Return-Path: Received: by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.7.4/NSCS-1.0S) id JAA09553; Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 09:32:03 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199710051332.JAA09553@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V17 #272 TELECOM Digest Sun, 5 Oct 97 09:31:00 EDT Volume 17 : Issue 272 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson I Fell For it Also (TELECOM Digest Editor) Re: Anti-Spam Spam? (Jack Hamilton) Re: Anti-Spam Spam? (John R. Levine) Re: Anti-Spam Spam? (Tom Betz) Re: Anti-Spam Spam? (Ryan Tucker) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (NetNut) Re: Worldcom - MCI merger? (Doug Dalton) Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? (Jeremy Rogers) MCI Will Consider WorldCom Offer (Eric Florack) Re: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario (Bruce Wilson) Re: Help With Line Noise Please (Jack Decker) 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: * telecom-request@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 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. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 08:22:39 EDT From: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu (TELECOM Digest Editor) Subject: I Fell For it Also After running the message yesterday about the new anti-spam script developed and being distributed by 'CrisLewis' I got a few messages saying the person doing this was an imposter, using Chris Lewis' name to make it seem more authentic. It now appears the `anti-spam' product is just another in a long line of scams and frauds being distributed on the net these days. I've included several messages in this issue telling about it. PAT ------------------------------ From: jfh@mail.org.uk (Jack Hamilton) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Spam? Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 22:11:21 GMT Organization: Copyright (c) 1997 by Jack Hamilton On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:29:43 -0700, TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to Anthony Argyriou : > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chris Lewis (at least I think there > is an 'H' in his name) has long been a spam fighter, Another well-know spam fighter was CancelMoose, an entity who appeared out of nowhere to cancel spam. He (or she) conducted business through the late, lamented anonymous mail service at anon.penet.fi (now closed, apparently as the result of attacks by the Church of Scientology). CancelMoose is now retired, but left behind at least two legacies: NoCeM, a method of identifying and deleting spam; and PGPMoose, a set of programs to cancel messages with forged approvals in moderated newsgroup. These new programs are maintained by known people, but we never found out who the original CancelMoose was. I bet Chris Lewis knows, though... This new spam cancellation program you mention, from "Crislewis, Inc.", is *not* associated with the Chris Lewis of spam-fighting fame. It surprised me that he would be charging for such a product, and advertising it in such a fashion, so I looked through Yahoo and found this: > Subject: Re: Usenet Cancel Engine--Some Questions > From: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) > Date: 1997/10/03 > Message-Id: <6138m2$pom@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> > Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet,alt.stop.spamming > In article <60taha$ups$1@orthanc.reference.com>, > wrote: >> It is now over - and I give to you - The Windows95/NT UseNet Cancel >> Engine - in honor and recognition of the outstanding contributions >> given to the UseNet community by Chris Lewis and his sacrificial >> contributions, diligent, and conscientious efforts to save what would >> certainly be a *dead* UseNet if it weren't for his work. That sir, is >> why the company was named CrisLewis, Inc. by its owners, we are the >> marketing arm of that entity under contract but in my own personal >> opinion he definitely deserves the credit for the resolve of the >> greatest problem, and most controversial issue in Internet history. > Dear Mr. Enlow, > I should formally state that you are clearly attempting to use my name > and reputation as an endorsement of your software (your message stands as > proof of this), and that I very strongly object to you doing so. I hereby > demand that you remove my name from any and all advertising or other > material that attempts to associate me in any way with your software, > services, or business identity. > Furthermore, the misspelling in "CrisLewis, Inc" is clearly not > sufficient to disconnect me from association with your services, because > I have on file several email messages from people who believe that > "CrisLewis, Inc" is referring to me - hence the misspelling is clearly > inadequate to prevent people from believing I am somehow involved or > endorsing your product - but as you said above, it's clear that the > association is deliberate. > Without prejudice, I should point out that there is plenty of legal > precedent in the US (and Canada) to award heavy penalties for the use > of people's names (or likenesses in some cases) to endorse products or > services against their wishes. It certainly can also be considered > false advertising. > I would appreciate your immediate attention to this issue, and > immediate removal of my name or clear variations thereof from