0-- AMERICA ON LINE OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: WE WORSHIP SATAN --0
mathew
>Readers of alt.best.of.internet have been dismayed to learn
>that America Online has (accidentally) designated a.b.o.i
>as the first stop for all AOL newbies, as they approach netnews for
>the first time...
>
>The way it's happened is that AOL has pre-subscribed each user
>to a dozen select netnews groups, presenting them *alphabetically*,
>with aboi at the top!
[...]
>Another serious contributor to the problem may be that they're sorting
>*threads* alphabetically, too, and they apparently have quite a lengthy
>spool
The solution is obvious.
The subject line is a complete lie and has not one iota of truth in it.
mathew
--
I have a flawless philosophical and scientific model of reality.
Unfortunately, it's actual size. We must never be dogmatic. Anyone
who says otherwise is wrong. Will betray country for food. Annoy the
censors -- mention Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka in your .signature.
Ken Weaverling
subscription list first, and subjects are sorted alphabetically, then it
makes sense to entitle a thread with a subject starting with "AAAAAAAA"
and put the most vile, obscene, vulgar and disgusting thing you can think
of in the message. (maybe a repost of Kaytoe's arguments for soc.zoo... ;-)
Then, that would be the first thing AOL users will see -- the same users
that have been protected from "the sewer" (tm) by a place that censors
this stuff. Most will be so disgusted that they will leave usenet forever
and ever!
Just a dream of mine, though I am way to snooty to do it myself...
Oh, and make sure you put a long Expire header in since this would
be very useful info...
--
Ken Weaverling we...@dtcc.edu |*| Stanton: +1 302 454-3978
Manager of Computer Services |*| Wilmington: +1 302 573-5460
Stanton/Wilmington Campuses of |*|-----------------------------------
Delaware Technical & Community College |*| My opinions .NEQ. college's position
Jeremy Elson
>Since America On-Line puts alt.best.of.internet into their user's
>subscription list first, and subjects are sorted alphabetically, then it
>makes sense to entitle a thread with a subject starting with "AAAAAAAA"
>and put the most vile, obscene, vulgar and disgusting thing you can think
>of in the message. (maybe a repost of Kaytoe's arguments for soc.zoo... ;-)
Someone just had the brilliant idea of creating the newsgroup:
alt.america.online
So, hopefully, the first thing AOL users will see now is alt.america.online
instead of alt.best.of.internet.
To whoever created the group: good work!
-je
--
Jeremy Elson
Internet: jel...@cs.jhu.edu; Bitnet: jelson@jhunix
PGP public key available: finger jel...@cs.jhu.edu
Tim Pierce
Jeremy Elson <jel...@condor.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>Someone just had the brilliant idea of creating the newsgroup:
>
> alt.america.online
>
>So, hopefully, the first thing AOL users will see now is alt.america.online
>instead of alt.best.of.internet.
That's a great idea.
I wonder how it will affect the following newsgroups, each of which
(coincidentally enough) happens to be ranked alphabetically before
"alt.best.of.internet."
alt.1d
alt.2600
alt.3d
alt.abortion.inequity
alt.abuse-recovery
alt.abuse.recovery
alt.activism
alt.activism.d
alt.activism.death-penalty
alt.adoption
alt.agriculture.fruit
alt.aldus.pagemaker
alt.alien.visitors
alt.amateur-comp
alt.amazon-women.admirers
alt.angst
alt.animation.warner-bros
alt.answers
alt.appalachian
alt.aquaria
alt.archery
alt.architecture
alt.architecture.int-design
alt.artcom
alt.ascii-art
alt.asian-movies
alt.astrology
alt.atari.2600
alt.atheism
alt.atheism.moderated
alt.authorware
alt.autos.antique
alt.autos.karting
alt.autos.rod-n-custom
alt.backrubs
alt.banjo
alt.barney.dinosaur.die.die.die
alt.bbs
alt.bbs.ads
alt.bbs.allsysop
alt.bbs.doors
alt.bbs.first-class
alt.bbs.internet
alt.bbs.lists
alt.bbs.lists.d
alt.bbs.majorbbs
alt.bbs.metal
alt.bbs.pcboard
alt.bbs.pcbuucp
alt.bbs.searchlight
alt.bbs.unixbbs
alt.bbs.uupcb
alt.bbs.wildcat
alt.beer
--
____ Tim Pierce /
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / Buy our iguanas!
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /
Jorn Barger
Fri Mar 11 09:06:35 CST 1994 mathew posts the subjectline, above
Fri Mar 11 15:23:16 EST 1994 AOL informs me by email that aboi has been
removed from their pre-subscription list
;^/
ps-
Fri Mar 11 23:51:47 CST 1994 Jorn follows up mathew's post
Fri Mar 11 23:51:48 CST 1994 Jorn gets the 1st of a steady stream of
autoresponses, having been caught by the oldest troll in the books,
the misc.test followup trick...
Fri Mar 12 00:02:45 CST 1994 Jorn cancels article and re-posts with
edited subjectline
Fri Mar 12 00:02:46 CST 1994 Jorn gets the 1st of a steady stream of
autoresponses to the *cancel message*, having been caught by the cute
double-bind of the oldest troll in the books...
Fri Mar 12 00:15:?? CST 1994 Jorn hopes he can tiptoe lightly enough
this time...
>:^( >:^( >:^( >:^( >:^( >:^( >:^( >:^( >:^( >:^( >:^( ;^/
Spatch
Tim Pierce <twpi...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>In article <2lr2eo$r...@condor.cs.jhu.edu>,
>Jeremy Elson <jel...@condor.cs.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Someone just had the brilliant idea of creating the newsgroup:
>>
>> alt.america.online
>>
>>So, hopefully, the first thing AOL users will see now is alt.america.online
>>instead of alt.best.of.internet.
>
>That's a great idea.
>
>I wonder how it will affect the following newsgroups, each of which
>(coincidentally enough) happens to be ranked alphabetically before
>"alt.best.of.internet."
>
[ alt.* list deleted ]
I can't speak for AOL, but perhaps they don't have those newsgroups...
perhaps it's just a watered-down version of USENET.
