Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA15315; Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:04:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:04:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199704261304.JAA15315@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #103 TELECOM Digest Sat, 26 Apr 97 09:03:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 103 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (Nils Andersson) Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming (Hugh A. Pritchard) Re: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace (Chris Ambler) Re: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace (Steve Bagdon) Re: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' (Linc Madison) Re: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' (Lord Somnolent) Re: Wanted to Buy: 80-col Punch Cards (Dave Close) Re: US West Fighting Flood (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Are We to Believe This? (Tim Russell) Re: Are We to Believe This? (Jay R. Ashworth) Re: Are We to Believe This? (Scot E. Wilcoxon) Re: Some General Questions For Readers (Chuck Maurer) Re: Heads Up - FCC Issues 800 Order (Greg Ramsey) Re: Cyberpromo's Upstream Provider (Jay R. Ashworth) TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell us how you qualify: * subscriptions@telecom-digest.org * The Digest is edited, published and compilation-copyrighted by Patrick Townson of Skokie, Illinois USA. You can reach us by postal mail, fax or phone at: Post Office Box 4621 Skokie, IL USA 60076 Phone: 847-727-5427 Fax: 773-539-4630 ** Article submission address: editor@telecom-digest.org ** Our archives are available for your review/research. The URL is: http://telecom-digest.org (WWW/http only!) They can also be accessed using anonymous ftp: ftp hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) A third method is the Telecom Email Information Service: Send a note to archives@telecom-digest.org to receive a help file for using this method or write me and ask for a copy of the help file for the Telecom Archives. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from the * * International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Geneva, Switzerland * * under the aegis of its Telecom Information Exchange Services (TIES) * * project. Views expressed herein should not be construed as represent-* * ing views of the ITU. * ************************************************************************* Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of twenty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming, and North American Mobile Date: 26 Apr 1997 02:01:38 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , John R. Covert writes: > nilsphone@aol.com (Nils Andersson) had replied that AT&T would do it > "through Vodaphone UK, but they do not say that". Yes indeed. Also, while in a GSM country, call somebody with caller ID, in-country. Normally, your VODAPHONE number will show up on the callers id display. People can now call you on this number. It is NOT necessarily stable, and may be different on your next trip. It WILL save your caller money if he is in the UK or if he can call a UK number more cheaply than a US number. Whether it will save you the callee money is unclear. (You should not have to pay the US/UK hop, but I am not sure how the billing works). > As it turns out, this is potentially interesting, but only for those > people served by AT&T Wireless (formerly McCaw) and by Cantel. Since > it's through Vodaphone, a well established UK GSM900 carrier, it benefits > from a large number of existing roaming agreements all over the world. > But the rates are terrible. Oh yes. > First, you _must_ be one of their subscribers. > They don't serve Boston, so they're useless for those of us in this area, > regardless of who our carrier is. Second, the card costs $50/year. This > isn't quite as bad as their rates. Outgoing calls are $2.49/minute, no > matter where you are or where you're calling. From some places, this isn't > too bad if you're calling back to the U.S., but it's ridiculous for local > calls. Incoming is even worse, though. You pay that $2.49 per minute, > *plus* a call to the U.K. (Always to the UK, no matter where you are.) See above. > And for Cantel customers, it's even worse. Not only are Canada to UK > toll rates rather high, but you are charged the AT&T annual and per > minute rates (charged in US dollars) plus a Cantel monthly fee of C$7.95. > Nils also suggested trying the local telco in the country visited. > This really doesn't work. Local telcos simply will not do business with > non-residents. I have tried this in the UK, in Germany, and even in the > Channel Islands. True, unfortunately. > In the latter case, it seems that the Channel Islands > company