Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id AAA26432; Tue, 27 May 1997 00:55:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 00:55:10 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705270455.AAA26432@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #131 TELECOM Digest Tue, 27 May 97 00:55:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 131 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers (Thomas A. Horsley) Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers (John McNamee) Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers (Patrick Tufts) Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers (John Diamant) Re: Congressman Wants to Ban Spam (jfmezei) Re: Congressman Wants to ban Spam (Stan Brown) Anti-Spam Coalition (Lawrence W. Kauffman) Re: Alert: Two Anti-Spam Bills in Congress; One Good, One Bad (jfmezei) S771 and Unsolicited Email (Ewhorne@aol.com) Truth in Spamming Bill (A. Padgett Peterson) Another 800 Number For Your Review (Steven Lichter) Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? (Babu Mengelepouti) 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: Tom.Horsley@worldnet.att.net (Thomas A. Horsley) Subject: Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers Date: 26 May 1997 19:22:32 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services > Anyway, those First Amendment excuses are just a crock as far as I am > concerned. I doubt seriously that the ACLU has ever suggested that spam is protected by the 1st amendment (I'd be interested in an actual cite of an example rather than knee-jerk ACLU-hater off the wall comments). Nothing about the 1st amendment suggests that anyone is required to pay attention to you if you want to talk :-). [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You want to talk about knee-jerk responses? I got a call Monday night from someone who is afraid the government might ban spam, and all the terrible things that would (in their opinion) of necessity follow right along. If they ban spam, then the next thing you know they will be banning all the newsgroups, etc ... and yes, if any attempt were made to completely forbid spam on the net the ACLU would rush to the defense of the Spamfords. PAT] ------------------------------ From: John McNamee Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 23:16:32 +0000 Subject: Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers > Senator Murkowski of Alaska just today introduced a bill (S771) into the > US Senate to control spam. > It does NOT ban spam (so no 1st Amendment problems), but does mandate truth > in routing info (no spoofed addresses, etc) and also mandates that the > first word in the Subject line be the word "advertisement" so promail > filtering would be MUCH easier. It also mandates that the name, address and > phone number of the actual sender be in the spam message itself. Murkowski's bill does nothing about the theft of services that spam represents to service providers. Spammers would still free to abuse the bandwidth, CPU time, and disk space of ISP's. A procmail-type filter can throw the message away once it arrives, but by then it's too late. The bill also ignores the whole issue of Usenet spam, which I personally find an even greater problem. I appreciate that Senator Murkowski is trying to do something about the problem, but his solution still leaves much to be desired. ------------------------------ From: zippy@cs.brandeis.edu (Patrick Tufts) Subject: Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers Date: 27 May 1997 04:32:02 GMT Organization: Brandeis University, Waltham MA In an append to J. DeBert 's message, PAT writes: [...] > Quid pro quo -- what will you trade in exchange for protection against > junk mail, spam, fraud, etc.? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You ask what would I be willing to > trade off to get rid of spam ... why should I have to trade anything? [...] > What did the > owners of fax machines have to trade off in order to get some pro- > tection? PAT] Privacy. You cannot legally send a fax in the US without including a contact number (I forget if it has to be the telephone number for the sending machine) in the document. Pat [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh great, here we go again on this privacy nonsense. Just what I need with a mailbox full of stuff waiting to go out. You think it is really a hassle to have to identify who you are when you use the telephone, eh? I'll bet you do not like caller-id either, and having to press *67 each time around. PAT] ------------------------------ From: diamant@sde.hp.com (John Diamant) Subject: Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers Date: 27 May 1997 00:29:57 GMT Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO Reply-To: diamant@sde.hp.com J. DeBert (onymouse@hypatia.com) wrote: > Spammers and others whine about the "right to free speech" on the net. > There is no right to free speech on the net, there never has been. > It has been upheld in a court of law and by "stare decisis" in other > courts of law. Some such cases have been thrown out of court before > ever being heard. (If anyone has records or info about these cases, > I hope they will share them with the group! I never kept the info. Some > were posted in several newsgroups years ago, during the ARPAnet & > NSFnet years and afterward.) Just to correct/clarify one point in your post. Please don't misinterpret -- I'm not in favor of spamming, and I think your other points about contract law and points made earlier about denial of service and not having permission to use are on track. However, I want to correct a statement you made. The "right to free speech" does exist on the net (though it doesn't prevent the arguments for denial of service, use of property private property without permission, etc). Here are three distinct, unrelated arguments: In the legal sense of the word "right" (as in recognized by a government): 1) The Communications Decency Act was declared Unconstitutional in Federal court (3 judge panel) on the grounds that it violated Constitutionally protected free speech on the Internet. The Supreme Court ruling on this case is still pending, but current precedent is set by the federal court ruling and that court recognized the right of free speech on the net. 2) A careful reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals the document to be a grant of explicit powers by the federal government, and not a restriction of powers. The direct implication of that grant of power is that the federal government has only enumerated powers, and therefore any encroachment upon freedom of speech by the federal government must be justified by an enumerated power (in the case of Congress, that's Article 3, section 8). Protecting people from spamming is nowhere to be found in federal powers. If you make some vague argument about interstate commerce, let me point out that it would have no validity to spam sent entirely within a single state. In the moral (natural rights sense): 3) Rights do not exist merely because a government decides to recognize them. The right to not be killed (with appropriate limits which needn't be discussed here to discuss this particular point), etc does not exist because it is recognized by a government. Rights exist in a moral sense independently of governments, but some governments recognize particular rights, and others don't. Otherwise, the term "human rights violation" wouldn't make any sense. John Diamant Software Engineering Systems Division Hewlett Packard CO. Internet: diamant@sde.hp.com Fort Collins, CO ------------------------------ From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Congressman Wants to Ban Spam Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 15:07:24 -0500 Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read carefully Brian. Unsolicited email > of a **commercial nature**. Furthermore, when you post in a newsgroup > you are soliciting responses. PAT] When I post something in a newsgroup related exclusively to chocolate cookies recipees, I expect REPLIES IN THE NEWSGROUP from readers who share that particular interest, and will tolerate specific replies sent directly by EMAIL on that particular topic. I do not expect junk mail that is totally unrelated to that newsgroup when it is not addressed directly to me, even if it is not commercially oriented. (Receiving a spam about a religion is just as bad as about the opportunity to make $10000000 overnight). What frustrates me most is that one must now fudge his e-mail address in order to reduce (but not eliminate) spams and this causes many problems if novices are trying to reply to a note you posted in a newsgroup, and to an e-mail you have sent to them. ------------------------------ Subject: Re: Congressman Wants to ban Spam Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 23:54:33 EDT From: stbrown@nacs.net (Stan Brown) Quoth brianm@ricochet.net (Diablo Cat) in Telecom Digest 17:129: > My question, maybe someone knows, is what exactly is the definition of > Spam email in this context. Is it unsolicited email, in which case > how would that apply to an email which is in response to a news > posting? > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Read carefully Brian. Unsolicited email > of a **commercial nature**. Furthermore, when you post in a newsgroup > you are soliciting responses. PAT] Yes to your last sentence, PAT; no to what precedes it. In equal quantities, "Jesus loves you" and "send postcards to a dying boy" are just as much spam as "buy my immigration service." This is made clear in the FAQs. "Spam" originally referred to articles posted to newsgroups, which predated junk email. It's not too big a stretch to refer to junk email as spam or spam email, though. In either case, it's important to preserve the definition: spam is an excessive number of postings of the same article, or substantially the same article to the newsgroups; junk email or unsolicited bulk email (UBE) is an excessive number of identical or substantially identical unsolicited email messages. Mailing lists like Telecom