--
_____ spa...@titan.ucs.umass.edu
|\ /|
| O | "Stupid TV! BE MORE FUNNY!"
|/ \| - Homer Simpson (it's my new mantra)
Daniel M Silevitch
|> Ken Weaverling <we...@hopi.dtcc.edu> wrote:
|> >Since America On-Line puts alt.best.of.internet into their user's
|> >subscription list first, and subjects are sorted alphabetically, then it
|> >makes sense to entitle a thread with a subject starting with "AAAAAAAA"
|> >and put the most vile, obscene, vulgar and disgusting thing you can think
|> >of in the message. (maybe a repost of Kaytoe's arguments for soc.zoo... ;-)
|>
|> Someone just had the brilliant idea of creating the newsgroup:
|>
|> alt.america.online
|>
|> So, hopefully, the first thing AOL users will see now is alt.america.online
|> instead of alt.best.of.internet.
|>
|> To whoever created the group: good work!
|>
Sorry, but it's not that simple. Alphabetically, the first group in alt is
alt.1d, which was created to BE the first group alphabetically. AOL has a
list of groups that they automatically subscribe people to, and a.b.o.i is
one of them. It is also the first one alphabetically. To change this, someone
should convince the AOL admins to drop the automatic subscription to a.b.o.i
and instead automatically subscribe people to alt.humor.best-of-usenet. That's
moderated, so it's harder to spam.
-dms
--
"Americans are broad-minded people. They'll accept the fact that a person
can be an alcoholic, a dope fiend, a wife beater, and even a newspaperman,
but if a man doesn't drive, there is something wrong with him."
-Art Buchwald
Doug Sewell
<bobbitt>
: one of them. It is also the first one alphabetically. To change this, someone
: should convince the AOL admins to drop the automatic subscription to a.b.o.i
: and instead automatically subscribe people to alt.humor.best-of-usenet. That's
: moderated, so it's harder to spam.
Speaking as the moderator of alt.humor.best-of-usenet, I'm not sure if
I like this idea at all. It sounds like I need to revise the FAQ a bit,
fortunately most of the followups will go to .d and I can kill-file
*@aol.com.
Is anyone besides me getting tired of bbs systems on Usenet ? David
Lesher mentioned it here yesterday, and so did Melinda Shore in soc.motss.
Between flaky software (First Class/Postal Union), Fidonet regurgitations,
more flaky software (AOL's posting bug that spammed lots of newsgroups),
bobbitted QWK'd headers, Serdar Argic (who uses Waffle-like headers),
and the like, well... it gets real tiresome.
--
Doug Sewell (do...@cc.ysu.edu, do...@ysub.bitnet)
Meetings are indispensable when you don't want to do something.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tim Pierce
>Daniel M Silevitch (dms...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>
>: To change this, someone
>: should convince the AOL admins to drop the automatic subscription to a.b.o.i
>: and instead automatically subscribe people to alt.humor.best-of-usenet. That's
>: moderated, so it's harder to spam.
You seem to have a lot of faith in the AOL staff to write software
that will correctly handle moderated groups. I wouldn't be so
confident.
>Is anyone besides me getting tired of bbs systems on Usenet ?
It would be nice if they all had the *same* domain. It would make it
easier to stick them in newsfeeds files.
TRuddick
<jel...@condor.cs.jhu.edu> writes:
>Someone just had the brilliant idea of creating the newsgroup:
>
> alt.america.online
>
>So, hopefully, the first thing AOL users will see now is alt.america.online
>instead of alt.best.of.internet.
It's a nice try, but unfortunately this won't help because there's only a small
number of newsgroups that we get right off the cuff, and alt.america.online
wouldn't be one of them.
The problem has now gone away, though. AOL has removed a.b.o.i from the
aforementioned list.
Tim (TRud...@AOL.com)
TRuddick
>Is anyone besides me getting tired of bbs systems on Usenet ? David
>Lesher mentioned it here yesterday, and so did Melinda Shore in soc.motss.
>
>Between flaky software (First Class/Postal Union), Fidonet regurgitations,
>more flaky software (AOL's posting bug that spammed lots of newsgroups),
>bobbitted QWK'd headers, Serdar Argic (who uses Waffle-like headers),
>and the like, well... it gets real tiresome.
I agree that AOL should have handled things better when encouraging new users
on the 'net. As I see it, though, this is going to be a continuing problem,
and with the highly-publicized Infobahn it's only going to get worse. The
best course of action would probably be to set up some kind of helpful
guidelines for new systems coming online. One of them would be, obviously,
"Don't put alt.best.of.internet at the top of your autosubscribe list."
Others would follow.
I have to assume AOL thought they were acting in our best interests ("Hey,
Best.Of.The.Net. They'll get a kick out of reading this."), but didn't
realize the possible problems it might cause--namely senseless "Hello World"
posts, and worse.
I ask again: what can we do constructively to make sure this doesn't happen
again in the future? I want to keep my connection to Usenet, thank you, and
would be chagrined if one (OK, several) neophytes here at AOL wrecked it for
everyone.
Tim (TRud...@AOL.com)
David Edwards
: <jel...@condor.cs.jhu.edu> writes:
: >Someone just had the brilliant idea of creating the newsgroup:
: >
: > alt.america.online
: >
: >So, hopefully, the first thing AOL users will see now is alt.america.online
: >instead of alt.best.of.internet.
Hmmm.... alt.america.online.... what about alt.flame.america.online? Or
possibly alt.america.online.die.die.die? Just a thought...
Zak May
> Is anyone besides me getting tired of bbs systems on Usenet ? David
> Lesher mentioned it here yesterday, and so did Melinda Shore in soc.motss.
Everybody's tired of them. Nobody has any constructive ideas though.
> well... it gets real tiresome.
What do you suggest? Limiting access? How? UNIX tests on arrival?
___
Zak.
James Eniti
>
>Is anyone besides me getting tired of bbs systems on Usenet ? David
>Lesher mentioned it here yesterday, and so did Melinda Shore in soc.motss.
I know that some bozos on bbs's are causing problems ... HOWEVER
it is my opinion that some people have no other access to NEWS
it would be a shame to exclude everyone because of a few bozos
James Eniti
Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math
with no possibility of cutesey front ends like AOL's. Then only the smartest
will make it through and figure out how to post.
