Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA15862; Thu, 29 May 1997 09:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 09:04:04 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199705291304.JAA15862@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #136 TELECOM Digest Thu, 29 May 97 09:04:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 136 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson 60,000 "No-AOL" Addresses... $59.95 (Jay R. Ashworth) Possible Spam Legal Action (Chaim Frenkel) Re: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? (Robert A. Pierce) Re: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? (jfmezei) Re: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? (John R. Levine) Re: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? (Jim Youll) Spammer Getting More Sophisticated (Linc Madison) Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers (Hillary Gorman) Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers (Chris Farrar) Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers (John Cropper) Re: Congressman Wants to Ban Spam (Diablo Cat) Anti-Spam Coalition Itself a Fraud (Tom Betz) Warning: Scam Alert (John R. Levine) 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: Jay R. Ashworth Subject: 60,000 "No-AOL" Addresses ... $59.95 Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 20:19:20 EDT This just arrived in my mailbox. Sallynet is, of course, a customer of AGIS, whether or not they're related to Spamford. One point was, however, quite interesting. Windsea wrote: > From windsea@rose.sallynet.com Wed May 28 19:55:30 1997 > From: Windansea Publishing > To: windsea@windansea1.com > Message-ID: > Date: Wed, 28 May 97 16:54:38 EST > Subject: 60,000 "No-AOL" Addresses... $59.95 > Reply-To: windsea@windansea1.com > Comments: Authenticated sender is > _/_/_/ NEW! 600k "AOL-Free" E-Mail List _/_/_/ > As you may be aware, AOL has implemented a filter that > blocks *any* domain that send more than 500k through > their system. Since the majority of lists contain as high > as 75% AOL addresses, what are you paying for? > Don't leave your business high and dry... get the newly > released 600k "AOL-Free" E-Mail Hot List now! > [x] Hot, responsive names culled from our own list, as well > as home and small business Web sites from the four > corners of the Net! > [x] No AOL addresses (now blocking bulk mail) > [x] No Compuserve addresses (also blocking bulk mail) > [x] Fresh! Approx. 60 days old Phew! > [x] No Genie addresses > [x] No .EDU, .ORG, .GOV, .JP, .DE or .NO addresses > [x] High deliverability, awesome response Yup... the response will, no doubt, be awesome. > [x] Filtered against the infamous "Blue List of Internet > Whiners, Complainers and Troublemakers" This was the kicker. Gee. I wonder how one joins? :-) > [x] One-address-per-line format, .zip files > [x] FAST DELIVERY! No waiting for snail mail--you receive > download instructions by e-mail to as soon as your order > is processed! > _/_/_/_/ LIMITED TIME OFFER _/_/_/_/ > Don't wait--take advantage of this red-hot list before your > competitors do... only $59.95! > To order the 600k "AOL-Free" E-Mail List with your Visa or > MasterCard: > 1. Order online NOW, at http://www.windansea1.com/noaol.htm > 2. Telephone Orders call 619-558-0756 > Or send check or money order for $59.95 to: > Windansea Publishing > 8070 La Jolla Shores Drive, Suite 243 > La Jolla, CA 92037 > *** As soon as your order has been processed, you will receive > download instructions by e-mail *** Too bad they didn't include an 800 number. I'da called; wouldn't you? Interestingly enough, I started flying my new domain in my sig files, but _not_ in any headers, about 3 weeks ago. So far, no spam. Are the rumors false? 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@baylink.com get back at them?" --Andy Cramer NIC: jra3 ------------------------------ Subject: Possible Spam Legal Action From: Chaim Frenkel Date: 28 May 1997 22:39:09 -0400 During the course of an email exchange, a fellow from Houston, TX pointed me to a page: http://lonestar.texas.net/~tv2go/penalcode.htm And claimed that the owner of the page is or has filed charges. Just thought you might be interested. Given the number of telcom subscribers, there must be a few from the Lone Star State. Hope this helps, Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc. chaimf@cris.com +1-718-236-0183 ------------------------------ From: no-spam@pobox.com (Robert A. Pierce) Subject: Re: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 14:44:59 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: no-spam@pobox.com Hello! I recently received this junk mail: > From: steve@sprynet.com > Date sent: Wed, 14 May 1997 20:55:22 -0700 > To: XXXXXXXX@YYY.ZZZ > Subject: Hi > Robert, > Hi, > How would you like to advertise over the internet to thousands and thousands > of people? > It is VERY EASY AND VERY CHEAP. Our Prices are very low (around $25 > per 10-15 thousand people.) > For more info please email our autoresponder PAYPHONE@ANSWERME.COM > You will get your info via email within 2 minutes depending on how > fast your mail server is. So I sent mail to payphone@answerme.com with FROM: and REPLY-TO: set to postmaster@localhost. At the time, I did not know that Mr. Wallace's company was involved -- I thought answerme.com might be a 'vanity url.' I also don't know why the message used my first name -- are they sorting these things manually or automatically? I