possible eventual action.
Having incompetant abuse people might also map onto this if temps are
hired to take care of things during the free trial promotion periods.
--
Rebecca Ore
r...@netgate.net
>The trial disc periods may not get tracked, but I think the uptick in
>spam from both AOL and from MSN maps fairly closely with free trial
>discs
Certainly seems to work for mindspring, as well: at least a couple of
websex spammers who probably wouldn't've considered them under ordinary
circumstances (although Mr. Naked-high-school-date-drug-pajama-party may
have simply burned all the other Sacramento providers by now) appear to
have taken mindspring up on its generous and dim-witted offer.
>I don't know how easy or not getting *this* practice stopped would be
Depends: I keep hearing rumors that there are corrupt(ible) officials
in former Soviet colonies that still have tactical nukes.
>Having incompetant abuse people might also map onto this if temps are
>hired to take care of things during the free trial promotion periods.
Or if the competent abuse people quit in disgust at their employers'
stupidity....
Ran
Lysander Spooner
>In <36f8f82c....@209.242.64.104>, buch...@cybernex.net (Lysander Spooner) writes:
>
>> I say start immediately.
>
>You realize, of course, that Choo-choo et al are going to see this as
>a transparent ploy to divert attention from the discussion of UDP'ing
>AOL?
>
>Ran
>"Squawk! ...afraid of AOL's lawyers! Squawk!"
We're afraid of lawyers, so we go after _Microsoft_.
Can even Antaine be that surreal?
-- Rick