Dimitri Vulis
CUNY GC Math
D...@CUNYVMS1.BITNET D...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
Disclaimer: my Usenet postings don't necessarily represent anyone's views,
especially my own and/or CUNY's.
Zak May
> Make the software as user-hostile and difficult to use as humanly feasible,
> with no possibility of cutesey front ends like AOL's. Then only the smartest
> will make it through and figure out how to post.
And give *you* a privilege over the newbies? Why would we do such a thing?
___
Zak.
Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math
Face it, darling, I've been on Usenet for about 4 years longer than you, and
you'll _always_ be a newbie compared to me. :)
Anyway, the above suggestion was made in response to your question, how to
cut down on the number of terminally clueless newbies. It'll work.
Better yet, tell me, how should a postmaster react to an obviously false
complaint against a user?
>
>___
>Zak.
>
Love and kisses,
Zak May
> Face it, darling, I've been on Usenet for about 4 years longer than you, and
> you'll _always_ be a newbie compared to me. :)
The net is about exchanging information. I've been much more successful
in that in my year here, than you in your five. We're definitely not in
the same business, but if we are to compare something - it should be the
objective net.criteria, not our perception of ourselves. Kibo will have
a bigger ego than both of us no matter how hard we work to inflate ours.
> Anyway, the above suggestion was made in response to your question, how to
> cut down on the number of terminally clueless newbies. It'll work.
When I mentioned the Unix tests, I was referring to the cornerstone of
the net - the thing that created it. Any limitations of access, based
on posting software sophistication, are as foreign and appauling to it,
as mass bot-induced crosspostings. The solution we're looking for has
to be integral to the net spirit, which is: equality and self-rule.
> Better yet, tell me, how should a postmaster react to an obviously false
> complaint against a user?
That's between you and your karma, really. If you want to come to me for
a spiritual advice - go to soc.culture.soviet.
___
Zak.
Spatch
>Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math <d...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>> Make the software as user-hostile and difficult to use as humanly feasible,
>> with no possibility of cutesey front ends like AOL's. Then only the smartest
>> will make it through and figure out how to post.
in the meantime, however, the idiots are STILL trying to post.
The smartest will make it though, however, but the dumber people will still
try.
Mark S. Bilk
>Doug Sewell <do...@cc.ysu.edu> wrote:
>> Is anyone besides me getting tired of bbs systems on Usenet ? David
>> Lesher mentioned it here yesterday, and so did Melinda Shore in soc.motss.
>
>Everybody's tired of them. Nobody has any constructive ideas though.
There are two types of problems:
1. Inadequate BBS and gateway software that truncates headers,
limits article length, ignores Reference headers, permits easy
mass cancellations, etc.
Fixing such shortcomings requires organized, ongoing,
constructive pressure on the creators and users of the
software. The encouraging aspect is that once the problems
are identified and fixed they will (more or less) stay fixed.
2. Ignorant and/or obnoxious posters
This has a multi-tiered set of solutions, each to be used if
the previous ones have failed:
A. Educate posters when they sign up; it may require organized
pressure on large providers like AOL to do a better job in
this area. Being businesses, they will be sensitive to bad
publicity (which the Net has the capability to generate).
B. Educate posters in the newsgroups. As tedious as it is to
deal with, e.g., one racist and homophobe after another,
this is just the expression on the Net of a very serious
cultural problem in the country (and the world) at large.
The online education of each of these people (successful or
not) will also reach many thousands of lurkers.
The Religious Right and Limbaugh spew out their bigotry to
millions of people every day through well-financed comm-
unication channels. The Net is one of the best resources
available with which to counter their lies and get the
truth out. It's worth putting in a lot of effort now in
communication to prevent a theocratic nightmare in the
future (_The Handmaid's Tale_). If you think it can't
happen, remember that the Religious Right now has majority
control of the U.S. Republican Party.
C. Warn the poster
D. Request that the poster's sysop/sysadmin enforce reasonable
behavior.
E. Request that the poster's access be removed.
F. After sufficient warnings, cut off (shun) the offending
system.
We also need to find a way to prevent articles from being cancelled
except by the poster or their sysadmin. This should be easy to
do with public-key cryptography.
Finally, we need a way to combat UUNET's Excuse, or we will be up
to our ears in roboposters.
Melinda Shore
>I know that some bozos on bbs's are causing problems ... HOWEVER
>it is my opinion that some people have no other access to NEWS
>it would be a shame to exclude everyone because of a few bozos
Great, except the few bozos are wreaking great havoc. One
user at Hahnemann University in Philadelphia had her Usenet
access terminated when some newbie BBS sysop complained to
her admin and to the president of her university. The
"official" reason given was her use of 4-letter words. The
same bozo complained to the president of Cornell about me,
but as far as I know he's been blown off completely.
There's got to be some better way to get these assholes
acculturated. I'm absolutely appalled that Hahnemann would
cave after one complaint from some random sysop, but the
sysop should have known better, himself. BBS culture is
very, very different from Usenet culture, and until that
difference is resolved there are going to continue to be
clashes. The question, in the interim, is how to contain
the damage.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
J Lee Jaap
[some good points, but laced with flamebait as the following]
|> The Religious Right and Limbaugh spew out their bigotry to
|> millions of people every day through well-financed comm-
|> unication channels. The Net is one of the best resources
|> available with which to counter their lies and get the
|> truth out. It's worth putting in a lot of effort now in
|> communication to prevent a theocratic nightmare in the
|> future (_The Handmaid's Tale_). If you think it can't
|> happen, remember that the Religious Right now has majority
|> control of the U.S. Republican Party.
The Liberal Press has well-financed communication channels as well.
And the Liberalists/Socialists have great leveling agenda: If
somebody's taller than average, chop off his head or feet and glue
them to a shorter person (merely figurative, so far). They are
pushing a system that punishes initiative and promotes dependence on
the state and a lack of personal responsibility.
According to whose accounting does the Right have majority
control of the Republican party?
FWIW, I don't like either extreme, but I am somewhat to the right
of center in USA political ideology.