had to agree to not serve anyone outside the channel islands when > they set up their roaming agreements with Vodaphone and Cellnet. And even > if that isn't a problem, the credit departments simply aren't willing to > take a chance on someone running up a large bill and being outside the > reach of their local laws. > There are, in some areas, pre-paid cards. But they only work within the > country of issue (no roaming), and have fairly high activation fees, and Sweden has prepaids for SEK 7/3 for day/night calls. (about USD 1/0.5) > expire if you don't use them for six months. The Italian example is as > follows: you buy a card for Lit. 100,000, which includes a 50,000 ($29) > activation fee and 50,000 worth of available usage. You can then buy > recharges in either 50,000 or 100,000 denominations, but 10,000 ($6) > of that is a recharge fee. Off-peak is cheap (195/min or about 12.5 cents), > but peak is 10 times that. The advantage over roaming is that incoming > is free. > 2. What I ended up doing > A friend lent me his second, and rarely used, German D1 card; I'll pay him > for the usage while I have it. This is what I do. My friend in Sweden gets billed, and I pay him. > But this isn't a good long-term solution, > so I also signed up with Omnipoint. This is an OK solution if most of your incoming calls come from the US. If they come in locally, it gets bad, routing Euro/US/Euro with the caller and the callee each paying one lap. > When I had first called Omnipoint, > they only had agreements with Vodaphone and the German D2 system (which > is notoriously inferior to D1 in many areas I travel to). But since they > were only $9.95 a month for the first three months, and no activation or > cancellation fee, I decided to try them out. In the meantime, they have > added Eircell, the Swiss PTT, and Libertel in the Netherlands. And they > have signed agreements with Cellnet, both French carriers, and about twenty > others, and are turning something new on every few weeks. They expect to > add Hong Kong and South Africa next, and have said that France (my next > trip is to France) should be on within a month. > Omnipoint's rates are great (or seem to be; we'll see when the bill comes). > For outgoing calls, they take the foreign carrier's wholesale rate and add > a percentage to it. For example, on Vodaphone, they'll charge me 41p peak > and 17p off-peak. About right. > SIM cards are great. I was in a store in the UK and saw a StarTAC. I > was able to pick it up, insert my own SIM card, and immediately play with > it to my heart's content. The store owner didn't have to worry about his > bill being run up. I want a dual mode StarTAC. Why didn't the US carriers (inlcluding CDMA) use the same compatible SIM technology? Would have worked, regardless of air interface! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 16:55:25 -0400 From: Hugh A. Pritchard Subject: Re: GSM, SIM Cards, International Roaming > Omnipoint, Sprint-Spectrum-APC, BellSouthDCS, VoiceStream, Pacific Bell, > Western Wireless, Aerial, Microcell (in Canada), and a few others will be > offering SIM card based GSM service. I've had GSM/SIM card service from Sprint Spectrum (APC) since the beginning of the calendar year, here in the Washington-Baltimore area. APC (doing business as Sprint Spectrum) has been offering GSM service for at least a year and a half. Its GSM operates at the high end of 1800 MHz. I realize I'm giving up roaming capability, since no other North American market has anybody using GSM. That's OK, because Sprint Spectrum's GSM penetrates buildings better, is clearer, and reputedly has never been cloned. Hugh Pritchard, 202/767-7528 or HughP@library.NRL.Navy.mil page 301/237-1231 Naval Research Lab code 5220, Washington, DC 20375 ------------------------------ From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler) Subject: Re: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace Date: 25 Apr 1997 15:57:24 GMT Organization: Punknet Secret Headquarters and Day Care Centre > God hates Fags, huh? Amazing ... maybe its time to raise a little > hell with Internic on that one. Oh well, a lot of good that would do > I suppose. I pity the folks at Westboro Baptist Church if a few > hackers decide to re-arrange their web page, as was done with the > Department of Injustice not too long ago. PAT] Hell has been raised. In fact, I was just on CNET's "The Web" show a couple of weeks ago over this. They had a member of GLAAD from LA and myself discussing this issue. Apparently, GLAAD tried to register "the n-word".com as a protest, AND WERE TURNED DOWN by the InterNIC. So they asked me if we had such a policy at Image Online Design for .WEB, and I told them no, we don't censor. Register what you like, and if someone's offended, expect them to take it up with you. To be