AGIS: The Premier Provider Of Internet Spam (and other stories)
John Navas
"AGIS: The Premier Provider Of Internet Spam"
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/story/3402.html
"Another AGIS First: Commercial E-Mail 'Solution'"
http://www.agis.net/press24.htm
"AGIS has refused to take a 'Big Brother' stance by monitoring
and/or censoring its customers' business practices. ..."
"BS Detector: Anti-Spam List Won't Work"
http://www.wired.com/news/topframe/2885.html
"DeadBolt Aims to Lock the Door on Spam"
http://www.wired.com/news/topframe/2106.html
Spammer Parodies -- AGIS
http://members.aol.com/slvg23/agis/index.html
--
Best regards,
John mailto:JNa...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/
28800 Modem FAQ: http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/modem/faq.html
Roger Marquis
In ba.internet Dave Silva <xan...@citystuff.com> wrote:
>Bottom line: Do yourself and the globe a favor; stop clogging up the
>internet with this junk on either end. Clear the pipes for those of us who
>use this incredible tool for legitimate marketing, business, entertainment
>and fun.
Don't bury your head in the sand today Dave, or tomorow you won't be
able to read your legitimate email from all the spam. We need serious
technical and legislative weapons against these completely unethical
unsolicited commercial emailers which waste more and more people's time
every day.
Roger Marquis
>John Navas <JNa...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US> wrote in article
><3361fa43...@news.aimnet.com>...
Dave Silva
Part of the solution is not becoming part of the problem. Whether that
means not sending unsolicited mail and not posting commercial posts in the
wrong newsgroup -or- add to the problem by responding to these posts,
mail-bombing or any other hypocritical tactic.
It's one thing to dislike unsolicited mail or commercial posts. When you
respond in kind, you're only perpetuating the problem.
These people continue to send e-mail and post commercial ads because A)
they work and/or B) they reach an incredible number of people. If you stop
replying, reading or subscribing to these services they'll stop
advertising. Unfortunately this will never happen.
And trust me, the "computer is a fax -- illegal to send unsolicited e-mail"
bit does not and will not work. The U.S. courts have already drawn a clear
distinction between the obvious differences between a plain-paper or
thermal fax machine and e-mail. Neither does the ol' "proof-read your
e-mail for $300/hour."
Bottom line: Do yourself and the globe a favor; stop clogging up the
internet with this junk on either end. Clear the pipes for those of us who
use this incredible tool for legitimate marketing, business, entertainment
and fun.
Dave Silva | Phone: (408) 289-1343
MobileTech Services | Fax: (408) 289-1344
http://www.citystuff.com/mobiletech | xan...@citystuff.com
John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet]
"Dave Silva" <xan...@citystuff.com> wrote:
>Part of the solution is not becoming part of the problem. Whether that
>means not sending unsolicited mail and not posting commercial posts in the
>wrong newsgroup -or- add to the problem by responding to these posts,
>mail-bombing or any other hypocritical tactic.
>
>It's one thing to dislike unsolicited mail or commercial posts. When you
>respond in kind, you're only perpetuating the problem.
I disagree. It's very clear that AGIS is struggling with the backlash
from its irresponsible support of spammers like Cyber Promotions. If the
price gets high enough, AGIS may reconsider. If it pays no price, then it
will only be emboldened, and others will be encouraged to follow its
example.
While I do not condone mailbombing, I do bounce back to AGIS all incoming
spam that originates from AGIS customers (just as AGIS does to complaints
about spam that originates from its customers). I also encourage everyone
to boycott AGIS as a rogue domain.
>These people continue to send e-mail and post commercial ads because A)
>they work and/or B) they reach an incredible number of people. If you stop
>replying, reading or subscribing to these services they'll stop
>advertising. Unfortunately this will never happen.
Nonsense. Junk email will be sent whether you complain or not. But if
you do nothing, the problem won't get fixed.
>And trust me, the "computer is a fax -- illegal to send unsolicited e-mail"
>bit does not and will not work. The U.S. courts have already drawn a clear
>distinction between the obvious differences between a plain-paper or
>thermal fax machine and e-mail. ...
Really? Please cite the cases. To my knowledge this has not yet been
tested.
>Bottom line: Do yourself and the globe a favor; stop clogging up the
>internet with this junk on either end. Clear the pipes for those of us who
>use this incredible tool for legitimate marketing, business, entertainment
>and fun.
Bottom line: Doing nothing is never an effective strategy, and in this
case it will only serve to make matters worse.
--
Best regards,
John mailto:JNa...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/
FIGHT EXCESSIVE DOMAIN NAME FEES: <http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/namefee.html>
tre...@rahul.net
"Dave Silva" <xan...@citystuff.com> wrote:
>These people continue to send e-mail and post commercial ads because A)
>they work and/or B) they reach an incredible number of people.
No, you don't understand how industrial-scale spamming works. In these
cases, the spammer is not pushing his own product via email, but is conning
ignorant people (who themselves operate businesses of borderline legality)
into thinking it's a great way to increase sales.
People who have used unsolicited email to advertise their own products,
invariably report that the results were terrible. The flames aside, no real
business was generated.
