Green Card Posting

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse

unread,
Apr 12, 1994, 11:08:57 PM4/12/94
to
Recently, one of our users posted an Advertisement to the almost 5,000
newsgroups available from our site. If you read USENET News, you have
probably seen it at least once.

We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00

We apologize for the inconvenience and cost incurred upon USENET News
subscribers and sites around the world by these two users.

If you have strong feelings about this issue, feel free to contact the
individuals responsible for this posting directly:

Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
PHONE: (602) 661-3911
FAX: (602) 451-9717
ADDRESS: 3333 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 250
Phoenix, Arizona USA 85018

For a more comprehensive statement concerning this incident, please
check the first couple of entries in our gopher server (gopher.indirect.com).

I apologize for cross-posting to so many groups, but the volume of email we
are getting is crashing our site, and I wanted to get something out quickly.

Thank you for your understanding,
Jeff Wheelhouse (j...@rosencrantz.indirect.com)
System Administrator
Internet Direct

CLNizFREE

unread,
Apr 12, 1994, 11:21:01 PM4/12/94
to
In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>, j...@indirect.com (Jeffrey D.
Wheelhouse) writes:

{Nice post snipped}

Nice to see some action taken on these kinds of situations, doesn't everyone
agree?

I think it is a welcome sight!!!

THanks for fixing what was broken ;0

Neal

Zbigniew J. Tyrlik

unread,
Apr 12, 1994, 11:35:39 PM4/12/94
to
In <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com> j...@indirect.com (Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse) writes:

Thank you for a prompt and quick action.

>We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
>The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
>the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00

I think it is time to do something. I cannot imagine that
couple brain-dead low-lifes can:
- abuse and take advantage of resourcesm, violating
agreements, common sense, etc, etc;
- then threaten;

maybe it is place for EFF to take this case and
sue them for damages to the net ?

I would like to see this jerks paying 250k to some fund for expansion
of internet. I will donate $25 to a fun established for sueing
this 2 jerks. Let's make it an example - naybe bunch of hotheads will
wait next time before sending such piece of crap.

> Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
> PHONE: (602) 661-3911
> FAX: (602) 451-9717
>ADDRESS: 3333 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 250
> Phoenix, Arizona USA 85018


>For a more comprehensive statement concerning this incident, please
>check the first couple of entries in our gopher server (gopher.indirect.com).


Good job with this gopher stuff. I strongly encourage to call them and
fax them explaining how stypid it was. Also, calling callect might be a good
idea - especially when you have a thick accent :-).


>Thank you for your understanding,
>Jeff Wheelhouse (j...@rosencrantz.indirect.com)
>System Administrator
>Internet Direct


_zjt ( wannabe in training )

Jim Mercer

unread,
Apr 12, 1994, 11:37:22 PM4/12/94
to
In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,

Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse <j...@indirect.com> wrote:
>Now, the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00

i hope that you don't bend to this scare tactic.

i think that your state bar association will be hearing about these bozo's
in short order.

if the case does in fact go to court, i'm sure that you can deluge the court
with internet people testifying that the posts were totally outside the
normal bounds of USENET.

--
[ Jim Mercer Reptilian Research me...@iguana.reptiles.org +1 416 506-0654 ]
[ "... or you can become a road-kill on the information superhighway." ]
[ -- Colin Mcgregor ]

Brad Templeton

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 3:23:24 AM4/13/94
to
Zbigniew J. Tyrlik <zb...@junior.wariat.org> wrote:
>>We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
>>The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
>>the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00

Darn. Last time they did this (in some of my newsgroups, and unlike most
people, I own some newsgroups) I told them that if they tried to advertise
in my newsgroups again, I would bill them for it. There's a good precedent
for expecting billing for putting advertising in a news service.

But now they won't have gotten my message. Not that I expected they would
rush to pay.
--
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- San Jose, CA 408/296-0366

Mats Luthman

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 10:39:01 AM4/13/94
to
In article <2ofpab$1...@junior.wariat.org> zb...@junior.wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) writes:

In <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com> j...@indirect.com (Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse) writes:

> Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
> PHONE: (602) 661-3911
> FAX: (602) 451-9717
>ADDRESS: 3333 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 250
> Phoenix, Arizona USA 85018

Good job with this gopher stuff. I strongly encourage to call them and

fax them explaining how stypid it was. Also, calling callect might be a
good idea - especially when you have a thick accent :-).

A polite letter (I mean of the old sort, the one that is made of paper) from a
few thousand people together with their regular mail would probably give them
a message about spending other peoples resources.

Just a thought.
--
Mats Luthman, Sylog AB

John Ockerbloom

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 10:52:58 AM4/13/94
to
In article <Co6I2...@reptiles.org>, Jim Mercer <j...@reptiles.org> wrote:
>In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,
>Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse <j...@indirect.com> wrote:
>>Now, the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00
>
>i hope that you don't bend to this scare tactic.
>
>i think that your state bar association will be hearing about these bozo's
>in short order.

And for those of you that want to contact the Arizona Bar Association
to complain about unethical behavior, their number is 602-252-4804.
Call and ask for a complaint brochure and form. (In order for
formal action to be taken, you have to submit a complaint in writing.
They'll mail you the forms and info for free. I also suspect that
a large number of phone calls will tell them something as well.)

John Ockerbloom
--
==========================================================================
ocker...@cs.cmu.edu 4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217

Michael Dobson

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 12:29:04 PM4/13/94
to
[az.general and bogus news.admin deleted from newsgroups]

In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,
Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse <j...@indirect.com> wrote:

[...]


>
>We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
>The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
>the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00
>

Perhaps you should counter-sue for his actions causing denial of services
to your other customers and consequenlty lost revenues, and, send him all
the incoming mail as a nice tar file.

[...]

>If you have strong feelings about this issue, feel free to contact the
>individuals responsible for this posting directly:
>
> Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
> PHONE: (602) 661-3911
> FAX: (602) 451-9717
>ADDRESS: 3333 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 250
> Phoenix, Arizona USA 85018
>

Better yet, each site affected by this nonsense should FAX them an invoice
for services rendered. In another post it was calculated that the average
full feed site was storing in excess of 4 Meg worth of copies. Using your
usual daily rate per Kbyte times your expire time times the number of
servers in your organization should produce a nice little sum. At $30 to
$40 per server, just processing a few hunderd claims should keep them busy.
Oh, don't forget to mention that since their postings crossed into your
state, the local Small Claims Court would very likely have jurisdiction if
they don't want to pay up.

[...]

Thanks for the quick action and posting Jeff.

Mike
--
LCDR M. Dobson | NetNews Admin net.usuhs.mil
Experimental Hematology Dept | dob...@net.usuhs.mil
Armed Forces Radiobiology |
Research Institute | I don't have enough rank to speak for DoD

Thayne Forbes

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 12:33:29 PM4/13/94
to
Michael Dobson (dob...@net.usuhs.mil) wrote:
:> >
:> Better yet, each site affected by this nonsense should FAX them an invoice

:> for services rendered. In another post it was calculated that the average
:> full feed site was storing in excess of 4 Meg worth of copies. Using your
:> usual daily rate per Kbyte times your expire time times the number of
:> servers in your organization should produce a nice little sum. At $30 to
:> $40 per server, just processing a few hunderd claims should keep them busy.