have two questions: One, did that cause PAYPHONE to send mail to postmaster@answerme.com, or would they have set up a filter to prevent that? Two, if they haven't set up a filter to prevent looping, would it make sense to send e-mail to one junk mailer's autoresponder with a reply-to of another autoresponder? Are there other autoresponders or other interesting addresses at the domains listed below? Rob Pierce no-spam@pobox.com (yeah, it's real :] ) [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: An excellent idea! Let's get the various autoresponders started going after each other. Take any two spammers and create a set of mail headers showing each of them as the 'From:' and 'Reply-To:' on the other set of headers. Now each time you get any spam at all, just toss it to a script which places the above headers on the mail and sends it back out. It would help if you are (for sendmail purposes) a trusted user in the sendmail.cf; this will let you totally remove any reference to yourself at all, thus preventing the autoresponders from finding out about you and getting you back in the loop somehow. Be sure to do cc: to a few postmasters, Spamford and whoever else you feel should receive the message several thousand times during the over- night hours. Typically when my autoreply gets caught in a loop with someone else's, I get anywhere from two to three thousand transactions before I catch it and kill the jobs. See how many pieces of mail you can cause to happen (in a loop which involves them -- not yourself!) before they notice it and have to clean up a mess. PAT] ------------------------------ From: jfmezei Subject: Re: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 13:00:12 -0500 Organization: SPC Reply-To: "jfmezei"@videotron.ca.[no.spam] Interesting that you couldn't traceroute all the way to the end: For me, it works fine: Find route to: cyberpromo.com. (205.199.212.36), Max 30 hops, 40 byte packets (local hops omitted for brevity) 6 sl-pen-2-f3/0-100m.sprintlink.net. (144.232.0.122): 716 ms 861 ms 911 ms 7 f1-0.pennsauken1.agis.net. (192.157.69.19): 911 ms 873 ms 901 ms 8 a0.58.philadelphia1.agis.net. (206.185.158.9): 1044 ms 935 ms 893 ms 9 cyberpromo.philadelphia1.agis.net. (206.185.158.2): 1230 ms 954 ms 850 ms 10 spamford.com. (205.199.212.36): 1028 ms 653 ms 384 ms Trace completed savetrees.com also points to spamford.com ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 1997 00:56:21 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > Spamford appears to be multi-homed, if the research I have done is any > indication. Cyber Promo seems to be doing most of their spamming at this point via their "bandwidth partner" IDCI, who is a CWI customer. If you complain to IDCI, you'll get a sanctimonous form letter about how they don't censor their customers, freedom of speech, etc. Speaking of sanctimonious, check out AGIS new press release at http://www.agis.net/press26.htm in which AGIS says that they and their spam customers have agreed to stop spamming until the IEMMC's opt-out system is running. Lest you confuse their statements with the truth, you might want to consider that I've logged 27 spam attempts today from Integrated Media, one of the spam havens that is allegedly going to stop. John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 ------------------------------ From: jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll) Subject: Re: Spamford Getting Service From Cable & Wireless? Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 21:28:27 -0400 Organization: New Media Group, Inc. Babu Mengelepouti wrote: > Spamford appears to be multi-homed, if the research I have done is any > indication. > But wait? Is Spamford multihoming? A Cable & Wireless Class C block! Well, yes. There is no mystery there. > 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? IDCI is an internet provider based in New Jersey that gets is backbone link from Cable & Wireless. Plug in NETBLO-IDCI-BLK-11 on your whois and learn the rest. > 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. This route from phl-bcn1... is the path that was used in another fraudulent multi-thousand-message run which happened 5/26. My name appeared on tens of thousands (apparently) of messages, and as well, the server at the end of your trace above (the machine that's not showing on the trace) started hitting our system with > 6 messages/second nonstop. Can't say much more about that just now. ------------------------------ From: Telecom@Eureka.vip.best.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Spammer Getting More Sophisticated Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 20:27:35 -0700 Organization: No unsolicited commercial e-mail! I got an e-mail spam a couple of weeks ago, I honestly don't remember what about, with an 800 number. I keep a little list of the 800 numbers of people who send me e-mail spam, just in case I feel a sudden need for product information as I walk home past the rows and rows of COCOTs. This one number that's on my current list, though, has taken a little bit different tactic. If you dial 1-800-555-2312 from a payphone, you will get a recorded message informing you that "These services are not available from public phones." What discrimination! Surprisingly enough, every single COCOT I tried, even the ones that I seriously doubt are well programmed or well maintained, got the same rejection message. Damned shame, that. But then again, that's what large PBXs are