Mail spam (which is the type AGIS facilitates) continues because there is
an inexhaustable supply of suckers.
>And trust me, the "computer is a fax -- illegal to send unsolicited e-mail"
>bit does not and will not work. The U.S. courts have already drawn a clear
>distinction between the obvious differences between a plain-paper or
>thermal fax machine and e-mail. Neither does the ol' "proof-read your
>e-mail for $300/hour."
That much is true. The only thing that works is a concerted, systematic
complaint campaign. Politely contacting the spammers provider, and
escalating the complaint to the provider's provider, if necessary, works
great.
>Bottom line: Do yourself and the globe a favor; stop clogging up the
>internet with this junk on either end. Clear the pipes for those of us who
>use this incredible tool for legitimate marketing, business, entertainment
>and fun.
Don't know what you're trying to say. The links were very much on topic for
this newsgroup, which btw, is a regional one.
Merlin
John Navas (JNa...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US) wrote:
: "AGIS: The Premier Provider Of Internet Spam"
: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/story/3402.html
: "Another AGIS First: Commercial E-Mail 'Solution'"
: http://www.agis.net/press24.htm
: "AGIS has refused to take a 'Big Brother' stance by monitoring
: and/or censoring its customers' business practices. ..."
I don't want them, or anyone else, to take a 'Big Brother' stance.
I'd be happy if they would respond to complaints with a policy of deleting
repeat spammer accounts.
-ck
John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet]
tre...@rahul.net wrote:
>... The only thing that works is a concerted, systematic
>complaint campaign. Politely contacting the spammers provider, and
>escalating the complaint to the provider's provider, if necessary, works
>great.
Except in this case. AGIS bounces all complaints about Cyber Promotions
as "junk email." The only thing that will work with AGIS is a boycott.
Barry Twycross
In article <3367959a...@news.aimnet.com>,
Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>Except in this case. AGIS bounces all complaints about Cyber Promotions
>as "junk email." The only thing that will work with AGIS is a boycott.
The agis blocks on complaints are very simple, and usually easy to get
around. Some sites (best, rahul, concentric, ?) are blocked as domains,
other complainers are blocked on a per address basis (I got blocked after
the 5th). Their filter method is basically on the From: address in your
message so if you change this you can usually get past.
You can either forge a different address, or find a different, valid, From:
address. On some systems which use unix mailers you can use
<user>+<box>@<host>, so I am also bar...@netbox.com (now blocked by agis)
and bar...@netbox.com (also blocked) etc. They block these quickly so I'm
now using barry+<date> (I was barry+970...@netbox.com last time) to
complain from. I'm consistantly getting acknowledgements so they havn't
blocked these yet.
--
Barry
Ba...@netbox.com <http://www.netbox.com/barry>
------
Posted under the restrictions imposed by the US government.
John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet]
gr...@oriole.sbay.org (George Bonser) wrote:
>Digex just dumped a 10MB connection. ClarkNet looks like it has
>canned AGIS, Concentric dumped them completely last fall, Pacific Bell has
>pushed them to secondary status. Looks like the only ones around here relying
>on AGIS to any extent might be ScruzNet. ...
Unfortunately, Aimnet is still using AGIS. (Arggghhhh!) It is reportedly
looking at alternatives, but that story is months old. <sigh>
John Navas
Rahul Dhesi
In <Barry-ya02408000...@nntp.netgate.net> Ba...@netbox.com
(Barry Twycross) writes:
>The agis blocks on complaints are very simple, and usually easy to get
>around. Some sites (best, rahul, concentric, ?) are blocked as domains...
It appears that at least the following domains are currently blocked at
agisgate.agis.net:
usa.net
rahul.net
best.com
eskimo.com
halcyon.com
concentric.net
savetrees.com
cyberpromo.com
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@ether.rahul.net> ( http://www.rahul.net/dhesi/ )
a2i communications, a quality ISP with sophisticated anti-junkmail features
*** Now featuring Strategy C for junk-mail-proof News postings ***
Philip J. Koenig
Ba...@netbox.com (Barry Twycross) wrote:
>In article <3367959a...@news.aimnet.com>,
>Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US (John Navas) wrote:
>>Except in this case. AGIS bounces all complaints about Cyber Promotions
>>as "junk email." The only thing that will work with AGIS is a boycott.
>The agis blocks on complaints are very simple, and usually easy to get
>around. Some sites (best, rahul, concentric, ?) are blocked as domains,
>other complainers are blocked on a per address basis (I got blocked after
>the 5th). Their filter method is basically on the From: address in your
>message so if you change this you can usually get past.
>You can either forge a different address, or find a different, valid, From:
>address. On some systems which use unix mailers you can use
><user>+<box>@<host>, so I am also bar...@netbox.com (now blocked by agis)
>and bar...@netbox.com (also blocked) etc. They block these quickly so I'm
>now using barry+<date> (I was barry+970...@netbox.com last time) to
>complain from. I'm consistantly getting acknowledgements so they havn't
>blocked these yet.
Well Barry, perhaps that's an interesting technical exercise, but I
hardly see what it accomplishes.