Digest, no matter how large, are not junk email because they have been requested by the subscribers. Observe that the proper definition does not refer in any way to the content. Spam and junk email are bad not because of the message (if any) they contain, but because they impede and even threaten the functioning of Usenet and email, to the detriment of the great majority of users. Even an ad is not spam, if the sender sends out a single copy to each of half a dozen addresses. Make Money Fast is not spam, if it is sent only to one newsgroup (or to a very few). In general, off-topic postings and ads are not spam -- unless they are posted too many times. (They're still bad; they're just not spam.) On the other hand, even an on-topic message is spam if it is posted many times to the same newsgroup. If you object that an ad is unwanted whether you plus five people get it or you plus five million people get it, I agree with you. But the reason our mailboxes fill up is that many copies of each message are sent. It's the mass quantities that are the problem: if each advertiser sent only a few copies, nobody would receive enough to be a bother. Back in the days when we got maybe one junk message a week, it was trivial to deal with. I believe that casting the definition without reference to content, as the FAQs do, places the focus where it belongs: not on "getting ads we don't want", but on "making email and Usenet unusable". If we focus simply on commercial ads, we are still vulnerable to spams from religious zealots and other idiots who aren't asking for money; we also waste energy arguing about what is and is not commercial. I hope we all get in the habit of talking about unsolicited bulk email (UBE), not unsolicited commercial email (UCE), since a piece of non-commercial spam email can be just as harmful as a piece of commercial spam email. The definition of "excessive" or "too many" is not universally agreed, though 20 seems to be the working definition for Usenet newsgroups. I fear I may have gone on too long. Though this topic is interesting and timely, I would hate to see Telecom Digest shift its primary focus to spam and other net abuse for any length of time; I'd rather see the electrons used for our core interest. Folks who want to discuss spam at greater length, advocate solutions, and learn of defense measures might want to visit the very active news.admin.net-abuse.* newsgroups, or check out the numerous Web sites. To get you started with the Web sites, I've got a couple of dozen URLs on my Web page, at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1791/nospam.htm Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems Cleveland, Ohio mailto:stanbrown@geocities.com USA http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1791/ ------------------------------ From: Lawrence W. Kauffman Subject: Anti-Spam Coalition Date: 26 May 1997 04:02:23 GMT Organization: Anti-Spam Coalition The Anti-Spam Coalition is a non-profit organization dedicated to the legislative reform of laws pertaining to the use of unsolicited mails as a means of marketing goods and services. We need your help! Please visit our home page to find out what ASC can do for you. Become a part of the solution, not the problem. If you are currently using flames to combat spamming, you are part of the problem. Help make the internet a safe place to exchange information and ideas in a free society. Help us pass legislation that will place safeguards in place that prohibit marketers from using e-mail as a primary means to sell products. http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/8509/antispam.html Thank you! Lawrence Kauffman President/ASC http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/8509/antispam.html ------------------------------ From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Alert: Two Anti-Spam Bills in Congress; One Good, One Bad Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 14:57:39 -0500 Organization: SPC Reply-To: "[nospam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca > Incidentally, I hear that Cyber Promotions supports the Murkowski bill. Yeah, one of the multiple spams I received from them recently was routed through a Taiwan site. So they have already found a way to bypass a "local" USA law. Politicians cannot regulate the internet. There was a story recently about a canadian who had some "anonymous" "VOTE GREEN PARTY" pages on his web site and Elections Canada forced him to remove the page as its anonymity contravened elections laws in Canada. His pages quickly appeared on sites hosted outside of Canada. What would work better is a self-regulation from ISPs. Users should complain to their own ISP about each spam message they get, and then each ISP would simply block *ALL* traffic coming from ISPs that continue to supply SPAMMERs with resources. ISPs would then have to choose between hosting a single SPAMMER and very few customers as the later would not be able to send e-mail to many folks, or remove spammers and have a healthy population of users. And this would work