for. ** 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" << ------------------------------ From: hillary@hillary.net (Hillary Gorman) Subject: Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers Date: 28 May 1997 19:56:39 GMT Organization: Packet Shredders Anonymous In , John McNamee wrote: >> 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 Commercial speech is not and never has been protected by the First Amendment. >> 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. That's why the other bill is better! Check out www.cauce.org and contact your congressman!! Tell him to support Chris Smith's bill, the "Netizen's protection act of 1997." Sure, it has a dumb name, but it's a good bill. Read all about it at www.cauce.org hillary gorman......................................hillary@netaxs.com If you need help, contact ------------------------------ From: Chris Farrar Subject: Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 11:32:23 -0400 Organization: Sympatico Reply-To: cfarrar@sympatico.ca Patrick Tufts wrote: > 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. Actually you can get away without a contact number, if your machine is old enough that it doesn't put that header info onto what you fax. :-) Chris Farrar | cfarrar@sympatico.ca | Amateur Radio, a VE3CFX | fax +1-905-457-8236 | national resource PGPkey Fingerprint = 3B 64 28 7A 8C F8 4E 71 AE E8 85 31 35 B9 44 B2 ------------------------------ From: John Cropper Subject: Re: Legal Recourse Against Spammers Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 05:45:02 -0400 Organization: Mindspring Enterprises > 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. I've received no fewer than fifty faxes (I know the sending party) with a "000000000" sending number. I have casually (repeatedly) advised them to program their number into their machine, to no avail, and to date the 'fax police' haven't shown up on their doorstep. All these neat regulations aren't enforced, and I strongly suspect any move to enforce SPAM legislation will be limited to high-profile cases, while the 'mom-and-pop' operaters continue to sell their "two million addresses" and "e-mail with stealth" programs ... (BTW: Why hasn't Hormel joined in the suit against Mr. Wallace... :->) ------------------------------ From: brianm@ricochet.net (Diablo Cat) Subject: Re: Congressman Wants to Ban Spam Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 16:53:47 GMT On Mon, 26 May 1997 15:07:24 -0500, jfmezei wrote: >> [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] > (Receiving a spam about a religion is just as bad as about the > opportunity to make $10,000,000 overnight). I can see that even people in this group can't really decide what would constitue spam, and whether or not you are asking for responses when you post a news article. I have little confidence that any politician currently in office will be able to put together a logical definition of spam that doesn't infringe on some legitimate communications. I tend to believe that based on the First Amendment, spam should be legal. However, even the First Amendment doesn't allow harassment. I think what will end up happening, and perhaps I am being cynical, the legislation will go the way of the Communications Decency Act, and will have to go to trial to figure out whether it is legal or not. Since bytes are now purchased, because some people have to pay for the amount of email they get, or the connect time is charged, it will be interesting to see how far this will go. Brian. D. Moffet, speaking for myself. But you should know that :-) ------------------------------ From: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Coalition Date: 27 May 1997 10:06:40 -0400 Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth Lawrence W. Kauffman in : > 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. Or maybe not ... This Usenet spam was sent indiscriminately to more than 1000 newsgroups. The web page lists as its address a maildrop service in Simi Valley. Nobody I know has ever heard of "Lawrence W. Kauffman". The only person my Web searches have turned up by that name is an obscure minor-party political candidate in Utah. This appears to be little more than a scheme to separate frustrated victims of Junk EMail from their money. Could someone in California check and see whether this organization is registered as a California NPO? Tom Betz, Generalist Want to send me email? First, read this page: ------------------------------ Date: 28 May 1997 00:42:07 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Warning: Scam Alert Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. This message was a 100% scam. The guy was trolling for credit card numbers and, for people dumb enough to send him checks, cash. In article you write: > 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. > http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/8509/antispam.html > Lawrence Kauffman > President/ASC John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: All I can say is sorry ... it appears that one got past me. I wish I had more resources available to review things like this before publishing them in good faith. I guess the way the net is getting these days nothing should be accepted in good faith any longer. I sincerely assumed the guy was putting together a coalition or organization of people to fight spam. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #136 ******************************