honest, don't blame the InterNIC on the "godhatesfags" name, but DO blame them that they allow some and don't allow others. In England, isn't that domain name "godhatescigarettes.com?" The point is, I think, that much like anyone can say anything they want, anyone can register any domain they want -- don't blame the registrar, blame the IDIOT who gets the domain. Director, Punknet Internet Cooperative | President, Image Online Design, Inc. chris@kosh.punk.net | chris@iodesign.com http://www.punk.net | http://www.iodesign.com | Voice+18055434716 Fax+18055434735 ------------------------------ From: bagdon@rust.net (Steve Bagdon) Subject: Re: Another Interesting Site Connected With Spamford Wallace Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 21:19:18 GMT Reply-To: bagdon@rust.net davet1979@aol.com (Davet1979) said: > I thought this might be somewhat on topic, and possibly when you > make your contact with CyberPromotions/AGIS, you might mention the > other 'interests' that CyberPromotions hosts. A note: > Maybe someone has mentioned this on the list before, but I just heard about it today on GloRadio's "Daily Dose" (http://www.gloradio.com/): > http://www.godhatesfags.com/ > I can't believe someone even let them register that domain name. Hey! What are you doing?!?! Personally I find this *extrememly* offensive, but does that give me the right to censure it. NO! The TV has an 'off button', and my browser has a stop button (and what am I doing loading this to begin with?!?!). But what happens if someone hates *my* domain (say, http://www.rust.net). I don't have to restrict someone else's domain name - I simply don't load it! [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: > God hates Fags, huh? Amazing ... maybe its time to raise a little > hell with Internic on that one. Oh well, a lot of good that would do I > suppose. I pity the folks at Westboro Baptist Church if a few hackers > decide to re-arrange their web page, as was done with the Department > of Injustice not too long ago. PAT] See above. That's censorship. Until you can prove it prevokes social unrest or can be considered a threat to national security, they should have the right to be distasteful. Spamming should be a felony -- you send it to me unsolicited, I have usually have to pay for it. But a bad domain name -- so what? I just don't load it. *I* have to do something to view it. What next? Vanity plates? Book titles? Company names? Steve B. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Dear First Amendment Lover, yes, I am a censor, and proud of it. I always did feel the First Amendment to the US Constitution was a nuisance we could do without. The trouble with all you liberal and open-minded people is ... well, don't get me started on this one please. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:42:39 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! In article , netnut@loyolanet. campus.mci.net wrote: > Got this off a website which specializes in colleges and universities > () > 976 look-alikes > MCI has identified a list of numbers that you may want to block. > Increased demand for pay-per-call services has exceeded the capacity > of "976" exchanges in many metropolitan areas. ... While this is NOT a > comprehensive list, we hope this will help reduce the volume of this > type of fraud. > > Massachusetts > (607) 940-XXXX > (607) 555-XXXX These should be 617, not 607 > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for going to all the trouble, > but it may not be a big issue. Typically 976 and related prefixes > are blocked from outside the LATA where they are located, mainly > because there is no mechanism in place to bill for them. Hmm. I thought I had been told that in California I could call any 976 number in the state, whether in my LATA or not, and I would be billed the surcharge as well as any applicable tolls, but I just tried 213-976-WAKE and got an intercept that my call could not be completed. Of course, there is also a 415-976-WAKE, so the test may not be an accurate indication. I tried 213-976-3825 (spelling left as an exercise to the reader ;->) which also didn't work, and I would expect that's not simply a replication of the same number in 415. I didn't get an intercept after 1-213-976, but then I don't get an intercept after other non-existent NXX's, although I do get an immediate intercept on 1-213-1XX or 0XX. (I wonder if anyone has 976-6466 -- "Tired of phony psychics? Don't dial the wrong number, dial 213-WRONG-NO instead!") In any event, I would like to compile a similar, but more useful, list for my web pages on . I'd like to make a list of all the international prefixes set up for phone sex and other operations where the "information provider" receives a portion of the foreign telco's termination fee for the call. For the NANP