Except that it is not customary for sites to charge remote users for
storage of news nor processing of email. Nice try though. If on the
other hand this causes any site to go offline, then we do have denial
of service, which would seem to be actionable.

--
Thayne Forbes tha...@xmission.com
Computer Weenie at large

Adrian Godwin

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 1:06:09 PM4/13/94
to
In article <Co6I2...@reptiles.org> j...@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
>
>if the case does in fact go to court, i'm sure that you can deluge the court
>with internet people testifying that the posts were totally outside the
>normal bounds of USENET.
>

If that were to result in a judgement in favour of indirect.com, would
it create precedent for spamming to be regarded as a legally hostile
act rather than a mere breach of netiquette ?

-adrian

Spiros Triantafyllopoulos

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 2:58:56 PM4/13/94
to
In article <Co6I2...@reptiles.org> j...@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
>
>In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,
>Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse <j...@indirect.com> wrote:
>>Now, the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00
>
>i hope that you don't bend to this scare tactic.
>
>i think that your state bar association will be hearing about these bozo's
>in short order.
>
>if the case does in fact go to court, i'm sure that you can deluge the court
>with internet people testifying that the posts were totally outside the
>normal bounds of USENET.

I bet the law firm of Clueless & Slime would call Argic, J Palmer, and
Cosar as expert witnesses to testify that there is plenty of precedent
that spamming news groups or posting ads is part of Usenet...

Spiros


--
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos Kokomo, IN 46904 (317) 451-0815
Software Development Tools, AD/SI c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Delco Electronics/GM Hughes Electronics [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]

Tom O Breton

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 4:32:18 PM4/13/94
to
zb...@junior.wariat.org (Zbigniew J. Tyrlik) writes:
> I think it is time to do something. I cannot imagine that
> couple brain-dead low-lifes can:
> - abuse and take advantage of resourcesm, violating
> agreements, common sense, etc, etc;
> - then threaten;

Yeah. Boy, if I thought they were assholes before, they're slime beneath
scum now. I'm gonna tell people in California that they're Japanese
tourists! I'm gonna tell Singapore that they egged and spraypainted
cars! I'm gonna give them Lorena Bobbitt's phone number as a "really
hot date"! I'm gonna tell Tonya Harding they're favored to win the next
olympics!

(Having calmed down a bit, actually I'm gonna complain to the state bar
association about them and their threat of abuse of process.)

> maybe it is place for EFF to take this case and sue them for damages to
> the net ?

To make that happen, we need a really clear idea of what is acceptable
how it excludes mega-posting. As it stands, it's on a slippery slope.

So -- if you're standing in court as plaintiff, and Loser & Co. bring
forth a respectable FAQ that's xposted to almost a dozen groups and say
"What's the difference?", what can we tell them?

What we can't say (IMO) is:

Posted to more than X groups at one time -- invitation to
dribble-post, like they and CT did.

Many posts that are exactly the same -- invitation to change one
punctuation mark per group.

If a lot of people complain afterwards -- No court is going to
accept that as a criterion (Except for politically hot issues,
where all sense of principle disappears, but I digress).


Tom

--
t...@world.std.com, TomB...@delphi.com
finger me for how Tehomega is coming along

Lewis E. Wolfgang

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 4:33:45 PM4/13/94
to
In article <2oh6sp$5...@xmission.xmission.com>,

Thayne Forbes <tha...@xmission.com> wrote:
>Michael Dobson (dob...@net.usuhs.mil) wrote:
>:> >
>:> Better yet, each site affected by this nonsense should FAX them an invoice
>:> for services rendered.
>
>Except that it is not customary for sites to charge remote users for
>storage of news nor processing of email.

The operative word here is "customary". The Green Card posting
was NOT customary. My inviting you into my home for a
short visit is not the same thing as you moving in to my
living room and setting up an automobile repair shop! Where
is the line drawn between customary storage of news and
denial of service to local paying customers?

I agree that one probably would not have legal recourse in
a venue where both defendant and plaintiff were represented,
but all it takes to loose in small claims court is to not
show up to defend yourself. It would be great fun to
subpoena them here in San Diego and have them loose by default
because they didn't show up. Since their advertisements
showed up here on MY system, for my LOCAL users to read
and respond to, I think the local courts have jurisdiction.

I could assert that they have damaged me to the tune of $1,000,
and if 10,000 other folks asserted the same thing across the
Fruited Plains, how could they defend themselves? And winning
a $1,000 judgement might make it worth collection.


Good luck,
Lewie Wolfgang

Brad Templeton

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 8:02:03 PM4/13/94
to
I am not sure I would like it if random net sites could recover damages from
people who post a lot of stuff that isn't liked.

I think the site that hosted these lawyers should be able to recover
damages, though, as should I, for posting their ads in the biz.clarinet groups.

Michael D. Maxfield

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 8:22:29 PM4/13/94
to
In article <1994Apr13.1...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> posted to the Usenet Newsgroup(s)
az.general,news.admin,news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,news.groups,news.misc

c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>
>I bet the law firm of Clueless & Slime would call Argic, J Palmer, and
>Cosar as expert witnesses to testify that there is plenty of precedent
>that spamming news groups or posting ads is part of Usenet...

Has anyone had any success contacting Larry Cantor? Being that 1,2 and
3 have happened (Feb 15, March 15 and Apr 12) it IS inevitable that
soon there will be a #4. Faced with this assumed fact, I would like
to suggest that someone get info to Larry Cantor on the availability
of a cheap 800 internet access via Rabbitnet. I am sure that Mr Cantor
will be happy to get that info, and JP would be proud to have cslaw as
a customer.

[with a very wide hole in my cheek right now]
tw...@netcom.com


USENET News System

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 11:40:35 PM4/13/94
to
Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse <j...@indirect.com> wrote:
>Recently, one of our users posted an Advertisement to the almost 5,000
>newsgroups available from our site. If you read USENET News, you have
>probably seen it at least once.

>We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
>The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
>the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00

I guess the lesson is clear, never accept laywers as customers...

John
---
John Hascall, jo...@dsm6.dsmnet.com

Bob MacDowell

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 12:32:20 AM4/14/94
to
tha...@xmission.com (Thayne Forbes) writes:

>Michael Dobson (dob...@net.usuhs.mil) wrote:
>:> >
>:> Better yet, each site affected by this nonsense should FAX them an invoice
>:> for services rendered.

>Except that it is not customary for sites to charge remote users for


>storage of news nor processing of email. Nice try though. If on the
>other hand this causes any site to go offline, then we do have denial
>of service, which would seem to be actionable.

I don't know about other sites, but Netcom's news server was getting
mighty inebriated last night, causing thousands of users to be unable
to read News. A connection? Wouldn't surprise me...