ObNAM:
|>Finally, we need a way to combat UUNET's Excuse, or we will be up
|>to our ears in roboposters.
Easy. Ask your feed to modify your entry in his sys file to not
send you any articles that have been through UUNET. Then whatever
UUNET does doesn't affect you. 0.5 * :-)
--
J Lee Jaap <J.L....@LaRC.NASA.Gov> +1 804/864-2148
employed by, not necessarily speaking for, AS&M Inc,
at NASA LaRC, Hampton VA 23681-0001
kra...@sundown.mil.wi.us
I find it sad that they caved in too. That guy must be a real
shit. I'm waiting to see if he complains about my use of 4-
letter words.....:-)
Have you thought of reporting him to the FBI for violation of
the ECPA ?? Reading his users e-mail is generally against the
law. Of course, may BBS operators think that just because they
own the system, the law doesn't apply to them. Boy are they
gonna be in for a surprise.
Wes
Melinda Shore
>Have you thought of reporting him to the FBI for violation of
>the ECPA ??
I don't use his system, but my mail to one of his users
was among the things he read. The bozo in question insists
that he was looking for evidence of illegal activities
(like drug sales), but the user whose mail he was reading
was apparently carrying on a sort of sexual exchange with
another user on the BBS. We can all guess why the sysop
was probably reading the mail.
Has anyone here ever reported someone to the FBI on
the grounds that a sysop or sysadmin was reading their
mail? How did it go?
FWIW, the sysop in question is hun...@adusa.com (which
should give you some picture of the kind of twit we're
dealing with. His first post to soc.motss was about the
size of his private parts.
I've sent mail to the technical contact at his feed, but I
haven't heard anything back.
XXXX EXPORT LAGER
(Melinda Shore) writes:
>Has anyone here ever reported someone to the FBI on
>the grounds that a sysop or sysadmin was reading their
>mail? How did it go?
It is actually not illegal for the sysop of a BBS to read people's "private"
email, whether he informs them of the fact of not... Not that I necessarily
approve, but my thought onthe subject are long and winded, and not shen related
in any way... But it is not illegal to do.
___________
Jude Travers-Frazier | Re: The above expressed opinions...
jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu | Just 'cause I wrote 'em
PGP key available by request | don't mean I believe 'em!
___________________________ ________________________________________
Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math
>should give you some picture of the kind of twit we're
>dealing with. His first post to soc.motss was about the
>size of his private parts.
Abnormally small, I presume?
:)
Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math
>Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math <d...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>> Face it, darling, I've been on Usenet for about 4 years longer than you, and
>> you'll _always_ be a newbie compared to me. :)
>
>The net is about exchanging information. I've been much more successful
>in that in my year here, than you in your five. We're definitely not in
>the same business, but if we are to compare something - it should be the
>objective net.criteria, not our perception of ourselves.
"Objective net.criteria" must be quantifiable.
Whether it's the number of kill files with my name in them, or the number
of complaints to my postmaster... you'll never catch up with me even if
you post for a hundred years. You weren't born with the talent to
make stupid people angry. I was.
And actually I should correct the above. I didn't realize you've only
been around for a year. How time flies. Or whatever.
>> Better yet, tell me, how should a postmaster react to an obviously false
>> complaint against a user?
>
>That's between you and your karma, really. If you want to come to me for
>a spiritual advice - go to soc.culture.soviet.
>
I don't give a damn about SCS, sweetheart. I want the good people of
news.admin.misc and these other newsgroups in the header to comment on
the following standard response to an unstanstantiated complaint:
From: postmaster@<BBB BBS>
Subject: Response to your complaint
Dear Internet user,
A complaint letter has been recently e-mailed to the Postmaster of this site
which appears to originate from your account. We have been unable to determine
whether you really wrote that stuff or someone played a practical joke on you
by breaking into your account and forging that letter to make you look foolish.
Whatever the case, we have duly looked into the substance of the complaint and
found it to be false and without merit. We have forwarded it to its subject,
who may in turn disregard it and continue doing whatever purportedly prompted
the complaint, or send a cross-complaint to your postmaster, or "flame" you
further by e-mail or Usenet, or take any other action he sees fit. Any further
correspondence from you sent to the Postmaster here will not be acknowledged.
We are sending a cc: to your Postmaster to alert him that your account may have
been compromised and that he may expect a cross-complaint from our user soon.
Fully expecting NOT to hear from you again,
postmaster@<XYZBBS>
Is this too polite?
Melinda Shore
>It is actually not illegal for the sysop of a BBS to read people's "private"
>email, whether he informs them of the fact of not...
But it is illegal to reveal the contents, right?
Greg Trotter
>the ECPA ?? Reading his users e-mail is generally against the
>law. Of course, may BBS operators think that just because they
>own the system, the law doesn't apply to them. Boy are they
>gonna be in for a surprise.
Well, I'm not sure if this guy was complaining about private mail, or
a public post. However, it may not matter.
I have read the ECPA (being a former sysop myself), and a sysop can read the
private mail of his users, provided he keeps it confidential. I looked into
this a few years back when I ran an Internet/Fidonet mail gateway.
Also, a great many BBSs have disclaimers on their systems that the system does
not support "private" mail. How effective this disclaimer is, I don't know.
But you can get a copy of the ECPA (I'm sure ftp.eff.org has a copy) and see
the provision I'm talking about.
- greg
Leigh Melton
> It is actually not illegal for the sysop of a BBS to read people's "private"
> email, whether he informs them of the fact of not... Not that I necessarily
> approve, but my thought onthe subject are long and winded, and not shen relat
> ed
> in any way... But it is not illegal to do.
I've heard arguments both ways on this, and I was wondering what your
source was for the basis of the "it's not illegal" opinion. At this
point I'm not exactly certain if it is or not.
L.
Michael Van Auken
Kranitz x7-4409) wrote:
> Melinda Shore (sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu) wrote:
> : In article <0097B94C...@pomona.claremont.edu> jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
> : >It is actually not illegal for the sysop of a BBS to read people's "private"
> : >email, whether he informs them of the fact of not...
>
> : But it is illegal to reveal the contents, right?