Caribbean, I'd like to get both the area code and the prefix (e.g., 1-809-490, 1-268-404, 1-664-410, 1-758-???); for areas outside the NANP (i.e., calls that are prefixed with "011" from the U.S./Canada), I'd like to get the country code and any information on the sub-range that is used for these "kickback" operations (e.g., 011-592-59, 011-599-6, 011-239-?, 011-683-?, 011-373-?, etc.). It appears from the examples I've seen that each country segregates these numbers into a distinct sub-range, so that neither the telco nor the IP has to deal with non-revenue local calls. The company I work for recently had a large unexplained toll call to Niger (+227); are there any kickback numbers there? If you have seen ads on the Internet or in freebie papers or wherever for these international numbers -- especially any that don't fall in the specific ranges listed above -- please e-mail me. Anything that is a sex line, horoscopes, or any of the usual 976/900 sorts of fare. Please reply to me directly by e-mail; I'll summarize the results on my web pages and also in the Digest. Be sure to un-spam-filter my address, though. ** Do not spam e-mail me! ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, Calif. * Telecom@Eureka.vip.best-com >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must change "NOSPAM" to "com" << [TELECOM Digest Censor's Note: Actually I think I should have said that 976 and its relatives do not ever leave the state they are in in some cases. California is like that; yes you can call all over the state, but you cannot call my 976's and I cannot call yours. Around here, Ameritech is even tighter; I do not think you can get into 976 if not in the same LATA. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:17:52 -0400 From: Lord Somnolent Organization: KoB Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Listing of 976 'Look Alikes' NetNut! wrote: > Massachusetts > (508) 940-XXXX > (607) 940-XXXX > (607) 555-XXXX Er, you must mean 617 for 607. Here is the full list of Massachusetts pay-per-call COs, applicable across 617/508/413(781/978): 550 - Group Conversation Bridging 554 - Adult Information Services 920 - General Business Information 940 - Adult Programs 976 - General All lines are set up by default to block 554 and 940 numbers, you must write NYNEX to get the block removed. The other three can be dialed from most phones. Also the 617-555 exchange isn't a pay-per-call CO. [TELECOM Digest Censor's Note: Thanks for the correction which also got past me. Again, the thing people need to remember is to watch out for 976, etc **within your own state and LATA**. Generally you do not need to be on guard for these from other areas of the US than your own. PAT] ------------------------------ From: dave@compata.compata.com (Dave Close) Subject: Re: Wanted to Buy: 80-col Punch Cards Date: 24 Apr 1997 22:36:29 -0700 Organization: Compata, Costa Mesa, California davem@whidbey.net (Dave Miller) writes: > I'm looking for a couple or three boxes of 96! column cards in > specific colors, too. The IBM 3624 ATM (automatic teller machine) prints its receipts on 96-column cards. These machines are still in use so the cards must be available. If asking for 96-column cards doesn't ring a bell with a supplier, try asking for ATM receipt stock. Dave Close, Compata, Costa Mesa CA "Politics is the business of getting dave@compata.com, +1 714 434 7359 power and privilege without dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu possessing merit." - P. J. O'Rourke ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:20:46 -0500 From: Scot E. Wilcoxon Subject: Re: US West Fighting Flood I discovered a press release on http://www.uswest.com/ about the Grand Forks situation. See the "About" page for the "Press Releases" link. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One really heroic effort in Grand Forks > is being made by the local newspaper which ... > They have not missed a single issue of publication, They've been publishing from the St. Paul Pioneer Press facilities, three-quarters of a state away. The Pioneer Press included the Grand Forks newspaper inside theirs for one issue last week along with an explanation of the story behind the stories. Several people noted that although they are publishing, they certainly can't deliver to their subscribers. I think Clinton also made a comment that he didn't know how they were publishing either, so you're not alone in your ignorance. But then it's not your field and you've not made ignorance an art. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid. The stupid refuse to read. Their lawyers read to them. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Response: I am not quite sure how to read that final paragraph ... who are you calling ignorant anyway? Yes, I admit I am ignorant, and proud of it. I always did think that schools and education were a nuisance. PAT] ------------------------------ From: russell@probe.net (Tim Russell) Subject: Re: Are We to Believe This? Date: 24 Apr 1997 13:16:34 GMT Organization: Probe Technology Internet Services russell@probe.net (Tim Russell) writes: > Bruce Martin writes: >> Electronic stalker is making their life hell Well, as a follow-up, it was reported on the 22nd that the family's child had finally confessed that the whole thing was his doing, and that it was a "prank that got out of control". Ontario police said he wouldn't be prosecuted. Personally, considering the resources he wasted, I think he should be made to pay a rather large sum. I hope at least his parents will put him through hell. Tim Russell System Admin, Probe Technology email: russell@probe.net "The worst censorship is self-censorship, because fear has no limits." -- Grady Ward ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Are We to Believe This? Date: 24 Apr 1997 20:08:31 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Pat wrote: > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer, it appears, had nothing > to do with the house, and everything to do with the home, if you > get my drift. Poor Billy, I hope whatever demons are troubling him > will be driven away with therapy. Well, Pat, from the wire service piece I read, he sounded like a smart ass kid who's games got away from him. I don't think he's in nearly as bad shape mentally as the picture you paint. If I'm wrong, of course, my apologies to him, but as I say, that's not the impression I got. > Poor Billy; I hope somehow he gets the help he needs. PAT] In any case; and from the tone of the piece, I gather the local Law are letting the parents deal with the situation, and that the parents actually _plan_ to. Both of these are refreshing developments. This isn't really telecom any longer; followups set. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "To really blow up an investment house requires Tampa Bay, Florida a human being." - Mark Stalzer +1 813 790 7592 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Imagine ... parents taking responsibility for their children instead of blaming the teachers, the television and the internet chat rooms. What an outlandish suggestion. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 21:49:19 -0500 From: "Scot E. Wilcoxon" Subject: Re: Are We to Believe This? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The answer, it appears, had nothing > to do with the house, and everything to do with the home, The problems in that building could also have been blamed on a poltergeist. Investigators have usually found a teenager in a poltergeist-haunted building, and hidden cameras tended to solve the mystery when the teen did not know there was a camera pointed in their direction. Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@fieldday.mn.org Laws are society's common sense, written down for the stupid. The stupid refuse to read. Their lawyers read to them. ------------------------------ From: bcareis@airmail.net (Chuck Maurer) Subject: Re: Some General Questions For Readers Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 01:32:19 GMT Organization: BloodCare es008d@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Ernst Smith) wrote: > I've gone through some of the past Digests but I still have a few > questions: > Is the number displayed on Caller ID extracted from the ANI or does a > seperate number travel through the telephone network along with the > privacy information? > When recieving calls orginating from inside PBXes sometimes Caller ID > will display the DID number or a main switchboard number and sometimes > it will display the number of the outgoing line. How does the PBX > operator "replace" the Caller ID number of their outgoing line? (This > is related to the question above). Our PBX send the number of the outbound trunk, not the phone number of the station within the bldg. This would cause a problem if the extension was not within the range that the CO can dial to. Our PBX receives calls to 351-8XXX. If extension 8123 dialed, it would work (351-8123). But if extension 7123 did it, the result would be the number of someone else in the neighborhood. The caller ID box of people we call will show a number that doesn't start with 351-8XXX and is not recognizable as us if it wasn't for the name display. > Are the (blue coinless) Charge-A-Call public telephones different from > POTS residential phones in terms of wiring or signalling? Who manufact- > ures them? > Is there any technical reason why the Charge-A-Call phones cannot not > accept incoming calls? > Most hotels have room phones with a message waiting light connected to > their PBX. With the advent of VoiceMail from the telcos, is