-Bob

Neil R. Marsh

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 1:21:22 AM4/14/94
to

Michael Dobson (dob...@net.usuhs.mil) wrote:
>
> Better yet, each site affected by this nonsense should FAX them an invoice
> for services rendered. In another post it was calculated that the average
> full feed site was storing in excess of 4 Meg worth of copies. Using your
> usual daily rate per Kbyte times your expire time times the number of
> servers in your organization should produce a nice little sum. At $30 to
> $40 per server, just processing a few hunderd claims should keep them busy.

I was thinking along that same line. There's an outfit called
"The Private Citizen" which shows you how to notify "junk callers"
that they can sub-lease your phone line for their commercial purposes
for a mere $100/per call. They are informed that they may signify
their acceptance of this arrangement by calling again. Every now and
then they zing the bejezuz out of some telemarketer.

One could adapt this to Usenet. "Sirs, your commercial
announcement arrived in several copies on the personal computer I
maintain for my own use [modify for a public site], taking up storage
space, CPU resources, and connect time. I am willing to allow you
short term disk space rental for $100 each for files of one KB or less
in size. You may rent addition space for larger files at $50 for each
additional KB or portion thereof. You may signify your acceptance of
these terms by continuing to send similar commercial announcements."

Tweak your rates, etc, then do that up nice and pretty and
ship it off in a registered letter, making sure to keep a copy and
file the return receipt. If nothing else it ought to get a spammer's
attention.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Marsh ne...@halcyon.com or ne...@menhir.chs.wa.com Chehalis, WA USA
My account My PC My opinion

Dave Bushong

unread,
Apr 13, 1994, 7:55:08 PM4/13/94
to
wolf...@sunspot.nosc.mil (Lewis E. Wolfgang) writes:

>In article <2oh6sp$5...@xmission.xmission.com>,
>Thayne Forbes <tha...@xmission.com> wrote:
>>Michael Dobson (dob...@net.usuhs.mil) wrote:
>>:> >
>>:> Better yet, each site affected by this nonsense should FAX them an invoice
>>:> for services rendered.
>>
>>Except that it is not customary for sites to charge remote users for
>>storage of news nor processing of email.

>The operative word here is "customary". The Green Card posting
>was NOT customary. My inviting you into my home for a
>short visit is not the same thing as you moving in to my
>living room and setting up an automobile repair shop! Where
>is the line drawn between customary storage of news and
>denial of service to local paying customers?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, which I hear is routine for people
getting ready for trial, so I'll say:

Dave: You say that Slime & Scum cost you $1,000 in pain and suffering,
is that your contention?

Wolf: Yes, that's right.

Dave: On my newsreader, Mr. Wolf, if that is your real name, I have a
'kill' feature. Do you know what a kill file is?

Wolf: Yes, of course. But...

Dave: Thank you. I was able to kill the posting from Spit & Smegma by
entering a total of eight keystrokes: K K S = A A P Y. Are you
charging $125 per keystroke in this suit?

Wolf: But they posted it to a bazillion newsgroups!

Dave: Does your newsreader allow you to kill messages in (a)ll
newsgroups if you choose to?

Wolf: Yes, it does.

Dave: So the eight keystrokes would have done it, right?

Wolf: Maybe, but the message would have been downloaded every time,
regardless of whether it was selected or not.

Dave: So, then, it's a lot like a highway billboard that is
constructed, and it costs money to build it, whether or not you
choose to read it, right? Is this a limitation of the software
that you are using, or is it something that Spitbucket &
ScumWad actually forced you to read?

You see where this is going, don't you?

Hey, wait a minute! Who wrote these rules of law in the first place,
anyway??!!

Oh. Now I understand.

Dave

(followups redirected, maybe or maybe not a good idea)

--
Dave Bushong, Wang Laboratories, Inc.

Jim Jewett

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 3:23:35 AM4/14/94
to
(Followups to news.admin.policy)

In article <Co7t1...@world.std.com>, Tom O Breton <t...@world.std.com> wrote:

>So -- if you're standing in court as plaintiff, and Loser & Co. bring
>forth a respectable FAQ that's xposted to almost a dozen groups and say
>"What's the difference?", what can we tell them?

>What we can't say (IMO) is:
>
> Posted to more than X groups at one time -- invitation to
> dribble-post, like they and CT did.

Unless one is news.answers, and it is approved by the moderators there?
I think it can claim special privileges as an archive of record.

> Many posts that are exactly the same -- invitation to change one
> punctuation mark per group.

Add the word "substantially"

They can and will quibble, but merely displacing commas won't be
enough to get it out to 1000s of groups.

> If a lot of people complain afterwards -- No court is going to
> accept that as a criterion (Except for politically hot issues,
> where all sense of principle disappears, but I digress).

Violates charters/community standards?

For commercials, this would be strengthened by pointing out the biz
hierarchy, so that it clearly is a time/place/manner restriction,
rather than outright restraint of speech.

_________ Have a favorite group or mailing list? Describe it to
| grou...@pitt.edu
jJ | Take only memories. ji...@eecs.umich.edu
\__/ Leave not even footprints. jew...@pitt.edu

Dan Newcombe

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 5:09:47 AM4/14/94
to
In article <Co82F...@wang.com> dbus...@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
>I'm playing devil's advocate here, which I hear is routine for people
>getting ready for trial, so I'll say:
>Dave: On my newsreader, Mr. Wolf, if that is your real name, I have a
> 'kill' feature. Do you know what a kill file is?
>Wolf: Yes, of course. But...
>Dave: Thank you. I was able to kill the posting from Spit & Smegma by
> entering a total of eight keystrokes: K K S = A A P Y. Are you
> charging $125 per keystroke in this suit?

Fine, I'll take them to court, cause my next response would have been:

Wolf: But my newsreader does not support kill files. Now give me my money.

Hmmm...maybe we should take it to Judge Wopner.


--
Dan Newcombe newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
Clayton State College Morrow, Georgia
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion

Elin Nicolaysen (I120)

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 9:05:16 AM4/14/94
to
Could someone also please make sure to let us know what eventually happens
with this case?

I mean, this sounds interesting, but, as I live in distant Norway, it's kind of
hard to keep track. (Except via the Net, of course!)

Elin

Paul Crossman

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 3:49:03 PM4/14/94
to
In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,

> Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
> PHONE: (602) 661-3911
> FAX: (602) 451-9717
>ADDRESS: 3333 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 250
> Phoenix, Arizona USA 85018

Gee, it's a DAMN SHAME that these guys don't have an 800 number. Everyone
could call them and cuss and spit for free. Free for that caller that is, not
free for them damn ******* ******** oops this is USENET, I can't say that
here....

Paul C.
--
Paul Crossman "With the lights out it's Metro. Tech. Park
UNIX System Manager less dangerous." 1 Park West
Avid Technology "Gonna find a way; a better Tewksbury, MA 01876
cros...@avid.com way!!!" - Kurt Cobain RIP (508) 640-3147

Pete Hartman

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 4:15:27 PM4/14/94
to
newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu (Dan Newcombe) writes:

:In article <Co82F...@wang.com> dbus...@wang.com (Dave Bushong) writes:
:>I'm playing devil's advocate here, which I hear is routine for people
:>getting ready for trial, so I'll say:
:>Dave: On my newsreader, Mr. Wolf, if that is your real name, I have a
:> 'kill' feature. Do you know what a kill file is?
:>Wolf: Yes, of course. But...
:>Dave: Thank you. I was able to kill the posting from Spit & Smegma by
:> entering a total of eight keystrokes: K K S = A A P Y. Are you
:> charging $125 per keystroke in this suit?
:Fine, I'll take them to court, cause my next response would have been:
:Wolf: But my newsreader does not support kill files. Now give me my money.