>
> As far as I know IT IS Illegal for a system's operator to read the
> private email of his/her users. There is an exemption if email reading
> is necessary for diagnostics and system maintenance, but I think you'd
> have a hard time saying that reading all mail all the time was necessary
> for maintenance.
>
> I have a copy of the ECPA at home, but I haven't looked at it for quite
> a while. There was quite a discussion in the EFF newsgroup a while back
> and if I remember correctly, the consensus was that it applied to BBS
> operators.
>
I suggest you contact a member of the EFF and ask for some advice. I
attended a seminar on computer law, at which a member (who was a lawyer)
discussed the various laws on the books regarding electronic mail.
The two names I have are Steve Ryan and Ed Kabassos (sp?). I think both
are here in Houston.
Michael Van Auken | Einstein has overcome time and space. Harvey
MJVan...@UH.edu | has overcome not only time and space--but any
713/743-1502 | objections.
Daan Sandee
s:
|> I agree that AOL should have handled things better when encouraging new users
|> on the 'net. As I see it, though, this is going to be a continuing problem,
|> and with the highly-publicized Infobahn it's only going to get worse. The
|> best course of action would probably be to set up some kind of helpful
|> guidelines for new systems coming online.
|>
|> again in the future? I want to keep my connection to Usenet, thank you, and
|> would be chagrined if one (OK, several) neophytes here at AOL wrecked it for
|> everyone.
In hindsight, what AOL could have done, and what other organizations
might do in the future :
1. Ask around on news.admin.policy about what not to do. This would
have avoided the a.b.o.i. preselect disaster.
2. Do not provide *posting* privileges (as opposed to reading the news)
until one month after establishing an account.
AOL could still do this for new accounts.
Note followup - this is a serious discussion, not a newbie flaming contest.
Daan Sandee san...@think.com
Thinking Machines Corporation
1010 El Camino Real, Suite 310
Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 329-9300
David . Crane
>Melinda Shore (sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu) wrote:
>: In article <0097B94C...@pomona.claremont.edu> jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>: >It is actually not illegal for the sysop of a BBS to read people's "private"
>: >email, whether he informs them of the fact of not...
>
>: But it is illegal to reveal the contents, right?
>
>private email of his/her users. There is an exemption if email reading
>is necessary for diagnostics and system maintenance, but I think you'd
>have a hard time saying that reading all mail all the time was necessary
>for maintenance.
Nonsense. So long as the sysop is liable for any illegal activities that
occur on his/her system, he can read anything he pleases. And he has an
obligation to stop the activity, even if it means turning the messages over
to the proper authorities. A BBS is NOT a common carrier like the phone
company. If it were, your theory would apply. Tell that to the judge and
>I have a copy of the ECPA at home, but I haven't looked at it for quite
>a while. There was quite a discussion in the EFF newsgroup a while back
>and if I remember correctly, the consensus was that it applied to BBS
>operators.
"Consensus" is poor solace for a sysop sitting in the slammer.
Arthur Bernard Byrne
Melinda Shore <sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <0097B94C...@pomona.claremont.edu> jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
>>email, whether he informs them of the fact of not...
>
Disclaimer: Iamnotalawyer.
From the EFF ftp archive....
CHAPTER 121. STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL
RECORDS ACCESS
Sec. 2701. Unlawful access to stored communications
(a) Offense. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section
whoever--
(1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through
which an electronic communication service is provided; or
(2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and
thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or
electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Punishment. The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of
this section is--
<deleted as irrelevant --AB^2>
(c) Exceptions. Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with
respect to conduct authorized--
(1) by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic
communications service;
(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or
intended for that user; or
(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title.
...which seems to mean that the Sysop, those he authorizes, those you
authorize, or someone with a warrant can read your e-mail. However...
Sec. 2702. Disclosure of contents
(a) Prohibitions. Except as provided in subsection (b)--
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to
the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the
contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service;
and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public
shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any
communication which is carried or maintained on that service--
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission
from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by
means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such
service; and
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer
processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not
authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of
providing any services other than storage or computer processing.
(b) Exceptions. A person or entity may divulge the contents of a
communication--
(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an
agent of such addressee or intended recipient;
(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or 2703 of
this title;
(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or
intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of
remote computing service;
(4) to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are used to
forward such communication to its destination;
(5) as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or
to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that
service; or
(6) to a law enforcement agency, if such contents--
(A) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and
(B) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime.
Which means that the person reading the mail cannot do anything
with it unless (1) it's to the recipient, (2) when someone presents a
warrant, (3) with the sender or reciever's premission, (4) to someone
involved in forwarding the message, (5) to cover their ass, or (6) to
the fuzz if you accidentally stumble across the evidence of a crime.
I'm *very* uncertain, in this light, about the usefulness of
a sysop searching his BBS for (EG) drug deal information; I'm not
sure if 2702(b)5 would allow this-- if it turns out not to be necessary
to protect the BBS (something I'd want a real lawyer's opinion on),
then he might be legally liable. The most it would seem he can do would
be to kick the users in question off-- if he's searching, section 2702(b)6A
isn't relevant.
And this *doesn't* belong in alt.shennanigans -- they may be
immoral and sometimes offensive, but they are rarely illegal. Followups
and further X-post into comp.org.eff.talk as more appropriate.
AB^2
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can have my encryption algorithm... when you pry my cold dead fingers
from its private key." -John Barlow, "Decrypting the Puzzle Palace"
Wesley Kranitz x7-4409
: In article <0097B94C...@pomona.claremont.edu> jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
: >It is actually not illegal for the sysop of a BBS to read people's "private"
: >email, whether he informs them of the fact of not...
: But it is illegal to reveal the contents, right?
As far as I know IT IS Illegal for a system's operator to read the
private email of his/her users. There is an exemption if email reading
is necessary for diagnostics and system maintenance, but I think you'd
have a hard time saying that reading all mail all the time was necessary
for maintenance.
I have a copy of the ECPA at home, but I haven't looked at it for quite
a while. There was quite a discussion in the EFF newsgroup a while back
and if I remember correctly, the consensus was that it applied to BBS
operators.