across international boundaries. ------------------------------ From: Ewhorne@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 11:55:06 EDT Subject: S771 and Unsolicited Email An open letter to Senator Murkowski: Dear Senator, Your bill, S771, is a good idea, but it takes the wrong path toward a valuable goal. I agree that the government must take steps to limit unsolicited email (SPAM), but disagree very strongly with a fundamental premise behind you proposed law. Senator, your bill scares me, more for what it doesn't say than for what it does: it doesn't say that it's wrong to waste millions of man-hours each day by using the Internet to spew filth and sleaze on a grand scale. While I agree that the government should not be entitled to dictate what I can see in my in box, I also feel strongly that the government should not establish a new "right" for those pushing pornography, get rich quick schemes, the one true faith, or anything else to bombard the Internet with email. As with the due process clause in the constitution, a requirement to observe a restriction implies the government's permission to perform the act: up until now, there hasn't been any de jure restriction on SPAM, and thus no implied right to use it. YOUR BILL WOULD ESTABLISH THAT RIGHT - AND THAT WOULD BE WRONG. The early users of the Internet were technical professionals, who lived in an academic atmosphere that forbade lying, discouraged showmanship, demanded proof for claims made, and assured equal attention to all with a well reasoned argument to make, no matter what their race or background. This academic habit of trust and tolerance permeated the early Internet culture, and became known as "Netiquette". In large part, it survives to this day -- but the sleazy hustlers now trying to make easy money from the Internet have taken advantage of the "netizens" trust, and the lack of security on the net, to pervert both the trust and the future of the net. Make no mistake: the Internet is now at a crossroad, and you are choosing the direction it takes. As you consider this matter, you will hear many claims calling forth the First Amendment. However, all of the facile and self-serving arguments made by those generating SPAM quickly fall apart when held up to the light of common sense: there is no right to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, nor a right to peddle pornography inside a school. There is, most importantly, no right for a mugger to confront me with a demand for money, EVEN IF HE TELLS ME IN ADVANCE THAT HE WILL! Please, do not dismiss my analogy: those sending unsolicited email are robbing me and my employer and the Internet Service Providers with whom we contract, just as surely as a streetcorner thug claiming to be a loan collector. The sleaze merchants will, no doubt, compare themselves to the various direct mail businesses -- while forgetting to mention that direct mail costs money, and thus has a built in incentive to lessen mail sent to those who don't want it. Individuals such as Sanford Wallace are making fortunes by shifting the costs of their direct advertisements to their victims and away from themselves. Morover, the money needed to send direct mail provides a powerful incentive to maintain and use an up-to-date list of those who don't want it. Compare this to the Internet, where the incentive would be to sabotage any "opt out" process. Lastly, spammers seek to minimize ALL costs, including that of answering complaints - while I may not care for mail sent to my house by my local supermarket, I can voice my displeasure, up close and personal, at the business in question, and that makes it less of an irritant than SPAM. More importantly from the government's perspective, direct mail goes to my HOUSE, not my workplace. I do not have to deal with mail sent to my house until I choose, and throwing away an unwanted ad wastes only my personal time - but email arriving at my workplace demands immediate attention and classification, thus wasting money that I, my boss, and the stockholders of my employer want used productively. Finally, I will touch on the technical problem of SPAM. I was present at the creation of the Internet: as a telephone company technician, I installed some of the first 50 Kb/s data lines going into MIT. These circuits have given ways to fiber optic lines that carry traffic at gigabit rates: but there is never going to be enough bandwidth on the Internet, and SPAM increases the problem a thousandfold. I have seen the net grow, and had looked forward to watching it become a means of education and commerce that might benefit all Americans: now I see, instead, those using the net to send SPAM are perverting it without any thought of the cost to others. Soon after FAX machines became a standard business tool, congress took on the unpleasant, but necessary, job of forbidding unsolicited FAX messages. The law has worked quite well, and I think you should join with Representative Chris Smith to extend the anti-fax protections to the Internet. Sincerely, E. William Horne 43 Deerfield