But then why can't you get one that does support kill files, and is it
their fault you don't have one?


(more devil's advocate of course, I am in complete agreement that these bozos
should be toasted).

David Criswell

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 4:25:40 PM4/14/94
to
In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com> j...@indirect.com (Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse) writes:
>Recently, one of our users posted an Advertisement to the almost 5,000
>newsgroups available from our site. If you read USENET News, you have
>probably seen it at least once.

I have no joke here, I just like saying "If you read USENET News, you
have probably seen it at least once." Say, does anybody have a way
for me to make money fast?

>We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
>The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
>the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00

What?!? What grounds could Canter & Siegel possibly have against
Indirect? Indirect is the victim here, and C&S are the perpetrators!
They had nothing to lose by doing this except the indirect account.

[del]


>For a more comprehensive statement concerning this incident, please
>check the first couple of entries in our gopher server (gopher.indirect.com).

_This_ is, without doubt, the best response I've seen to this sort
of thing. I'd send jdw a note telling him so, but I think he's got his
hands full for the next few days.

[del]
>Jeff Wheelhouse (j...@rosencrantz.indirect.com)

Let's see if I have this straight.

1) C&S get account on some LA BBS (was this Digital Popcorn?)
and use it to spam the *.general groups. The first one was done
one group at a time, insuring maximum bandwidth consumption.
Result? Surprise! account yanked.

2) C&S get account on Netcom, and use it to send out a massive
inappropriate crossposted ad. Again, account yanked. (Note: Attack
#2 did use crossposting, so did not drain resources the way #1 and
#3 did.) Somebody quoted sup...@netcom.com's response to this
yesterday, indicating that cs...@netcom.com was indeed toasted.
This was only about 2 days after the Popcorn incident, so some
people may have interpreted this as 1 attack. (Alternate theory:
Popcorn spotted the attack midway thru and stopped it. Netcom's
more sophisticated software makes xposting easier, so they
finished it off that way.)

3) C&S get account on indirect. They send out as many posts
as possible, not crossposting except where doing so allows a
poorly propagated local group to "ride" on a better propagated
mainstream group. [If anyone has theories on why they didn't
xpost more besides "to intentionally cause the internet as
many problems as possible" I'd love to hear them.] The "riding"
technique displays a pretty good knowledge of how the net works.
Also, the fact that some of the postings directed replies to
another account not on indirect shows that C&S knew that
cs...@indirect.com was doomed.

4) Indirect, shut down by the irate email, yanks the cslaw account.
C&S initiate legal threats. (I don't understand the nature of
these threats.)

5) cs...@netcom.com account reappears! Gee, you don't think
anybody made legal threats at netcom too, do you? And, we're
all set up for the next round of spamming.

That, folks, is _not_ a newbie goof. The indirect posting had very
clear implications - the netcom and popcorn blowups showed pretty
much what happens when one does this stuff. I don't believe for one
minute that the $100 "paperwork fee" was what they were after.
Indirect was set up - and Netcom's next.

The lawyers are upon us. Imminent death, oh never mind.


Dave Criswell
Oracle Corporation

Mitra

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 5:22:53 PM4/14/94
to
It appears that these net-bozos have had their access restored, since
our site just received a control-message requesting our news version
number from ni...@internet.com - the account supposedly pulled.

Beware - who knows what they'll be up to next.

On a point of fact regarding their posting - I saw a letter from another
immigration attorney to a friend of mine about the lottery, this
explicitly stated that "Their is NO advantage to using an immigration
attorney" to file for the lottery.


- Mitra

Jeff Bytof - SIO

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 5:56:31 PM4/14/94
to
In article <Co9q2...@pandora.sf.ca.us> mi...@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra) writes:
>It appears that these net-bozos have had their access restored, since
>our site just received a control-message requesting our news version
>number from ni...@internet.com - the account supposedly pulled.
>
I just fingered these two accounts. Is it possible you're getting some
kind of echo?

----------------------------------------------------------
[indirect.com]
Login: nike Name: Laurence Canter
Directory: /users/n/nike Shell: /etc/disabled
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Last login Tue Apr 12 13:25 (MST) on ttypc from phx-ts4
No Plan.

------------------------------------------------------------
[indirect.com]
Login: cslaw Name: Laurence Canter
Directory: /users/c/cslaw Shell: /etc/disabled
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Last login Tue Apr 12 13:26 (MST) on ttyr1 from phx-ts4
No Plan.

-Jeff Bytof

Ed Falk

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 6:24:18 PM4/14/94
to
In article <2ok6nf$2...@avid.avid.com> pcro...@avid.avid.com (Paul Crossman) writes:
>In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,
>> Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
>> PHONE: (602) 661-3911
>> FAX: (602) 451-9717
>>ADDRESS: 3333 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 250
>> Phoenix, Arizona USA 85018
>
>Gee, it's a DAMN SHAME that these guys don't have an 800 number. Everyone
>could call them and cuss and spit for free. Free for that caller that is, not
>free for them damn ******* ******** oops this is USENET, I can't say that
>here....

I note that they have a fax number. Perhaps you should (nicely!) fax them
a copy of the netiquette guide.

--
-ed falk, sun microsystems
sun!falk, fa...@sun.com
card-carrying ACLU member.

Ron Newman

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 7:07:29 PM4/14/94
to
I've seen several references here to a San Jose Mercury article on
the Green Card spamming.

Can anyone post a copy of it to news.admin.* ? I'd expect the Mercury
would be happy to grant permission for such a posting.
--
Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
rne...@media.mit.edu

Claudia Mastroianni

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 4:51:54 PM4/14/94
to
t...@world.std.com (Tom O Breton) writes:
>So -- if you're standing in court as plaintiff, and Loser & Co. bring
>forth a respectable FAQ that's xposted to almost a dozen groups and say
>"What's the difference?", what can we tell them?

>What we can't say (IMO) is:

> Posted to more than X groups at one time -- invitation to
> dribble-post, like they and CT did.

> Many posts that are exactly the same -- invitation to change one
> punctuation mark per group.

> If a lot of people complain afterwards -- No court is going to
> accept that as a criterion (Except for politically hot issues,
> where all sense of principle disappears, but I digress).


Seems to me that off-topic posting covers it.
Off-topic posts are a nuisance. An off-topic post that
goes to more than N groups is more than a nuisance.
Make N whatever you like as a threshhold value.

A cross-posted FAQ is, by its nature, on-topic if the
maintainers are doing their jobs. :-)

I don't think "exactly the same" is important, here.
I bet this hypothetical court would recognize posts
as substantially the same that had minor quibbling changes.