Wes
Greg Trotter
>In article <CMtx...@crdnns.crd.ge.com> kra...@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>Have you thought of reporting him to the FBI for violation of
>>the ECPA ??
>
>the grounds that a sysop or sysadmin was reading their
>mail? How did it go?
>
Violation of the ECPA is not a criminal offense; it is a civil offense. In
order to use the ECPA against someone, a person with standing must file a
lawsuit against the sysop.
Since it's not a criminal offense under ECPA, the FBI never gets involved.
- greg
Melinda Shore
>Nonsense. So long as the sysop is liable for any illegal activities that
>occur on his/her system, he can read anything he pleases.
From the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (note
the use of the word "necessary," as well as the exception
at the end of the paragraph):
(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator
of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire
or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the
transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that
communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any
activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or
to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that
service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the
public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for
mechanical or service quality control checks.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
The opinions contained in this posting do not reflect the
views of the Cornell Theory Center or Cornell University
Arthur Bernard Byrne
Melinda Shore <sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Mar18.2...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dcr...@lonestar.utsa.edu (David . Crane) writes:
>>occur on his/her system, he can read anything he pleases.
>
>the use of the word "necessary," as well as the exception
>at the end of the paragraph):
>
> (2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator
> of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire
> or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the
> transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that
> communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any
> activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or
> to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that
> service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the
> public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for
> mechanical or service quality control checks.
Title 18 section 2510(1) defines wire communication to aural (sound)
transfer. (The part above is from 18 USC 2511.) These sections are both part
of Chapter 119, Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and
Interception of Oral Communications. Chapter 121, Stored Wire and Electronic
Communications and Transactional Records Access, seems more relevant. See
18 USC 2701(a), 2701(c), and 2702.
Disclaimer: Iamnotalawyer.
Melinda Shore
>Violation of the ECPA is not a criminal offense; it is a civil offense. In
>order to use the ECPA against someone, a person with standing must file a
>lawsuit against the sysop.
Let me frame the question in more specific terms:
I sent mail to a user on a BBS, the substance of which was
a copy of Matt Bishop's netiquette guide and a
recommendation that the user find a different BBS (some
sort of error on the part of the BBS or its feed had led to
this user's outgoing email to be dumped to soc.motss, which
was perceived as a Stupid User Trick and therefore an
occasion for much hilarity). The sysop on the BBS read my
mail and used it as the basis for a complaint, not just to
a news administrator on campus (the wrong one,
incidentally), but also to Cornell's VP for Research and
Advanced Studies.
Do I have grounds for a complaint under the ECPA?
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
The opinions contained in this posting do not reflect the
HALLAM-BAKER Phillip
|>In article <CMtx...@crdnns.crd.ge.com> kra...@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
|>>Have you thought of reporting him to the FBI for violation of
|>>the ECPA ??
|>
|>I don't use his system, but my mail to one of his users
|>was among the things he read. The bozo in question insists
|>that he was looking for evidence of illegal activities
|>(like drug sales), but the user whose mail he was reading
|>was apparently carrying on a sort of sexual exchange with
|>another user on the BBS. We can all guess why the sysop
|>was probably reading the mail.
|>
|>Has anyone here ever reported someone to the FBI on
|>the grounds that a sysop or sysadmin was reading their
|>mail? How did it go?
|>
|>FWIW, the sysop in question is hun...@adusa.com (which
|>should give you some picture of the kind of twit we're
|>dealing with. His first post to soc.motss was about the
|>size of his private parts.
Leaving aside the criminal side there may well be legit grounds for a civil
suit. The person subscribing to the BBS has a contract (it does not have to
be written down or signed, provided there is an offer, acceptance and
consideration there is a contract). If its a freebie BBS then it is
unfortunately different.
Implicit in any such contract is an undertaking to respect privacy. This
is how Princess Diana is going to make mega$ out of the gym owner who
photographed her working out.
If the person who subscribed to the BBS were to sue they would probably have
a case.
Until there is a test case it won't be possible to get a definitive answer.
But the fact remains that it is a very stupid thing to do, unless you happen
to belong to an organisation which is permitted to do such stuff by the
government.
--
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker
Not Speaking for anyone else.
James Kibo Parry
In article <2m8p3n...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, Zak May <sav...@umbc.edu> wrote:
> objective net.criteria, not our perception of ourselves. Kibo will have
> a bigger ego than both of us no matter how hard we work to inflate ours.
I'll not only have an ego bigger than both of yours, I'll have an ego
bigger than both of YOU. In fact, my ego is larger than the Universe.
This is called physics!
-- K.
Brett J. Kottmann
I'd like to see a proof of that, perfesser.
And no cheating by stating the equation for a Klien bottle!
Brett
David Hall
>Has anyone here ever reported someone to the FBI on
>the grounds that a sysop or sysadmin was reading their
>mail? How did it go?
It's not illegal. Whomever owns/operates the machine has
full rights to anything that is on the machine. Email
has *nothing* to do with the US Postal service and so
tampering with the email is not illegal ;).
What to do?
1) One Word: PGP.
2) Stop writing things you don't want others to see.
3) Become an exhibitionist.
Emily Cummins
: 1) One Word: PGP.
What does this mean, please?
Thanks.
--
Emily Cummins cum...@deacon.mthcsc.wfu.edu 218 Telnet Ghetto (910) 759-6657
*
XXXX EXPORT LAGER
>: What to do?
>: 1) One Word: PGP.
>
>What does this mean, please?
PGP stand for Pretty Good Privacy. It is a freeware program written by Steve
Zimmerman.
That said, PGP is an email encryption program. So-far, it has turned out to be
unbreakable (short of rubber-hose and TEMPEST attacks (and of course
stupidity)). If you want to know more than that, email me and I will describe
it more fully. It is a very VERY cool thing!