Rd. Sharon MA 02067-2301 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 13:07:20 EDT From: A. Padgett Peterson Subject: Truth in Spamming Bill Pat - have been quiet for a while since have been embroiled in a legal absurdity (see http://www.freivald.org/~padgett/ if you want details), but agree with you completely about the 1st Amendment. It guarentees the ability to speak freely (and, by extension, communicate freely). It does not provide for protection from the effects of that speech, nor does it require that anyone listen. In fact all the 1st amendment provides is that the government will stay out of the matter. What I am concerned about is that abuse is laying the groundwork for the regulation of the Internet by the FCC. Nothing in the 1st amendment say the government must provide a soapbox for a speaker to stand on and nothing says there must be an Internet. Such regulatory power would provide for a requirement for a subject line header and a valid return address (RFC 821 provides for real time validation of the source but no-one bothers with that. Certainly in 1923, no-one was concerned about any regulation of radio ... Warmly, Padgett (UDA) ------------------------------ From: stevenl@pe.net (Steven Lichter) Subject: Another 800 Number For Your Review Date: 26 May 1997 08:20:11 -0700 Organization: PE.net - Internet access from the Press-Enterprise Company In an effort to pass important information about new products on the internet that have 800 numbers, here is another one: 800-942-9304. This will give you a deminstration of new digital TV's. If you are interested in getting information by fax, call 512-404-1269 (not free unless you are local to them). It is advised you use a pay phone or large PABX for the 800 number and remember not to harass them as that is against the law. *****LEGAL NOTICE TO ALL BULK E-MAILERS***** NOTICE TO BULK EMAILERS: Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, 227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. I ALSO DON'T BUY FROM BULK E-MAILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SysOp Apple Elite II and OggNet Hub (909)359-5338 2400/14.4 24 hours, Home of GBBS/LLUCE Support for the Apple II and Macintoch computers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 04:09:32 -0700 From: Babu Mengelepouti Reply-To: dialtone@vcn.bc.ca Organization: US Secret Service Subject: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? Spamford appears to be multi-homed, if the research I have done is any indication. I took the novel approach of looking up who owns the IP blocks that his nameservers run on. His nameservers are easily obtainable by a simple whois: Cyber Promotions, Inc (CYBERPROMO-DOM) 8001 Castor Avenue Suite #127 Philadelphia, PA 19152 US Domain Name: CYBERPROMO.COM Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Wallace, Sanford (SW1708) domreg@CYBERPROMO.COM 215-628-9780 Billing Contact: Wallace, Sanford (SW1708) domreg@CYBERPROMO.COM 215-628-9780 Record last updated on 24-Jan-97. Record created on 26-Apr-96. Database last updated on 25-May-97 04:56:34 EDT. Domain servers in listed order: NS7.CYBERPROMO.COM 205.199.2.250 NS5.CYBERPROMO.COM 205.199.212.50 NS8.CYBERPROMO.COM 207.124.161.65 NS9.CYBERPROMO.COM 207.124.161.50 Well, starting with ns7.cyberpromo.com, it's no surprise: Whois: net 205.199.2 AGIS/Net99 (NETBLK-NET99-BLK4) NET99-BLK4 205.198.0.0 - 205.199.255.0 Cyber Promotions Inc (NETBLK-CYBERPROMO-205-199B) CYBERPROMO-205-199B 205.199.2.0 - 205.199.2.255 And the same for ns5.cyberpromo.com... Whois: whois net 205.199.212 AGIS/Net99 (NETBLK-NET99-BLK4) NET99-BLK4 205.198.0.0 - 205.199.255.0 Cyber Promotions Inc (NETBLK-CYBERPROMO-205-199) CYBERPROMO-205-199 205.199.212.0 - 205.199.212.255 But wait? Is spamford multihoming? A Cable & Wireless Class C block! Whois: net 207.124.161 Cable & Wireless, Inc. (NETBLK-NET3-CWI-NET) NET3-CWI-NET 207.124.0.0 - 207.124.255.255 IDCI (NETBLK-CWI-IDCI2) CWI-IDCI2 207.124.160.0 - 207.124.164.255 IDCI (NETBLK-IDCI-BLK-11) IDCI-BLK-11 207.124.161.0 - 207.124.162.255 But strangely, it doesn't resolve... 1 2427 ms 2135 ms 2716 ms Max18.Seattle.WA.MS.UU.NET [207.76.5.24] 2 1235 ms 929 ms 477 ms Ar1.Seattle.WA.MS.UU.NET [207.76.5.3] 3 175 ms 167 ms 623 ms Fddi0-0.CR1.SEA1.Alter.Net [137.39.33.41] 4 213 ms 263 ms 265 ms 110.Hssi4-0.CR1.TCO1.Alter.Net [137.39.69.121] 5 271 ms 264 ms 597 ms 313.atm1-0.gw1.tco1.alter.net [137.39.21.153] 6 258 ms 990 ms 244 ms cwix2-gw.customer.ALTER.NET [137.39.184.82] 7 739 ms 482 ms 655 ms nyd-7513-1-h4-0.cwix.net [207.124.104.50] 8 581 ms 257 ms 490 ms ny1-7000-02-f0/0.cwi.net [205.136.191.228] 9 634 ms 1044 ms 1183 ms ny1-7000-01-f4/0.cwi.net [205.136.191.227] 10 580 ms 358 ms 297 ms idci-cwi.cwi.net [205.136.226.210] 11 232 ms 731 ms 302 ms phl-bcn1-client-router.idci.net [205.136.21.3] 12 1267 ms 1197 ms 899 ms 146.145.254.62 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * * Request timed out. And another! Whois: net 207.124.161 Cable & Wireless, Inc. (NETBLK-NET3-CWI-NET) NET3-CWI-NET 207.124.0.0 - 207.124.255.255 IDCI (NETBLK-CWI-IDCI2) CWI-IDCI2 207.124.160.0 - 207.124.164.255 IDCI (NETBLK-IDCI-BLK-11) IDCI-BLK-11 207.124.161.0 - 207.124.162.255 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What is IDCI, I wonder? This one doesn't resolve either. 