Claudia

Jo Ann Malina

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 10:21:09 PM4/14/94
to
In article <1994Apr14....@news.media.mit.edu>, rne...@josquin.media.mit.edu (Ron Newman) writes:
|> I've seen several references here to a San Jose Mercury article on
|> the Green Card spamming.
|>
|> Can anyone post a copy of it to news.admin.* ? I'd expect the Mercury
|> would be happy to grant permission for such a posting.

In the meantime, it can be read from indirect.com as:
gopher://gopher.direct.net:70/00/sjmn


*) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)!(* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (* (*
Jo Ann Malina, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
jo...@slac.stanford.edu -or- 415/926-2846
Neither Stanford nor the DOE would be caught dead with these opinions.
Nor do they consult me when formulating theirs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe is made of stories, not atoms. --Muriel Rukeyser

Taki Kogoma

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 10:06:02 PM4/14/94
to
[news.admin deleted form Newsgroups: line - bogus newsgroup.]

mi...@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra) was observed writing in
news.misc:


>It appears that these net-bozos have had their access restored, since
>our site just received a control-message requesting our news version
>number from ni...@internet.com - the account supposedly pulled.

Check out news.admin.misc. This was someone's idea of "revenge" by
forging the request.

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
kog...@unm.edu | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk

Patrick P. Murphy

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 10:40:54 PM4/14/94
to

RN> I've seen several references here to a San Jose Mercury article on
RN> the Green Card spamming.

RN> Can anyone post a copy of it to news.admin.* ? I'd expect the Mercury
RN> would be happy to grant permission for such a posting.

Check out the gopher at gopher.indirect.com. I believe most of the
article is there, or at least they've paraphrased it.

- Pat
--
=============================================================================
Patrick P. Murphy, Ph.D. Scientific Programming Analyst
National Radio Astronomy Observatory pmu...@nrao.edu
520 Edgemont Road Tel: (804) 296-0372
Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 Fax: (804) 296-0278
web: http://orangutan.cv.nrao.edu/
"I don't believe in the no-win scenario" --- James T. Kirk
=============================================================================

Emery Lapinski

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 10:47:00 PM4/14/94
to
In article <2okfqi$p...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> fa...@peregrine.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>In article <2ok6nf$2...@avid.avid.com> pcro...@avid.avid.com (Paul Crossman) writes:
>>In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,
>>> Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
>>> PHONE: (602) 661-3911
>>> FAX: (602) 451-9717
>>>ADDRESS: 3333 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 250
>>> Phoenix, Arizona USA 85018
>>

[deleted]

>I note that they have a fax number. Perhaps you should (nicely!) fax them
>a copy of the netiquette guide.


I dialed into their fax. I don't know if it is my fax-modem (Intel144/144e),
something I'm doing wrong, or some incompatibilty with their fax,
but it would only receive a single page before hanging up.

Really frustrating.

And they won't accept my collect calls either!

-Emery
--
e...@graphics.cs.nyu.edu Emery "Will grind code for food" Lapinski
I have no professional affiliation with NYU -- these words are mine, all mine.
GCS d? p---(++) c++ l++ u++ e- m-- s-/+ !n(---) h++ f?(--) g+ w+ t+ r(-) y*(?)
The Geek Code is copyright 1993 by Robert A. Hayden. All rights reserved.

Daniel Greenberg

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 11:03:02 PM4/14/94
to
In article <1994Apr14.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com>
dcri...@oracle.uucp (David Criswell) writes the paragraph preceded by
one greater-than sign:


>>We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
>>The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
>>the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00

>4) Indirect, shut down by the irate email, yanks the cslaw account.


>C&S initiate legal threats. (I don't understand the nature of
>these threats.)

I don't really understand these threats either. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but don't most systems have charters/rules stating that "the user's
account may be removed or disabled for any misuse of the system" (or some
such thing)? This phrase seems to be subject to a large amount of
interpretation, at least on the part of the sysadmins.
It seems to me that Canter and Siegel's threats are probably intended more
to intimidate Indirect, perhaps in an attempt to have their account
reinstated (my guess is that Indirect would want to avoid legal battles at
all costs, and C&S knows this.)

So why do we have to put up with this crap, anyway? Stupid lawyers....

[Disclaimer: I refer here to C&S, not to lawyers in general.]

At any rate, it was good of Indirect to post the report of their actions;
at least we know *something's* been done.

--Dan
<dgb...@acpub.duke.edu>

>Dave Criswell
>Oracle Corporation


David DeLaney

unread,
Apr 14, 1994, 11:33:29 PM4/14/94
to
dgb...@acpub.duke.edu (Daniel Greenberg) writes:
>dcri...@oracle.uucp (David Criswell) writes:

>>someone from indirect.com wrote:
>>>We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
>>>The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
>>>the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00
>
>>4) Indirect, shut down by the irate email, yanks the cslaw account.
>>C&S initiate legal threats. (I don't understand the nature of
>>these threats.)
>
>I don't really understand these threats either. Correct me if I'm wrong,
>but don't most systems have charters/rules stating that "the user's
>account may be removed or disabled for any misuse of the system" (or some
>such thing)? This phrase seems to be subject to a large amount of
>interpretation, at least on the part of the sysadmins.
> It seems to me that Canter and Siegel's threats are probably intended more
>to intimidate Indirect, perhaps in an attempt to have their account
>reinstated (my guess is that Indirect would want to avoid legal battles at
>all costs, and C&S knows this.)

Somewhere else in this thread, someone was making noises about C&S not having
actually *signed* a user agreement with indirect.com, and thus apparently
feeling they weren't bound by any such charter. If anyone's got the reference,
followup please...

Dave "lawyers and DaveRhodes: professional courtesy" DeLaney
--
David DeLaney: d...@utkux.utcc.utk.edu; WARNING: DO NOT PUT BEANS IN YOUR EARS!
Disclaimer: UTK agree with me? Yeah, right...; Thinking about this disclaimer__
may cause offense, brain seizure, confusion, or particle physics. VRbeableDJK\/
http://enigma.phys.utk.edu/~dbd for the net.legends FAQ + miniFAQs, or anon-ftp

Bengt Larsson

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 12:55:51 AM4/15/94
to

Well, the lesson to the provider is to never allow anyone on without
having them sign a contract in writing (and having it returned).
Posting to the net is not (should not be) a right, like having an
ordinary phone connection is not a right.

Bengt

Sameer Manek:SysOp

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 1:09:33 AM4/15/94
to
sp...@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) writes:

> In article <Co6I2...@reptiles.org>, Jim Mercer <j...@reptiles.org> wrote:
> >In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,


> >Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse <j...@indirect.com> wrote:
> >>Now, the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.
> >

> >i hope that you don't bend to this scare tactic.
> >
> >i think that your state bar association will be hearing about these bozo's
> >in short order.
>
> And for those of you that want to contact the Arizona Bar Association
> to complain about unethical behavior, their number is 602-252-4804.
> Call and ask for a complaint brochure and form. (In order for
> formal action to be taken, you have to submit a complaint in writing.
> They'll mail you the forms and info for free. I also suspect that
> a large number of phone calls will tell them something as well.)
>
Excellent idea..or better yet forge posts to alt.sex because in
today's paper (san jose mercury news) it lists them as a
husband and wife team..maybe if everyone were to send them
the stuff that comes from alt.sex.* to them it might cause
a bit of problems between the two.

hmmm.