(Note my sig)
>Thanks.
welcome! ;)
>--
>Emily Cummins cum...@deacon.mthcsc.wfu.edu 218 Telnet Ghetto (910) 759-6657
> *
___________
Ace40
dcr...@lonestar.utsa.edu (David . Crane) writes:
People, PLEASE read "PC Computing" April 1994, page 88, John Dvorak's article
on legislation currently being being written into law. SB# 040194 sponsored
by Senator Patric Leahy is "designed to prohibit anyone from using a public
computer network while the user is intoxicated." Law enforcement agencies love
it because it is grounds for a wire tap. Also, a rider on the legislation
makes it a felony to discuss sexual matters on any public access network,
including Internet, AOL, Compuserve, etc.
They are here, and we elected them.
Jordan Hubbard
People, PLEASE read "PC Computing" April 1994, page 88, John Dvorak's
article on legislation currently being being written into law. SB# 040194
sponsored by Senator Patric Leahy is "designed to prohibit anyone from
using a public computer network while the user is intoxicated."
But, what about if they're sober and simply brain-dead? Does that also
count as a form of intoxication? I mean, how do you tell the difference?
Arthur Bernard Byrne
XXXX EXPORT LAGER <jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu> wrote:
>In article <2mr4kd$8...@quad.wfunet.wfu.edu>, cumm...@ac.wfu.edu (Emily Cummins) writes:
>>: What to do?
>>: 1) One Word: PGP.
>>
>>What does this mean, please?
>
>PGP stand for Pretty Good Privacy. It is a freeware program written by Steve
>Zimmerman. That said, PGP is an email encryption program.
Warning: the "freeware" version has been alleged to be mildly illegal,
as it violates a patent. I would recommend not chancing it on any commercial
use. There is a pay version that is fully legal, however; about $100. If you
use it only for personal stuff, you should be OK.
Lady Rebecca Darian
: In article <2mtruq$r...@search01.news.aol.com>, ac...@aol.com (Ace40) wrote:
: > In article <1994Mar18.2...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
: > dcr...@lonestar.utsa.edu (David . Crane) writes:
: >
: > People, PLEASE read "PC Computing" April 1994, page 88, John Dvorak's article
: > on legislation currently being being written into law. SB# 040194 sponsored
: > by Senator Patric Leahy is "designed to prohibit anyone from using a public
: > computer network while the user is intoxicated." Law enforcement agencies
: Uhh, that was the *April* issue, right?
: --
: John V. Curatolo
: jv...@cornell.edu
When was the last time that you saw a magazine released in the appropriate
month? They always release about a month or two in advance.
-Lady Rebecca of Darian Keep
rg...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu
Kim Scheinberg
>In article <Cn8EG...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>>In article <0097BECA...@pomona.claremont.edu>,
>>XXXX EXPORT LAGER <jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu> wrote:
: 1) One Word: PGP.
>What does this mean, please?
>
>>PGP stand for Pretty Good Privacy. It is a freeware program written by Steve
>>Zimmerman. That said, PGP is an email encryption program.
Phil Zimmerman. It's not just for email. It's not illegal for personal use.
It's a *good* idea. Use it.
-k.
--
Kim Scheinberg | Dorothy, you ignorant slut! How can you trust those evil
ik...@panix.com | NSA people after what they did to Elvis? - M. Blaze
Omega Syntharax
>From: jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu (XXXX EXPORT LAGER)
>Subject: Re: alt.american.online (was Re: 0-- AMERICA ON LINE OFFICIAL...)
>Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 22:29:14 GMT
>In article <Cn8EG...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, ab...@fulton.seas.Virginia.EDU (Arthur Bernard Byrne) writes:
>>In article <0097BECA...@pomona.claremont.edu>,
>>XXXX EXPORT LAGER <jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <2mr4kd$8...@quad.wfunet.wfu.edu>, cumm...@ac.wfu.edu (Emily Cummins) writes:
>>>>: What to do?
>>>>: 1) One Word: PGP.
>>>>
>>>>What does this mean, please?
>>>
>>>PGP stand for Pretty Good Privacy. It is a freeware program written by Steve
>>>Zimmerman. That said, PGP is an email encryption program.
>>
>Further, the commercial version of PGP uses public keys which are _not_ compatible
>with the freeware version. Mostly only big companies (and few at that) use the
>commercial version, and you would be ablt to communicate with them only, and not
>any of the (now) three-thousand plus Internet users who have filed their public
>keys with various key-servers.
This is incorrect. ViaCrypt PGP is FULLY compatible with the freeware version.
The only difference between the two is the version string embedded in
signatures and keys.
FRC
Ian Hebert
CC> : What to do?
CC> : 1) One Word: PGP.
CC> What does this mean, please?
CC> Thanks.
PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) ver 2.3 - RSA public-key encryption freeware
for MSDOS, protects E-mail. Lets you communicate securely with people
you've never met, with no secure channels needed for prior exchange of
keys. Well featured and fast! Excellent user documentation.
PGP has sophisticated key management, an RSA/conventional hybrid
encryption scheme, message digests for digital signatures, data
compression before encryption, and good ergonomic design. Source
code is free.
Filenames: pgp23a.zip (executable and manuals),
Keywords: PGP, Pretty Good Privacy, RSA, public key, encryption,
privacy, authentication, signatures, email
Other versions for various platforms (Unix, Mac, Atari ST, Amiga)
available from various FTP sites.
What follows is a small sample of places that allegedly have PGP, as
of June 1993. This information is not guaranteed to be correct.
Some US sites have occasionally withdrawn PGP because of fear of
legal intimidation from the RSA patent holders.
There are two compressed archive files in the standard release, with
the file name derived from the release version number. For PGP
version 2.3, you must get pgp23.zip which contains the MSDOS binary
executable and the PGP User's Guide, and you can optionally get
pgp23src.zip which contains all the source code. These files can be
decompressed with the MSDOS shareware archive decompression utility
PKUNZIP.EXE, version 1.10 or later. For Unix users who lack an
implementation of UNZIP, the source code can also be found in the
compressed tar file pgp23src.tar.Z.
A reminder: Set mode to binary or image when doing an FTP transfer.
