From jj at scn.org Sun Sep 14 20:49:29 1997 From: jj at scn.org (John Johnson) Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN as a spam problem Message-ID: Spam--unsolicited bulk e-mail--has become a major problem on the Internet. And SCN has become part of the problem. We are being used as a 'spam relay' to innundate others, and other sites are complaining that we have not corrected this. We have reached the point where other sites may begin refusing connections from SCN. And the traffic generated burdens our Internet connection, and could imperil its continued availability. For these reasons I say that we need to deal with this spam relay problem--effectively, and immediately. It is not just another urgent priority--it is a critical problem of paramount importance. We have a simple spam filter in place now which reputedly removes all but a small portion of the spam. But to judge by the irate mail we are receiving from other sites, that small portion is much too great. Additional technical work is being undertaken (like installing a new version of the 'sendmail' program, and other software). But these steps are only protective responses--they don't really get to the basic problem. Because spam has become such a major problem, I wonder if we should make a major multi-pronged response. I therefore propose, and ask the Board to consider, organizing a set of Anti-spam Task Groups (or some such) with tasks along the following lines: 1- Oversight. A group of folks to monitor the news groups, do other research, generally keep in touch with what is happening and look for resources, and then share that (possibly via summaries and a local newsgroup) and generally be a resource for the other task groups. Arrange coordination with other sites or groups. 2- Technical. A subset of Hardware/Software to do needed technical things on SCN (like upgrading sendmail, installing spam filters, etc.). Also to set up monitoring and guard our gate. 3- User education. A group to determine what our users need to know about spam and what to do--and not to do!--about it, and provide useful user-oriented resources (such as a Web page with links to principal anti-spam sites). A lot of this would go into the Help Desk and Help Pages, but someone needs to get the information and package it. 4- Political. Yes! Let's organize exploration of what can be done, build a consensus, and then organize our members to be a potent, effective force for lobbying public officials and any other levers of power. 5- Legal. Does the law provide us with any remedies to computer trespass and theft of services? This needs research, and documentation. And several people to build contacts in the proper places. This proposal would be a major effort, but is quite workable if we break the tasks into small, well-coordinated pieces. And I doubt if spam will be curbed by anything less. "Put up or shut up" has a second and even third meaning here: if we do nothing, Internet e-mail service and newsgroups could even collapse due to spam. More immediately, SCN could be cut-off from the Internet if we don't get our own house in order. So--do we really even have a choice? === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From jmabel at saltmine.com Mon Sep 15 07:30:01 1997 From: jmabel at saltmine.com (Joe Mabel) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 07:30:01 -0700 Subject: SCN as a spam problem Message-ID: <01BCC1A9.2E524A70@stockade.saltmine.com.141.107.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA> Question: when this happens, is it associated with any SCN account or is it effectively anonymous? -----Original Message----- From: John Johnson [SMTP:jj at scn.org] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 1997 8:49 PM To: scna-board at scn.org Cc: scn at scn.org Subject: SCN as a spam problem Spam--unsolicited bulk e-mail--has become a major problem on the Internet. And SCN has become part of the problem. We are being used as a 'spam relay' to innundate others, and other sites are complaining that we have not corrected this. We have reached the point where other sites may begin refusing connections from SCN. And the traffic generated burdens our Internet connection, and could imperil its continued availability. For these reasons I say that we need to deal with this spam relay problem--effectively, and immediately. It is not just another urgent priority--it is a critical problem of paramount importance. We have a simple spam filter in place now which reputedly removes all but a small portion of the spam. But to judge by the irate mail we are receiving from other sites, that small portion is much too great. Additional technical work is being undertaken (like installing a new version of the 'sendmail' program, and other software). But these steps are only protective responses--they don't really get to the basic problem. Because spam has become such a major problem, I wonder if we should make a major multi-pronged response. I therefore propose, and ask the Board to consider, organizing a set of Anti-spam Task Groups (or some such) with tasks along the following lines: 1- Oversight. A group of folks to monitor the news groups, do other research, generally keep in touch with what is happening and look for resources, and then share that (possibly via summaries and a local newsgroup) and generally be a resource for the other task groups. Arrange coordination with other sites or groups. 