1 532 ms 188 ms 168 ms Max18.Seattle.WA.MS.UU.NET [207.76.5.24] 2 1284 ms 2128 ms 2321 ms Ar1.Seattle.WA.MS.UU.NET [207.76.5.3] 3 3037 ms 2575 ms 453 ms Fddi0-0.CR1.SEA1.Alter.Net [137.39.33.41] 4 634 ms 475 ms 241 ms 110.Hssi4-0.CR1.TCO1.Alter.Net [137.39.69.121] 5 887 ms 1357 ms 929 ms 313.atm1-0.gw1.tco1.alter.net [137.39.21.153] 6 508 ms 447 ms 260 ms cwix2-gw.customer.ALTER.NET [137.39.184.82] 7 284 ms 275 ms 270 ms nyd-7513-1-h4-0.cwix.net [207.124.104.50] 8 610 ms 495 ms * ny1-7000-02-f0/0.cwi.net [205.136.191.228] 9 300 ms 264 ms 683 ms ny1-7000-01-f4/0.cwi.net [205.136.191.227] 10 621 ms 233 ms 275 ms idci-cwi.cwi.net [205.136.226.210] 11 275 ms 250 ms 767 ms phl-bcn1-client-router.idci.net [205.136.21.3] 12 648 ms 954 ms 647 ms 146.145.254.58 13 * * * Request timed out. 14 * * * Request timed out. 15 * * * Request timed out. 16 * * * Request timed out. Could Spamford have another provider up his sleeve? I wonder if Cable & Wireless is planning to give him a link when Agis finally bites the bullet and drops him. I could drop a couple of suggestions. Performing traceroutes into random addresses in his class C blocks revealed some very interesting results. And finally, even though he has disabled nslookup on most of his machines, he forgot one ... So here ya go. nslookups on his most infamous domains... answerme.com. SOA answerme.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (1 17 172800 3600 1728000 172800) answerme.com. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com answerme.com. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com answerme.com. MX 5 answerme.com answerme.com. A 205.199.212.8 localhost A 127.0.0.1 ftp CNAME answerme.com news CNAME answerme.com www CNAME cybermirror1.com answerme.com. SOA answerme.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (1 17 172800 3600 1728000 172800) cybermirror1.com. SOA cybermirror1.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com . (117 172800 3600 1728000 172800) cybermirror1.com. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com cybermirror1.com. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com cybermirror1.com. MX 5 cybermirror1.com cybermirror1.com. A 205.199.2.248 answerme A 205.199.212.8 news CNAME cybermirror1.com localhost A 127.0.0.1 www CNAME cybermirror1.com auto1 A 205.199.212.36 auto2 A 207.124.161.91 auto3 A 207.124.161.78 ftp CNAME cybermirror1.com cybermirror1.com. SOA cybermirror1.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com . (117 172800 3600 1728000 172800) cyberpromo.com. SOA cyberpromo.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (126 172800 3600 1728000 172800) cyberpromo.com. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. MX 5 cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. MX 10 cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. A 205.199.212.36 news CNAME cyberpromo.com ns5 A 205.199.212.50 ns5 MX 10 ns5.cyberpromo.com ns7 MX 10 cyberpromo.com ns7 A 205.199.2.250 ns8 A 207.124.161.65 ns8 MX 10 ns8.cyberpromo.com localhost A 127.0.0.1 localhost A 205.199.212.36 localhost MX 10 cyberpromo.com ns9 A 207.124.161.51 ns9 MX 10 ns9.cyberpromo.com www A 205.199.2.247 ftp CNAME cyberpromo.com cyberpromo.com. SOA cyberpromo.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (126 172800 3600 1728000 172800) ispam.net. SOA ispam.net hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (113 172800 3600 1728000 172800) ispam.net. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com ispam.net. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com ispam.net. A 205.199.212.34 ispam.net. MX 5 ispam.net localhost A 127.0.0.1 ftp CNAME ispam.net news CNAME ispam.net www CNAME cyberpromo.com ispam.net. SOA ispam.net hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (113 172800 3600 1728000 172800) keepmailing.com. SOA keepmailing.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (111 172800 3600 1728000 172800) keepmailing.com. NS ns7.cyberpromo.com keepmailing.com. NS ns9.cyberpromo.com keepmailing.com. MX 5 keepmailing.com keepmailing.com. A 205.199.212.30 localhost A 127.0.0.1 ftp CNAME keepmailing.com news CNAME keepmailing.com www CNAME keepmailing.com keepmailing.com. SOA keepmailing.com hostmaster.cyberpromo.com. (111 172800 3600 1728000 172800) Happy umm ... exploring. Of course, I would NEVER want ANYONE to even THINK of doing anything malicious with this information. HACKING IS ILLEGAL! I love Jeff Slaton. I love Spamford. They help the economy. AGIS is our friend. . /|\ //|\\ Welcome to the rainforest... ///|\\\ dialtone@vcn.bc.ca [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thank you very much for passing that information along. Anyone from Cable & Wireless want to look into things from that side and give us a followup? PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #131 ******************************