And when doing a kermit download to your PC, specify 8-bit binary
mode at both ends. Here are some Internet sites that have PGP via
anonymous FTP:
Finland: nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100)
Directory: /pub/unix/security/crypt/
Italy: ghost.dsi.unimi.it (149.132.2.1)
Directory: /pub/security/
UK: src.doc.ic.ac.uk
Directory: /computing/security/software/PGP
For those lacking FTP connectivity to the net, nic.funet.fi also
offers the files via email. To get version 2.3, send the following
mail message to mail...@nic.funet.fi:
ENCODER uuencode
SEND pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23src.zip
SEND pub/unix/security/crypt/pgp23.zip
This will deposit the two zipfiles, as (about) 15 batched messages in
your mailbox within about 24 hours. Save and uudecode.
In the US, PGP may be found on God knows how many BBS systems, far
too many to list here. Still, if you don't have any local BBS phone
numbers handy, here are some BBS's you might try.
PGP is also widely available on Fidonet, a large informal network of
PC-based bulletin board systems interconnected via modems. Check
your local bulletin board systems. It is available on many foreign
and domestic Fidonet BBS sites.
For information on PGP implementations on the Apple Macintosh,
Commodore Amiga, or Atari ST, or any other questions about where to
get PGP for any other platform, contact Hugh Miller at
hmi...@lucpul.it.luc.edu.
* RM 1.3 * Eval Day 40 * The Clipper chip is a wonderful thing to waste!
Ray Waldin
>
>with the freeware version. Mostly only big companies (and few at that) use the
>commercial version, and you would be ablt to communicate with them only, and not
>any of the (now) three-thousand plus Internet users who have filed their public
>keys with various key-servers.
OK, the only "key-server" I know of is SLED. I'm interested in finding
and registering with a FREE key-server, but I haven't heard of one.
Anyone got a pointer to a FREE (no charge, no dues, no fees, no cash, no
checks, no credit cards, no money orders, no food stamps, nothing)
key-servers out there?
--
_____ ___ ___ ___ _ ___
| \/ \\ v /\/ \/ / Ray Waldin
| ' _/\/ | \ / \ \ / a.k.a. "Originality is the art of
| \ \ / , | _\ / \ / ra...@netcom.com concealing your source."
|__\__\\___/ \_/ \_^_/ CIS: 73632,3121 - ???
Bob Ross
>Make the software as user-hostile and difficult to use as humanly feasible,
>with no possibility of cutesey front ends like AOL's. Then only the smartest
>will make it through and figure out how to post.
>
>Dimitri Vulis
>CUNY GC Math
>D...@CUNYVMS1.BITNET D...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
Your going to have to get used to the influx of users (all types)! Interest
in the internet is growing expotentially and AOL is making it very easy
to use and ....face it.... the vast majority of users are lazy enough to'
ENJOY something that is easy to use!
Your idead WILL BE OVERRUN in a few short years, so try to make the best
of what is to come instead of fighting it. Fighting it will do NO GOOD!
DONE
Chris Nelson
>In article <1994Mar18.2...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>dcr...@lonestar.utsa.edu (David . Crane) writes:
>
>People, PLEASE read "PC Computing" April 1994, page 88, John Dvorak's article
>on legislation currently being being written into law. SB# 040194 sponsored
>by Senator Patric Leahy is "designed to prohibit anyone from using a public
>it because it is grounds for a wire tap. Also, a rider on the legislation
>makes it a felony to discuss sexual matters on any public access network,
>including Internet, AOL, Compuserve, etc.
>
>They are here, and we elected them.
Jesus, it was a joke.....
04/01/94 - April Fools
Glad you're around......
CN
Ian Hebert
RR> SUBJECT: Re: alt.american.online (was Re: 0-- AMERICA ON LINE OFFICIA
RR> Message-ID: <raywCnK...@netcom.com>
RR> Newsgroup: alt.best.of.internet,news.admin.misc,alt.shenanigans
RR> Organization: minimal
jtra...@pomona.claremont.edu writes:
RR> with the freeware version. Mostly only big companies (and few at
RR> that) use the commercial version, and you would be ablt to
RR> communicate with them only, and not any of the (now)
RR> three-thousand plus Internet users who have filed their public
RR> keys with various key-servers.
First of all, this is nonsense. The ViaCrypt PGP version uses
the same keys as the freeware version. Aside from one or two minor
bug-fixes, both versions operate identically. The only difference is
that ViaCrypt calls their version 2.4, while the freeware version is
2.3a.
RR> OK, the only "key-server" I know of is SLED. I'm interested in
RR> finding and registering with a FREE key-server, but I haven't
RR> heard of one. Anyone got a pointer to a FREE (no charge, no dues,
RR> no fees, no cash, no checks, no credit cards, no money orders, no
RR> food stamps, nothing) key-servers out there?
Here are the addresses of a servers out of the reach of PKP and
their meddlesome attorneys:
FTP: fgp.demom.co.uk:/pub/pgp/pubring.pgp (Updated daily)
BTW, the EFF also runs a bulletin board, where someone has posted
a recent copy of the keyring as found on Internet servers. It
can be downloaded at 14.4K in just under ten minutes.
EFF's BBS number is: (202) 638-6120.
Hope this helps.
Ian Hebert
London, Ontario, Canada
Internet: ian.h...@homebase.com FidoNet: 1:2401/114
PGP 2.3a Public Key Available on Request RIMENet: ->5500 OBSERVATORY
* RM 1.3 * Eval Day 49 * ... Believe in the Bible? Hell! I've SEEN one!
KNoXxb
writes:
Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math <d...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU> writes:
>Make the software as user-hostile and difficult to use as humanly
feasible,
>with no possibility of cutesey front ends like AOL's. Then only the
smartest
>will make it through and figure out how to post.
>
>Dimitri Vulis
>CUNY GC Math
>D...@CUNYVMS1.BITNET D...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
I worked with a Stanford Math Grad (Master's) recently at a LARGE
software company in the east bay (SF bay area).
He was smart ... could find/do/access anything on the internet ...
would not be scared off by a hostile interface ... but the guy
couldn't THINK his way out a one way door ... when it came to a
simple excel macro, the guy went around Pluto to get across the
street ... and he was VERY intelligent!
Dmitri ... go get a job ... come down from the ivory tower ... it's
tax-paying AOL'ers like me who subsidize your online time. You really
should say "thank you" and offer some help once in a while to your
fellows.
Knox Bronson
Oakland