2- Technical. A subset of Hardware/Software to do needed technical things on SCN (like upgrading sendmail, installing spam filters, etc.). Also to set up monitoring and guard our gate. 3- User education. A group to determine what our users need to know about spam and what to do--and not to do!--about it, and provide useful user-oriented resources (such as a Web page with links to principal anti-spam sites). A lot of this would go into the Help Desk and Help Pages, but someone needs to get the information and package it. 4- Political. Yes! Let's organize exploration of what can be done, build a consensus, and then organize our members to be a potent, effective force for lobbying public officials and any other levers of power. 5- Legal. Does the law provide us with any remedies to computer trespass and theft of services? This needs research, and documentation. And several people to build contacts in the proper places. This proposal would be a major effort, but is quite workable if we break the tasks into small, well-coordinated pieces. And I doubt if spam will be curbed by anything less. "Put up or shut up" has a second and even third meaning here: if we do nothing, Internet e-mail service and newsgroups could even collapse due to spam. More immediately, SCN could be cut-off from the Internet if we don't get our own house in order. So--do we really even have a choice? === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From jj at scn.org Mon Sep 15 11:53:02 1997 From: jj at scn.org (John Johnson) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN as a spam problem In-Reply-To: <01BCC1A9.2E524A70@stockade.saltmine.com.141.107.198.IN-ADDR.ARPA> Message-ID: On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Joe Mabel wrote: > Question: when this happens, is it associated with any SCN account or is > it effectively anonymous? It is effectively anonymous. The spammers have programs that will create headers to order: blank, entirely fictitous, or even legitimate--but not their own. (A good reason for not flaming the ostensible sender.) === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From michaelh at scn.org Mon Sep 15 17:15:49 1997 From: michaelh at scn.org (michaelh at scn.org) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 17:15:49 -0700 Subject: SCN as a spam problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1+cH0MnJqAxP091yn@scn.org> Could sombody explain what being used as a 'spam relay' means? Does this mean that people who have accounts on SCN are sending out spam? Or is it people on other systems making some of their spam look like it came from us? Or both? If the former, is there any action required aside from revoking account privileges to those people if they don't quit? Is there some delay in doing this? For the later - is there anything we can do about it? I certainly think SCN should take part in a general action to make spam illegal (just like junk faxes). Though perhaps setting up one group to deal with the problem and letting them divide the labor might be more efficient. In the interest of educating ourselves, perhaps sombody could explain more particularly how SCN is part of the problem. Thanks Michael Hanson ---- Now if we could just outlaw unsolicited phone calls ... On Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:49:29 -0700 (PDT), John Johnson wrote: >Spam--unsolicited bulk e-mail--has become a major problem on the Internet. >And SCN has become part of the problem. > >We are being used as a 'spam relay' to innundate others, and other sites >are complaining that we have not corrected this. We have reached the >point where other sites may begin refusing connections from SCN. And the >traffic generated burdens our Internet connection, and could imperil its >continued availability. For these reasons I say that we need to deal with >this spam relay problem--effectively, and immediately. It is not just >another urgent priority--it is a critical problem of paramount importance. > ... >"Put up or shut up" has a second and even third meaning here: if we do >nothing, Internet e-mail service and newsgroups could even collapse due to >spam. More immediately, SCN could be cut-off from the Internet if we >don't get our own house in order. So--do we really even have a choice? > >=== JJ ================================================================= > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From banerian at scn.org Mon Sep 15 20:02:24 1997 From: banerian at scn.org (Stefani Banerian) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 20:02:24 -0700 Subject: SCN as a spam problem In-Reply-To: <1+cH0MnJqAxP091yn@scn.org> Message-ID: In message <1+cH0MnJqAxP091yn at scn.org>, michaelh at scn.org wrote: > Could sombody explain what being used as a 'spam relay' means? >Does this mean that people who have accounts on SCN are sending out >spam? Or is it people on other systems making some of their spam look >like it came from us? Or both? "spam relay" means that scn is being used by a third party to send UCE (unsolicited commercial email) to other people. they do this by fooling the mail machine to think they are "kosher". > For the later - is there anything we can do about it? I am trying to build an updated version of sendmail (it's not as fast as I would like; there are also some "tcp wrappers" which we can install. > In the interest of educating ourselves, perhaps sombody could >explain more particularly how SCN is part of the problem. Thanks by having an unprotected mail server, we are a conduit for spam relay. -- stefani banerian This signature space available for your message. banerian at scn.org Free! No warranty implied. Satisfaction not guaranteed. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From allen at scn.org Tue Sep 16 00:25:22 1997 From: allen at scn.org (allen) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 00:25:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN as a spam problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hmmm. JJ...last time I looked...unsolicited bulk e-mail is not 'spam', 'spam' is an annoyance on usenet... bulk e-mail is a far different and much bigger problem. I wonder if labeling it 'spam' may cause some to trivialize it and not recognize it for the serious problem it is...not just for us, but for everybody on the internet. As how we label things often has a tremendous effect on how we think about them and deal with them, I think this is an important distinction...not just a triviality. That being said, I agree that this is a problem of paramount importance to SCN for the reasons you stated...and am very glad to see someone not only recognizing a problem, but also proposing a framework for working on a solution. Thanks allen On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, John Johnson wrote: > Spam--unsolicited bulk e-mail--has become a major problem on the Internet. > And SCN has become part of the problem. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From spban at eskimo.com Tue Sep 16 10:38:46 1997 From: spban at eskimo.com (banerian) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN as a spam problem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, allen wrote: > Hmmm. JJ...last time I looked...unsolicited bulk e-mail is not 'spam', > 'spam' is an annoyance on usenet... bulk e-mail is a far different and > much bigger problem. the actual definition of "spam" varies quite a bit. Labelling it as e.g. UBE (unsolicited bulk e-mail) is a bit more descriptive. But colloquially referring to it as spam is not necessarily wrong, possibly just misleading (unintentionally). Some of the mail could also be referred to as spewing, but that is usually used in the context of USENET also. In any event, what is observed is the transmittal of UCE and UBE to thousands of addresses, via SCN. Failure of SCN to take action could result in SCN being locked out of mail connections to other machines. And if SCN were somehow being used as a USENET spam originator, a UDP ("USENET DEATH PENALTY") against SCN could result. -- Stefani Banerian spban at eskimo.com banerian at scn.org * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org Tue Sep 16 14:21:04 1997 From: kurt at grogatch.seaslug.org (Kurt Cockrum) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 14:21:04 -0700 Subject: SCN as a spam problem Message-ID: <199709162121.OAA17148@grogatch.seaslug.org> Stefani said: >In any event, what is observed is the transmittal of UCE and UBE to >thousands of addresses, via SCN. Failure of SCN to take action could >result in SCN being locked out of mail connections to other machines. And >if SCN were somehow being used as a USENET spam originator, a UDP ("USENET >DEATH PENALTY") against SCN could result. jj was mentioning in an earlier post about how our internet connection was under jeopardy because others were apparently perceiving us as an internet wrongdoer. [flame on] Ya know what pisses me off about the whole tone of this discussion? We seem to have a problem and there are all these expert USENET DEATH PENALTY administrators apparently out there who represent a dire threat against us, a presumably civic-minded public internet access point, while at the SAME TIME, being ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT TO THE SPAMMERS whatever, AND NO HELP to us in solving our problem. In other words, it is the sorely beset net citizen (us) who is getting the crap from the net.authorities, not the bad guys. They nail your feet to the floor and then tell you to run faster. What's wrong with this picture? This is precisely the problem with conventional "civilization". The authorities can only bluster and threaten (with real threats, to be sure), and alienate members of their own community, but they are totally powerless to deal with the barbs at all. I don't know hou much longer the so-called internet can hold up. I'll bet *all* e-mail and other internet traffic will wind up being *tightly* regulated, for the "greater good of the people". That would certainly qualify as an "unintended consequence", at least from our side. Strong cryptography looks like it's on its way down the tube, as a case in point. Everybody got their "sneaky-stash" of PGP safely tucked