---------------- Sameer Manek::SysOp of the BigBrother BBS -----------------
monitoring people's lives since George Orwell's 1984
Sea...@YesaNeXT.sbay.org "Starlight, starbright, wish I may, wish I
Sea...@YesaNeXT.TheTech.COM might, turn this PC into a NexT"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Simmons

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 2:21:40 AM4/15/94
to
Does this mean anything?

[netcom.com]

Laurence A Canter (cslaw)
Home: /u1/cslaw
Shell: /bin/tcsh
New mail since Thu Apr 14 23:16:50 1994
Has not read mail for 0:02:02.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Laurence A Canter (cslaw) is not presently logged in.
Last seen at netcom on Thu Apr 14 21:01:16 1994


I had fingered him not 15 seconds before this finger and it said "Has not
read mail for (null)"

Does this mean that possibly there is a script moving his mail out of the
spool and into either /dev/null or into a file somewhere? I would verify
him to see if his mail is being fed into a filter, but I can't connect to
netcom's smtp port.

Hiroki Morizono

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 4:46:33 AM4/15/94
to
Bob MacDowell (bob...@netcom.com) wrote:

What happens if you got their post in a country in which it is
illegal for lawyers to advertise?
There must be some enlightened nations left out there still.
Hiroki

Hiroki Morizono

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 5:26:03 AM4/15/94
to
Hiroki Morizono (hir...@limerick.cbs.umn.edu) wrote:

: What happens if you got their post in a country in which it is

: illegal for lawyers to advertise?
: There must be some enlightened nations left out there still.

Urk, I hate following up on myself, more so when things are crossposted
all over the place. Sorry.
IT'S A DUMB IDEA because then it can propagate till any
two bit tribal elder/village idiot with a
newsfeed starts to make decisions on what you can read
or post based on their local system of law.
And it explains why no one else brought it up.
Hiroki


PE. Smee

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 5:31:20 AM4/15/94
to
In article <Co9q2...@pandora.sf.ca.us>, Mitra <mi...@pandora.sf.ca.us> wrote:
>It appears that these net-bozos have had their access restored, since
>our site just received a control-message requesting our news version
>number from ni...@internet.com - the account supposedly pulled.
>
>Beware - who knows what they'll be up to next.

NO, NO, NO. That was a forged 'send-version' control message, which
was intended to 'further punish' ni...@indirect.com by causing them to
be flooded with version responses. It didn't COME from them, and since
their account has been zapped the only people it will inconvenience are
their poor service providers, who are having enough problems already.

--
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
P.S...@bristol.ac.uk - Tel +44 272 303132 - FAX +44 272 291576

Jacqueline Hamilton

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 9:12:57 AM4/15/94
to
In article <2oke6f$d...@pravda.sdsc.edu>,

Jeff Bytof - SIO <u1...@boris.sdsc.edu> wrote:
>In article <Co9q2...@pandora.sf.ca.us> mi...@pandora.sf.ca.us (Mitra) writes:
>>It appears that these net-bozos have had their access restored, since
>>our site just received a control-message requesting our news version
>>number from ni...@internet.com - the account supposedly pulled.
>>
>I just fingered these two accounts. Is it possible you're getting some
>kind of echo?
>
> [fingers of indirect.com deleted]

Yes, but this one doesnt look disabled. Can we kill this bozo now?
*sigh*

-----
% finger cs...@netcom.com
[netcom.com]

Laurence A Canter (cslaw)
Home: /u1/cslaw
Shell: /bin/tcsh

No mail.


Laurence A Canter (cslaw) is not presently logged in.

Last seen at netcom11 on Fri Apr 15 06:05:04 1994


No plan.

Kirk Wattles

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 9:35:26 AM4/15/94
to
>It appears that these net-bozos have had their access restored, since
>our site just received a control-message requesting our news version
>number from ni...@internet.com - the account supposedly pulled.
>
>Beware - who knows what they'll be up to next.

See soc.culture.laos for an iteration I haven't seen mentioned in
news.groups yet: cs...@lcanter.win.net

Someone inadvertently followed up to their posting, rather than
replying.

>On a point of fact regarding their posting - I saw a letter from another
>immigration attorney to a friend of mine about the lottery, this
>explicitly stated that "Their is NO advantage to using an immigration
>attorney" to file for the lottery.

The followup/reply demonstrates why "cslaw" is doing this. With a big
enough buffer, they may figure it's worth paying a clerk minimum wage
to blow off the chaff to get to the wheat (gullible would-be Americans).


Michael Covington

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 9:39:05 AM4/15/94
to
In article <Li6skc...@yesanext.sbay.org> sea...@yesanext.sbay.org (Sameer Manek:SysOp) writes:

>Excellent idea..or better yet forge posts to alt.sex because in
>today's paper (san jose mercury news) it lists them as a
>husband and wife team..maybe if everyone were to send them
>the stuff that comes from alt.sex.* to them it might cause
>a bit of problems between the two.

Definitely not. Never respond to an illegal act with another illegal act.
Especially when the victim of the latter is a lawyer who is known to be
something of a loose cannon!!!
--
< Michael A. Covington, Assc Rsch Scientist, Artificial Intelligence Programs >
< The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7415 USA mcov...@ai.uga.edu >
< Unless specifically indicated, I am not speaking for the University. > <><
For information about any U.Ga. graduate program, email gra...@uga.cc.uga.edu.

Gregory S. Rogers

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 9:50:28 AM4/15/94
to
From the Gov't pages in the phone book:

The Justice Department:

General Info: 1-202-514-2000
:
Citizens Complaint Center US Attoneys Office: 1-202-724-7579
:
Deputy Attorney General: 1-202-514-2000 (Note same as above Gen Info)
:
Executive Office for US Attorney's: 1-202-514-2000(Note same as above Gen Info)
:
FBI (24 Hrs.): 1-202-324-3000
:
Public Affairs Office: 1-202-514-2000 (Note same as above Gen Info)

--Scott

Christoph Weber-Fahr [KIT]

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 10:01:11 AM4/15/94
to
Hello,

Hm...well, beeing one of the tribal people you mention (:-) I woul like
to mention, that they specifically posted to many .de groups despite of
the fact that lawyer advertizing is illegal in all countries where this
hierarchy is considered local.