there an > official standard for a Message Waiting Indicator on POTS phones? I don't know if it is official, but phone systems will present a stutter dial tone instead of a steady dial tone as a Message Waiting Indicator. I have seen a phone that periodically go off hook while idle to check the dial tone for stutter and turn on the light if it stutters. Chuck Maurer / BloodCare / Dallas, TX ------------------------------ From: wireless@cdc.net Subject: Re: Heads Up - FCC Issues 800 Order Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 11:02:26 GMT Organization: Netcom Judith Oppenheimer wrote: > The COMMISSION ESTABLISHES RULES PROMOTING EFFICIENT USE, FAIR > DISTRIBUTION OF TOLL FREE NUMBERS. Report No: CC-97-17. by 2nd R&O & > FNPRM. Action by: the Commission. Adopted: April 4, 1997. Dkt No.: > CC-95-155. (FCC No. 97-123) > 2. Rebuttal Presumption of Hoarding. > Hoarding is defined as a toll free subscriber acquiring more numbers > from a RespOrg than it intends to use immediately. I wonder what the definition of "immediately" is? How will this impact on paging providers and others who would have 800/888 numbers set aside for accounts that are not in service yet? I personally manage an inventory of over 5,000 800/888 numbers and in no way am I hoarding though I do wish I had more numbers for rotating stock. Greg Ramsey wireless@cdc.net ------------------------------ From: jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us (Jay R. Ashworth) Subject: Re: Cyberpromo's Upstream Provider Date: 24 Apr 1997 20:14:34 GMT Organization: Ashworth & Associates Doug Terman (antilles@madriver.com) wrote: > I also suggest to her that there might be a few other unhappy email > account holders calling and she. . . sighed. . ., saying, "I think > you're right." I thought folks might be interested in the most recent revision of the file I include in "Notices of Violation, 47 USC 227" to spammers and the related postmasters: ====================== Notice of Violation of Federal Law United States Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, says that "it shall be unlawful for any person within the United States to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine." A telephone facsimile machine is defined in Section 227(a)(2)(B) as "equipment which has the capacity to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper." Pursuant to this definition, a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment, punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation. Please stop this. You have been put on notice. I have recorded your site name; further UNSOLICITED and UNWANTED junk mail from your site will force me to follow up under federal law. ======================= Notice to Postmasters Your systems were used to send this message. If this is contrary to your AUP's, please act accordingly. If it is not, you may wish to take advice on whether not adding such a provision leaves you open to legal exposure. Please note that you may have gotten this message even if it's obvious to me that your machine was used solely as a transit system for the email in question; I mean to cause you to decide that a bit more care in the choice of whose mail to forward would be A Good Thing. And, you may even have received a copy of this if you simply provide wholesale connectivity to a sender of unsolicited commercial email -- this shouldn't remain An Acceptable Dodge, either. Finally, please note that if your company policy is such that you appear to publically not care whether your customers behave in unethical or illegal manners -- yes, AGIS, I mean _you_ -- then any legal theories which make you civilly or criminally liable in tort or statue _will_ be pursued. Govern yourself accordingly. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- While the legal theory behind applying '227 to spammers has, admittedly, not been tested at the bench, it seems to work pretty effectively. You folks might all also be interested to know that I (just) found myself on Spamford's list this past Saturday afternoon. I called his (non-800) phone line, pressed 4, and told them to take my addresses (listed) off their lists, and not to allow them to be added again. I also filled in the form on their website. I gave them until this past Wednesday, by date, to get it taken care of... and they did. Whether the included '227 threats helped or not is unknown; I'll let you know if I see any more from them. Cheers, Jay R. Ashworth High Technology Systems Consulting Ashworth Designer Linux: Where Do You Want To Fly Today? & Associates ka1fjx/4 "...short of hiring the Unabomber, how can I +1 813 790 7592 jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us get back at them?" --Andy Cramer NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #103 ******************************