AGIS obviously decided to bounce incoming complaints about spam because
they don't give a damn. The mere fact that you managed to get a piece
of email past their automatic bounce/reject mechanism hardly guarantees
you an audience - on the contrary, I suspect it just gets thrown into
the bit bucket manually by a human.. or simply not read at all.
AGIS is hosting these slime because there's money in it - and it shouldn't
be difficult to see that a single individual that isn't a customer of
theirs is hardly a strong motivational force..
OTOH, if people make it clear that they won't tolerate these parasites
and the sites/transit-providers that support them (by boycotts, articles,
whatever) then AGIS is going to have to stand-up and take notice, because
it will further hurt their failing reputation.
(what's scarier is the article mentioning that UUnet recently signed a
deal with cyberpromo to provide them with connectivity.. that is depressing
indeed)
Phil
--
Philip J. Koenig Computers & Communications [see below]
I have anti-spammed my email address. Please direct email to the following
"expanded" address: "p j k @ c r l . com" (remove spaces and quotes)
Your pilot has turned on the "Put on your flameproof armor" sign...
Barry Twycross
In article <5k1brk$8ck$1...@news.aimnet.com>,
For_Email_@ddress_see.below.plea.se (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:
[How to circumvent agis' mail blocks]
>Well Barry, perhaps that's an interesting technical exercise, but I
>hardly see what it accomplishes.
>
>AGIS obviously decided to bounce incoming complaints about spam because
>they don't give a damn. The mere fact that you managed to get a piece
>of email past their automatic bounce/reject mechanism hardly guarantees
>you an audience - on the contrary, I suspect it just gets thrown into
>the bit bucket manually by a human.. or simply not read at all.
It acomplishes two things, it makes me feel better, and it uses up more of
agis' resources. If agis bounce your mail from the smtp connection it takes
1 tcp connection and 200 bytes or so of data transfer.
If I manage to get round the block they get all of my complaint including
full text of the offending message (2282 bytes last time). It also gets
into their mail processing system, an auto reply is generated and sent back
to me (2932 bytes last time). I also presume somewhere its logged and
someone might just notice the size of the log. If they were at all
legitimate someone ould have to look at it to make sure it was a complaint
they could junk.
Of they're stealing some of my resources the very least I can do is
legitimatly use up some of their resources complaining about it. If enough
people can get complaints through they might start to notice.
John Navas
[POSTED TO ba.internet]
For_Email_@ddress_see.below.plea.se (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:
>(what's scarier is the article mentioning that UUnet recently signed a
>deal with cyberpromo to provide them with connectivity.. that is depressing
>indeed)
What article?!
Matt Dillon
:In article <5k19r8$9...@samba.rahul.net>,
:Rahul Dhesi <c.c....@36.usenet.us.com> wrote:
:>In <Barry-ya02408000...@nntp.netgate.net> Ba...@netbox.com
:>(Barry Twycross) writes:
:>
:>>The agis blocks on complaints are very simple, and usually easy to get
:>>around. Some sites (best, rahul, concentric, ?) are blocked as domains...
:>
:>It appears that at least the following domains are currently blocked at
:>agisgate.agis.net:
:>
:> usa.net
:> rahul.net
:> best.com
:> eskimo.com
:> halcyon.com
:> concentric.net
:> savetrees.com
:> cyberpromo.com
:>--
:>Rahul Dhesi <dh...@ether.rahul.net> ( http://www.rahul.net/dhesi/ )
:>a2i communications, a quality ISP with sophisticated anti-junkmail features
:>*** Now featuring Strategy C for junk-mail-proof News postings ***
Well, at least someone over there *read* my email :-) That's good,
because I bashed them into little pieces in it.
Hillarious.
-Matt
Patrick Greenwell
> >John Navas (JNa...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US) wrote:
*SNIP*
> >I don't want them, or anyone else, to take a 'Big Brother' stance.
> >
> >I'd be happy if they would respond to complaints with a policy of deleting
> >repeat spammer accounts.
> Which is it then? AGIS interprets (2) as (1).
And that is precisely the flaw in their common-carrier status
proclamation(which they don't have the power to grant themselves anyways):
They refuse to respond to legitimate complaints. The common carriers do.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell (510) 934-2153 voice
Network Administrator (510) 906-1173 fax
European Telecom
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Philip J. Koenig
a...@shell3.ba.best.com (alex c. lau) wrote:
>In article <3365b68f....@news.aimnet.com>,
>John Navas <Use...@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US> wrote:
>>[POSTED TO ba.internet]
>>For_Email_@ddress_see.below.plea.se (Philip J. Koenig) wrote:
>>
>>>(what's scarier is the article mentioning that UUnet recently signed a
>>>deal with cyberpromo to provide them with connectivity.. that is depressing
>>>indeed)
>>
>>What article?!
>"Worldcom Opens 3-year Can of Spam", page 1, April 21, 1997 issue of
>Interactive Week
A woman posted here the other day that it was posted on one of the net-abuse
groups that the situation has been resolved. Apparently a new sales-droid
signed up spamford and when UUnet mgmt found out they nixed the deal.