FWIW, I doubt C+S would be allowed to practice here ...:-)

Regards

Christoph Weber-Fahr


--
Christoph Weber-Fahr | E-Mail: we...@rhrk.uni-kl.de
Universitaet Kaiserslautern, KIT | S-Mail: Postfach 3049
Tel. 0631/205-3391 | D-67653 Kaiserslautern
-------------------------- My personal opinion only ---------------------

Mari Johnson

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 11:56:33 AM4/15/94
to
In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,
Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse <j...@indirect.com> wrote:
>
> Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
> PHONE: (602) 661-3911
> FAX: (602) xxx-xxxx
should be (602) 451-7617

Jack Campin

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 12:06:26 PM4/15/94
to
dcri...@oracle.uucp (David Criswell) wrote:
> Let's see if I have this straight.
> 1) C&S get account on some LA BBS (was this Digital Popcorn?)
> and use it to spam the *.general groups. The first one was done
> one group at a time, insuring maximum bandwidth consumption.
> Result? Surprise! account yanked.
> 2) C&S get account on Netcom, and use it to send out a massive
> inappropriate crossposted ad. Again, account yanked.

Their cs...@netcom.com account was *not* yanked; it is still active and
they read their mail today. Presumably, since Netcom appear to have no
interest in stopping them, they will do the same again from there.

--
-- Jack Campin -- Room 1.36, Department of Computing & Electrical Engineering,
Mountbatten Building, Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
TEL: 031 449 5111 ext 4195 HOME: 031 556 5272 FAX: 031 451 3431
INTERNET: ja...@cee.hw.ac.uk BITNET: via UKACRL BANG!net: via mcsun & uknet

Michael Rothstein

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 12:18:47 PM4/15/94
to
In article <1994Apr13.1...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
-In article <Co6I2...@reptiles.org> j...@reptiles.org (Jim Mercer) writes:
--
--In article <2ofno9$8...@herald.indirect.com>,
--Jeffrey D. Wheelhouse <j...@indirect.com> wrote:
---Now, the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00
--
--i hope that you don't bend to this scare tactic.
--
--i think that your state bar association will be hearing about these bozo's
--in short order.
--
--if the case does in fact go to court, i'm sure that you can deluge the court
--with internet people testifying that the posts were totally outside the
--normal bounds of USENET.
-
-I bet the law firm of Clueless & Slime would call Argic, J Palmer, and
-Cosar as expert witnesses to testify that there is plenty of precedent
-that spamming news groups or posting ads is part of Usenet...
-

IMHO, what these shysters did is the electronic equivalent of showing
up at every single office, shopping mall, classroom, courtroom, theatre,
and every other room open to the public offering their wares at full
voice. True, there is plenty of precedent for this kind of thing, but
that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

I think the judge/jury would become much more sympathetic if this comparison
were made, specifically for the courthouse where the action is taking place.
--
Michael Rothstein (Kent State U)| Any similarity between Kent State's opinions
(roth...@mcs.kent.edu) | and my opinions is strictly coincidential.

Thayne Forbes

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 1:59:40 PM4/15/94
to
David DeLaney (d...@martha.utcc.utk.edu) wrote:

:> dgb...@acpub.duke.edu (Daniel Greenberg) writes:
:> >dcri...@oracle.uucp (David Criswell) writes:
:> >>someone from indirect.com wrote:
:> >>>We do not condone this. In fact, this expressly violates our user agreement.
:> >>>The users responsible for this action have been disabled on our system. Now,
:> >>>the law firm of Canter & Siegel has threatened to sue us for $250,000.00
:> >
:> >>4) Indirect, shut down by the irate email, yanks the cslaw account.
:> >>C&S initiate legal threats. (I don't understand the nature of
:> >>these threats.)
:> >
:> >I don't really understand these threats either. Correct me if I'm wrong,
:> >but don't most systems have charters/rules stating that "the user's
:> >account may be removed or disabled for any misuse of the system" (or some
:> >such thing)? This phrase seems to be subject to a large amount of
:> >interpretation, at least on the part of the sysadmins.

:> Somewhere else in this thread, someone was making noises about C&S not having


:> actually *signed* a user agreement with indirect.com, and thus apparently
:> feeling they weren't bound by any such charter. If anyone's got the reference,
:> followup please...

I just FTP'd a bunch of stuff from ftp.indirect.com. It is very
illuminating. There is in fact an email from Jeff that admits that
they were sent an agreement, but had never signed it. There is also
a copy of the contract that they were sent, and it is rather clear
that not only is commercial traffic not generally acceptable, but
that they will remove access to anyone who causes trouble on the
machine. As someone else has pointed out, C&S were walking a fine
line.

(If anyone would like to suggest how we can consolidate this discussion
to one group, I would be amenable. I suggest news.admin.misc).
--
Thayne Forbes tha...@xmission.com
Computer Weenie at large

Thayne Forbes

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 2:08:34 PM4/15/94
to
Jo Ann Malina (jo...@ariadne.SLAC.Stanford.EDU) wrote:

:> In article <1994Apr14....@news.media.mit.edu>, rne...@josquin.media.mit.edu (Ron Newman) writes:
:> |> I've seen several references here to a San Jose Mercury article on
:> |> the Green Card spamming.
:> |>
:> |> Can anyone post a copy of it to news.admin.* ? I'd expect the Mercury
:> |> would be happy to grant permission for such a posting.

:> In the meantime, it can be read from indirect.com as:
:> gopher://gopher.direct.net:70/00/sjmn

Or downloaded from ftp.indirect.com: /pub/info

Lon Stowell

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 3:32:35 PM4/15/94
to
In article <Co7DCB...@cs.cmu.edu> sp...@cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) writes:
>
>And for those of you that want to contact the Arizona Bar Association
>to complain about unethical behavior, their number is 602-252-4804.
>Call and ask for a complaint brochure and form. (In order for
>formal action to be taken, you have to submit a complaint in writing.
>They'll mail you the forms and info for free. I also suspect that
>a large number of phone calls will tell them something as well.)
>

Someone has claimed that Postcrap, Sueem, and Cheatem is
members of the Tennesee bar, not Arizona?

IF that is true, is it legal for them to malpractice law in
Arizona, or do they restrict themselves to strictly electronic
means to avoid the issue?

If they actually do file the threatened lawsuit, are there any
volunteers to collect donations to cover the full legal expenses
the folks at indirect.com are gonna have?


Jonathan Seitz

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 4:11:07 PM4/15/94
to
David DeLaney (d...@martha.utcc.utk.edu) wrote:
: Somewhere else in this thread, someone was making noises about C&S not having

: actually *signed* a user agreement with indirect.com, and thus apparently
: feeling they weren't bound by any such charter. If anyone's got the reference,
: followup please...

From gopher.indirect.com:

---Begin Quote---
Unfortunately, this incident was caused by a law firm, Canter & Siegel,
who believe they have found a loophole in the contract which allows them to
post in a manner we feel to be irresponsible. In fact, this law firm has
threatened to sue us for $250,000 if we try to block their mail in any way.

BTW - The loophole they think they have found is that they never signed the
user agreement and say we have an "implied contract" with them.... We
mailed an agreement to them, but they never returned it.

---End Quote---

Jonathan.

_____
jona...@raptor.sccs.swarthmore.edu
(aka jse...@cc.swarthmore.edu or ci...@cleveland.freenet.edu)
Do you seriously think there's anyone who would let *me* speak for them?
_____
Stay tuned for more of Marcel Marceau's new CD, "The Sound of Silence."