away? --kurt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From davidb Wed Sep 17 11:53:02 1997 From: davidb (David Barts) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 11:53:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SCN as a spam problem In-Reply-To: from "allen" at Sep 16, 97 00:25:22 am Message-ID: <199709171853.LAA28567@scn.org> allen writes: > Hmmm. JJ...last time I looked...unsolicited bulk e-mail is not 'spam', > 'spam' is an annoyance on usenet... bulk e-mail is a far different and > much bigger problem. True, but let's not get pedantic here. It may not be the technically correct term, but many people have been using the term 'spam' to refer to unsolicited bulk E-mail (UBE for short) for some time now. -- David W. Barts (davidb at scn.org) / http://www.scn.org/~davidb The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. -- Frederick Douglass * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From mtsvme at scn.org Fri Sep 19 12:29:21 1997 From: mtsvme at scn.org (SCN User) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 12:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ham & eggs (ala Monty Python) Message-ID: Re: all of the recent attention concerning scn's inadvertently assisting the spread of "spam". In this society, we are told to "do something". All too often, we apply our "something" to what is bothering us, not necessarily, to what *causes* the problem. The internet provides free e-mail services. I believe that most of us want to keep the censors off of the net. Like it or not, the internet is being used for commerce, commercial uses. People are going to do "bulk mailings" whether anyone likes it or not. As with other parts of this society, we could spend untold billions of dollars creating crime an underground buinesses, or we could recognize the futility of that proposition, and put up some guidelines. I personally *do not* want any person or group of people deciding who may/may not use the internet and e-mail, in particular. If people want to be on mailing lists, there are going to be bulk mailings. If scn invests in insecticide for ridding itself of these cockaroaches, spammers, just like roaches have done for millions of years, they'll go next door, invade another isp. I've been told that scn is on good terms with commercial isp's. Let's join forces with them, and approach the w3 consortium, or whoever is responsible for internet guidelines, and set up guidelines for bulk mailings. Any software developed will be available, for free use by all isps. Perhaps these guidelines will require a limit of 1000, 5000 mailings in an hour period, or that they be held until there is a more feasible time (dependent upon the isp). Maybe, for anything over 1000, the user must notify the isp. Those are just basic suggestions. Whatever, scn is not going to be able to stop bulk mailings, and as long as there is a market for it, noone will be able to stop it. We *can* make it easy for bulk mailors to be a part of the internet community. Thomas * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From nancyk at scn.org Sun Sep 21 22:10:35 1997 From: nancyk at scn.org (Nancyk) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: General info about 'spam' on SCN Message-ID: The following is some general information about 'spam', and a specific problem affecting SCN recently. Anyone that has had an e-mail account for more than six-months has feelings about unwanted junk e-mail--loosely called 'spam'. Mostly those feelings are: stop it! (Why they should think that annoying potential customers is a good way to sell things makes one wonder if most spammers have had e-mail for less than six-months!) It used to be standard practice to return "unwanted bulk e-mail"--or "UBE"--to the sender. Several times! Such multiplicative feedback tended to keep them in check. However, the spammers have learned to hide their tracks. Specifically, they can forge return addresses. That piece of junk mail you get probably has bogus "From" and "Reply-to" address. Or it might be a real address--of a completely innocent person. (So please: DO *NOT* FLAME THE STATED SENDER! That person is probably innocent.) The spammers do this by subvertng a site's mail server in such a way that they can fib about who the mail is from. This was recently done to SCN, and thousands, probably tens of thousands, of Internet users were sent junk mail originating from SCN. We received complaints from the system administrators at several other sites, and admonishments to plug this hole. Failure to do so would have gotten SCN branded as spam site--and many sites would then reject all mail from us--so fixing this problem has become the Hardware/Software committee's highest priority. We have installed protections which we believe are catching most of this fraudulent mail. And we will soon have our mail server upgraded to better prevent this kind of abuse. Other measures are being investigated. However, technical measures alone are not sufficient to end spam, as long as the spammers can remain anonymous. Additional measures, including political and legal action, may be required. For more information about spam check the /spam.abuse.net/ Web site. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From lbs at aa.net Tue Sep 23 09:51:15 1997 From: lbs at aa.net (Lucys) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ACLU on spam (fwd) Message-ID: FYI: since we have been discussing spam on scn, I thought you might find this interesting. Some of the proposed laws, include making the ISP responsible for trying to stop spam. Lucy S. lbs at aa.net Seattle, Washington USA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:22:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Agre Reply-To: rre-maintainers at weber.ucsd.edu To: rre at weber.ucsd.edu Subject: ACLU on spam Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Resent-From: rre at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help at weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 15:51:59 GMT From: "ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Owner"@newmedium.com Subject: Anti-Spam Bills in Congress Source - ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, Tuesday, September 2, 1997 Unsolicited e-mail advertisement, or "spam," has few fans on the net. Court battles have been waged between service providers, such as AOL and Compuserve, and spam advertisers, including Cyber Promotions, over whether the thousands of messages sent to user e-mails can be blocked. Congress and several state legislatures have also stepped into the debate and have introduced some bills fraught with First Amendment problems because they ban commercial speech altogether or are content specific. Traditionally, commercial speech restrictions on telemarketing calls and unsolicited fax advertisements have passed First Amendment challenges but direct mail and door-to-door solicitations enjoy much greater protection. Given the Supreme Court decision in ACLU v. Reno, on-line messages should receive the same First Amendment protection given traditional print media, which includes commercial mailings. Thus, while netizens may laud efforts to curb spam, it is unclear whether some of the unsolicited commercial e-mail bills can pass constitutional muster. Even more troubling are the state spam bills which create different rules for each state that advertisers will have to follow. Under some state bills, if a spam message is sent or made available to a resident in one state, it could confer jurisdiction over the sender and could subject them to liability if they are in violation of local law. A federal judge recently ruled that state control or regulation of Internet communications violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In the decision in ALA v. Pataki, which involved a challenge by the ACLU to a New York Internet decency law, federal district Judge Loretta Preska declared that states are prohibited from regulating an interstate communication which merely passes through their borders. Judge Preska warned of the extreme danger that state regulation would pose to the Internet, rejecting the state's argument that the statute would even be effective in preventing so-called "indecency" from reaching minors. Hence, state spam bills will probably not withstand constitutional challenges.The decision in ALA v. Pataki is available at Below is a synopsis of the federal bills and the first state enacted law on spam from Nevada. The ACLU objected to an earlier, even broader version of the Nevada law before its enactment and is considering participating in a challenge to the law. The Nevada law, as enacted contains broad definitions of e-mail that may include advertisements on web sites and other on-line forums. Full text of the federal bills is available at Netizens Protection Act of 1997, Introduced May 22,1997 (H.R. 1748): Sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) would amend the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, ("TCPA") which regulates telemarketing and junk-faxes to include unsolicited e-mail advertisements. The bill would ban unsolicited e-mail and only permit the sending of commercial messages where there is a pre-existing relationship between the sender and recipient, or when the recipient has requested the information. The bill provides for hefty penalties for violations. Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Choice Act of 1997, (S. 771): Sponsored by Sen. Frank Murkowski (R-AL) the bill would require senders to label content of a commercial e-mail message as an "advertisement" and to honor recipient "opt-out" requests within 48 hours, and put the burden of blocking spam on ISPs. Failure by ISPs to filter out messages would result in liability and steep penalties for providers, not spammers. Electronic Mailbox Protection Act of 1997, introduced June 11,1997 (S.875): Sponsored by Sen. Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) the bill would restrict the use of false e-mail addresses or domain names to avoid filtering by commercial advertisers. Spammers would also be required to honor recipient "opt-out" requests, and violators would be hit with civil penalties up to $5,000. Data Privacy Act of 1997, introduced July 31, 1997 (H.R. 2368): Sponsored by Rep. Tauzin the bill would create an industry working group to draft voluntary guidelines with incentives for advertisers who adopt them to: limit the collection and use, for commercial marketing purposes, of personally identifiable information obtained from individuals through any interactive computer service; require unsolicited e-mail advertisers to identify the sender, including a valid reply address; disclose when such information is gathered; provide a consumer opt-out provision; limit the display of social security numbers and prohibit the commercial marketing and use of medical information. Nevada Anti-Spam Law: Senate Bill 13 , enacted July 8, 1997 and goes into effect on July 1, 1998: Under the law, transmitting commercial advertisements in the form of e-mail may subject the sender to civil fines and provides that a recipient may enjoin the sender from such future conduct and may receive restitution. The law defines an advertisement as material that advertises for commercial purposes the availability or the quality of real property, goods or services; or is designed or intended to solicit a person to purchase real property, goods or services. The law also imposes liability upon Internet Service Providers since it applies to any party that causes to be transmitted commercial mail. The exception to the law permits sending commercial e-mail where: (a) The person has a preexisting business or personal relationship with the recipient; (b) The recipient has expressly consented to receive the item or (c) The advertisement is readily identifiable as promotional, or contains a statement providing that it is an advertisement, and clearly and conspicuously provides: (1) The legal name, complete street address and electronic mail address of the person transmitting the electronic mail; and (2) A notice that the recipient may decline to receive additional electronic mail that includes an advertisement from the person transmitting the electronic mail and the procedures for declining such electronic mail. The full text of the Nevada law is available at * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From davidb Tue Sep 23 14:30:29 1997 From: davidb (David Barts) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ACLU on spam (fwd) In-Reply-To: from "Lucys" at Sep 23, 97 09:51:15 am Message-ID: <199709232130.OAA21004@scn.org> What's next? An argument that the First Amendment protects my right to take a spare telephone over to the Network Interface Unit on the side of my neighbor's house, plug it in, and exercise my free speech rights in an hour-long phone call to Botswana? Seriously, this is an almost exact analogy of junk E-mail. The *recipient* is *paying* to store the junk mail on his/her machine. Even on SCN, most mailboxes have limited storage capacity, and Web pages count against that: a spammer's E-mail is imposing costs on others. This is totally different from either incoming phone calls or incoming paper mail, which both come at no cost. I generally agree with the ACLU but they screwed up big time on this one. -- David W. Barts (davidb at scn.org) / http://www.scn.org/~davidb The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress. -- Frederick Douglass * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From jj at scn.org Tue Sep 23 22:47:55 1997 From: jj at scn.org (John Johnson) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 22:47:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ACLU on spam (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199709232130.OAA21004@scn.org> Message-ID: I think the ACLU wants to maximize speech (communication??) above all else. But the spammers don't--that's why they hide behind forged addresses. So why doesn't the ACLU fight that? How many other laws would we need if we had just one, nationwide, that required the sender's true e-mail address on every message? === JJ ================================================================= * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From bd252 at scn.org Wed Sep 24 12:00:47 1997 From: bd252 at scn.org (Kenneth J. Crandall) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 12:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ACLU on spam (fwd) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I like the idea of having the true address of the real e-mail sender. It is frustrating to receive garbage and not even be able to respond to the sender. Ken Crandall On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, John Johnson wrote: > I think the ACLU wants to maximize speech (communication??) above all > else. But the spammers don't--that's why they hide behind forged > addresses. So why doesn't the ACLU fight that? > > How many other laws would we need if we had just one, nationwide, that > required the sender's true e-mail address on every message? > > === JJ ================================================================= > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * > . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: > majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: > unsubscribe scn > END > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From namioka at netcom.com Wed Sep 24 17:54:11 1997 From: namioka at netcom.com (Aki Namioka) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 17:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ACLU Donation - Better late than never? Message-ID: Hey All, It is time again to sponsor a page for the ACLU 1998 Calendar. It is something that CPSR and SCN have done for several years in a row now. We need to come up with $400 in donations - that is an average of 10 people at $40. We have 3 contributors already, so that leaves 7 more people at the $40 level. Or Whatever You Can Afford. Steven Greenberg (the Seattle P-I Editorial Cartoonist) will be supplying the cartoon for our page again. So, if you can contribute, please let me know ASAP if you want to contribute. Thanks, Aki * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END From moz at cauce.org Sun Sep 21 14:09:49 1997 From: moz at cauce.org (John C. Mozena) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:09:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CAUCE News **EXTRA** for September 21, 1997 Message-ID: <199709270552.WAA13236@scn.org> THREE SPAMMERS DOWN, BUT MUCH WORK REMAINS By J.D. Falk CAUCE Co-Founder and Provisional Board Member "Cyber Promotions, Quantum Communications, and NancyNet are *not* experiencing outages through the AGIS network at this time. Their connections to AGIS have been *shut off* due to ongoing security issues and other related matters." -- AGIS network problems page, Sept. 19, 1997 To most Internet users, the announcement above seemed to herald almost a new age in Internet communications. I know that when I first heard about it, I felt as if a great weight had been lifted off of my shoulders. It truly seemed as if September 19 should be declared a holiday. Unfortunately, as refreshing as it is to see that AGIS appears to have begun its trek back to responsibility, and a place of honor with the other national Internet backbones by taking a stance against network abuse, when it comes right down to it this isn't going to make much of a dent. In fact, things are probably about to get worse. Up until today, the only safe home base that spammers could get was with AGIS and the companies to which it sold connectivity. Almost every ISP out there has policies banning spam, and an even higher percentage kick people off for it. In order for one of these unscrupulous e-mail marketers to have a web page or receive e-mail after they started sending out their masses of unwanted messages, they had no choice but to contract with Cyber Promotions, Quantum Communications, NancyNet or other spammers hosted by AGIS. The address blocks formerly used by those three companies are blocked from many portions of the Internet. That also made it easier to filter -- if a message had a return address of savetrees.com (a Cyber Promotions domain), there's really no question that it was spam. Now that those three are off the air, we can expect to see more spammers getting throw-away accounts with innocent ISPs, using another innocent party's mail relay to send the messages, and using another throw-away account for their return address (if, of course, they have any intention of receiving e-mail at all.) Much spam is already sent is this manner, so we know from painful experience that this will make them harder to filter, and it will place even MORE of a burden on innocent ISPs. Therefore, it is now more important than ever before for every Internet ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ service provider -- as well as anybody else who has mail servers open to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the Internet -- to immediately implement as many techniques as possible to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ stop this abuse of both their and other people's resources. Some common ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ techniques for accomplishing this can be found at ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ . It is also incumbent upon all of us to help educate those who do not yet realize what a problem unsolicited commercial e-mail has become. As always, this includes our representatives in the government -- on both state and national levels. Some people have already posted that CAUCE is no longer necessary now that Cyber Promotions has been disconnected from AGIS. What they do not realize is that we're not here to fight any single company, or group of companies. We're here to stop spam. *** ABOUT THIS MESSAGE: This message was written and broadcast by the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail. It is copyrighted (c) 1997 by the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail. We encourage redistribution of items from this message, as long as they are not spammed anywhere, are on-topic, and include our copyright notice. When in doubt, post the URL of our site instead, or put it in your signature. Press, broadcast, and Internet media may treat this material as they would a press release. For other commercial reproduction rights, contact John Mozena . -- Martha Koester | The two most common substances in the User: eridani | universe are hydrogen and stupidity. Domain: scn.org | ---John Taylor * * * * * * * * * * * * * * From the Listowner * * * * * * * * * * * * . To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to: majordomo at scn.org In the body of the message, type: unsubscribe scn END