Dave Hayes

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 4:12:13 PM4/15/94
to
mcov...@pollux.cs.uga.edu (Michael Covington) writes:
>Precisely. My opinion, and that of colleagues I have talked with, is
>that off-topic posting is unauthorized computer usage. Net users are
>only authorized to use the net in accordance with the net's regulations.

What net regulations? This network is an ANARCHY. Period.
--
Dave Hayes - Institutional Network & Communications - JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh

To the ignorant, a pearl seems a mere stone.

Cameron Perkins

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 4:58:02 PM4/15/94
to
Daniel Greenberg (dgb...@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: I don't really understand these threats either. Correct me if I'm wrong,

: but don't most systems have charters/rules stating that "the user's
: account may be removed or disabled for any misuse of the system" (or some
: such thing)? This phrase seems to be subject to a large amount of
: interpretation, at least on the part of the sysadmins.

According to the information on Indirect's gopher(gopher.indirect.com),
C&S never signed the agreement that Indirect sent and are using that as
the basis of their suit. It seems to me that Indirect could use C&S's
failure to sign as justification, but I'm not a laywer.

Karl_Kl...@cs.cmu.edu

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 5:11:07 PM4/15/94
to
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa writes, in regard to questions of "net regulations":

> What net regulations? This network is an ANARCHY. Period.

The Usenet certainly has no identifiable regulations.

However, the mechanism by which a site connects for participation in
the Usenet may well have regulations. I refer you to the archive
ftp://nis.nsf.net/acceptable.use.policies. There you will find the
AUP of a number of regional networks, and nearly all of them quite
specifically ban "unsolicited advertising," and similarly mention
"disruption" and "harassment" as unacceptable uses. (It is of course
interesting that this affects both C&S as well as those proposing
mail-bombing against C&S as a sort of pyrrhic "solution.")

Thus, advertising that originates from any such network must, I
believe, be delivered in a passive sense, e.g., Web-accessible
materials and so forth. I don't see anyone arguing with Branch
Information Services, the folks who make florists and others able to
conduct business on the Internet directly; branch.com is served by
CICNet, whose AUP is there on nis.nsf.net and which is quite explicit
in its comment on such things:

It is not acceptable to use CICNet so as to interfere with or disrupt
network users, services or equipment. Such interference or
disruption includes, but is not limited to: distribution of
unsolicited advertising; propagation of computer worms or viruses;
and using the network to make unauthorized entry to other
computational, information, or communications devices or resources.

Regrettably, Internet Direct is connected through "SprintLink," about
which I know very little, and whose AUP is not available at the same
place. It would be interesting to know SprintLink's AUP in this
regard. Similarly, Netcom, C&S' apparent other primary connectivity
point, connects via ANS, whose AUP is also not on file at nis.nsf.net.
What is ANS' corporate policy on unsolicited advertising? Does anyone
know?

As usual, Dave, you're seeing the world in black and white -- "This
network is an ANARCHY. Period." -- when in fact there are a huge
number of shades of grey: Internet Direct is surely accountable to
SprintLink in some contractual sense.

I think it would be highly entertaining and valuable to find a means
by which Internet Direct could force disconnection of C&S-like people
as a result of having caused Internet Direct to suffer at the hands of
its bitpipe supplier due to AUP violation.

Jolyon Silversmith

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 6:09:29 PM4/15/94
to
As posted previously, Canter and Siegel are members of the American Immigration
Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the American Bar Association.
It's address is 1400 Eye Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, (202)
371-9377 or FAX (202) 463-6325. The Executive Director is Warren Leiden.

[As a former DC resident, I wonder if that should be "I" Street, but that's
what the reference source I used said...

--
_________________________ Jolyon ("Jol") Silversmith __________________________
silv...@husc.harvard.edu Past Director: Civil Liberties Union of Harvard
Mather House Mail Ctr 356 Editor: The Mather Messenger (House Newsletter)
____________ I have a firm grip on reality. Now I can strangle it. ____________

Dave Hayes

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 7:57:19 PM4/15/94
to
Karl_Kl...@cs.cmu.edu writes:
>da...@elxr.jpl.nasa writes, in regard to questions of "net regulations":
>> What net regulations? This network is an ANARCHY. Period.
>The Usenet certainly has no identifiable regulations.

Exactly.

>However, the mechanism by which a site connects for participation in
>the Usenet may well have regulations.

Er...I was only talking about Usenet.

>AUP of a number of regional networks, and nearly all of them quite
>specifically ban "unsolicited advertising," and similarly mention
>"disruption" and "harassment" as unacceptable uses.

Ok. Do they define standards of "disruption" and "harrasment"?
Would I be off base for saying "You are a twit"? Isn't that
harrassing you?

(I keep harping on standards for a reason.)

>As usual, Dave, you're seeing the world in black and white -- "This
>network is an ANARCHY. Period." -- when in fact there are a huge
>number of shades of grey: Internet Direct is surely accountable to
>SprintLink in some contractual sense.

The grey shades come in examining the wrong problem...I was talking about
USENET. There are some who can connect restriction free.

--
Dave Hayes - Institutional Network & Communications - JPL/NASA - Pasadena CA
da...@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov da...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov ...usc!elroy!dxh

"Why, Nasrudin, don't you spend some time practicing higher forms of thought
in order to improve yourself?"
"For the same reason that lions don't catch fish."
"Oh, you mean that you are not equipped for it?"
"No, I only mean that I haven't got around to it yet."

Mark Eckenwiler

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 8:25:04 PM4/15/94
to
In <2on3ap$j...@scunix2.harvard.edu>, silv...@husc9.harvard.edu sez:
>As posted previously, Canter and Siegel are members of the American Immigration
>Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the American Bar Association.
>It's address is 1400 Eye Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005, (202)
>371-9377 or FAX (202) 463-6325. The Executive Director is Warren Leiden.
>
>[As a former DC resident, I wonder if that should be "I" Street, but that's
>what the reference source I used said...

Technically, it *is* "I" Street (between H and K; there's no J), but
the convention is to write "Eye" to make clear that it's not First
Street, nor Lower-Case-Ell Street, nor 14001 Street.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Canter & Siegel. Thank God.

Dave Ratcliffe

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 8:55:38 PM4/15/94
to
In article <1994Apr13.1...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com>, c2...@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
- I bet the law firm of Clueless & Slime would call Argic, J Palmer, and
- Cosar as expert witnesses to testify that there is plenty of precedent
- that spamming news groups or posting ads is part of Usenet...

Just THINK of the wittness credibility problem they'd have to deal
with :)

--
Dave Ratcliffe vogon1!frackit!da...@cse.psu.edu
Harrisburg, Pa.

Kwok K. Chan

unread,
Apr 15, 1994, 11:18:19 PM4/15/94
to
In article <ML.94Apr...@sylvia.sylog.se> m...@sylvia.sylog.se (Mats Luthman) writes:
> > Canter and Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
> > PHONE: (602) 661-3911
> > FAX: (602) 451-9717

> >ADDRESS: 3333 E. Camelback Rd., Ste 250
> > Phoenix, Arizona USA 85018
>
> Good job with this gopher stuff. I strongly encourage to call them and