any and > all further communications or legal documents related to you, your > products, and your business entities. > Regards, > Chris Lewis > Box 124, Dunrobin, Ontario > Canada K0A 1T0 > The rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated. > Support the anti-Spam amendment. Join at http://www.cauce.org/ > Anti-spam resources: http://spam.abuse.net -------------------- This product is being promoted in a misleading way, and has potential for doing great damage if it works as advertised. Someone could easily cancel every approved article in comp.dcom.telecom, by accident or deliberately. It's hard to tell, from looking at the product's web page at , just how much this program costs for individual use, but it has a multilevel distribution plan, which raises my suspicions, and the advertising relies heavily on emotional manipulation. Avoid it. Jack Hamilton Sacramento, California jfh @ alumni . stanford . org PGP ID: 79E07035 FP:156BBDDC 77FAB77F D1CAC4BA 70765C63 ------------------------------ Date: 4 Oct 1997 14:28:04 -0000 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R. Levine) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Spam? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. >> All you have to do is scan the UseNet, using key-word searches, and >> the program will run in automatic mode issuing cancels even while >> you're asleep. This is the beginning of the END of spam forever - >> thanks to CrisLewis, Inc, and their developers. This is actually a piece of junk sold by chronic spammer Mike Enlow. Chris Lewis is, to put it mildly, not pleased to have his name associated with it and is apparently prepared to sue to get Enlow to stop using his name. 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: tbetz@panix.com (Tom Betz) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Spam? Date: 5 Oct 1997 01:33:13 GMT Organization: Society for the Elimination of Junk Unsolicited Bulk Email Reply-To: tbetz@pobox.com Quoth Anthony Argyriou in : > I've received several copies of a very interesting spam: > Subject: Win95 CancelBot Lets ANYONE Delete Spam WORLDWIDE! > Reply-To: dougb@adram.com >> A Windows 95 Cancel-bot? Finally *WE* can control the Usenet, and >> All you have to do is scan the UseNet, using key-word searches, and >> the program will run in automatic mode issuing cancels even while >> you're asleep. This is the beginning of the END of spam forever - >> thanks to CrisLewis, Inc, and their developers. > Anyone know anything about this? What is their benefit? > Anthony Argyriou > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Chris Lewis (at least I think there > is an 'H' in his name) has long been a spam fighter, going back to > what seems now to be an eternity ago when everyone's favorite villian > was King Spam I (what was his name?) down in Albuquerque, NM. Ah yes, > Jeff Slaton. Probably King Spam II is much worse; far more of a tyrant > than Slaton ever dreamed of being. Word among the anti-spam community is that this Cancelbot is the product of one Mike Enlow, spammer and PI scammer. You can entertain yourself by browsing my Mike Enlow Parody Page Mirror Site at , or you can do a Dejanews search on his name for more recent information. > Chris Lewis certainly is honest and dedicated to his cause, which > seems to be the total eradication of spam during our lifetime (do > you remember when they used to say that about cancer research?). I > would have no hesitation in ordering and using his software. It's not Chris' software; it's a feeble attempt at defamation by Mike Enlow, whose many Usenet spams Chris and others have cancelled. We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist | for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? First, read this page: | it's time we tried education. | | | I mock up my reactive mind twice daily. | [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well that goes to show how little I knew about it ... I wonder why he simply did not use his own name -- or if his own name is too badly besmirched in the community -- some other name where now he would not be so likely to get sued by the real owner of the name. PAT] ------------------------------ From: rtucker+19971004@crasher2.ttgcitn.com (Ryan Tucker) Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Spam? Date: 4 Oct 1997 07:43:41 GMT Organization: My other news server has *two* gerbils and a hamster. On Fri, 03 Oct 1997 18:29:43 -0700, Anthony Argyriou spewed: >> Reply-To: dougb@adram.com ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> All you have to do is scan the UseNet, using key-word searches, and >> the program will run in automatic mode issuing cancels even while >> you're asleep. This is the beginning of the END of spam forever - >> thanks to CrisLewis, Inc, and their developers. ^^^^^^^^^ > call it an important net-wide broadcast announcement. If anyone > contacts Chris and gets a copy, please check it out and let us > all know if it does the job. PAT] ... or, it could be an attempt by some pondscum to try to make the cancels less effective by dilution (if EVERY post gets cancelled, more news servers will ignore them), and tarnish Chris Lewis's reputation at the same time. The program makes it very impossible to properly cancel legitimate spam -- there's no way to verify whether or not it's spam, and there's nearly no way to configure it to put the right identifiers on it to make them proper spam cancels. Its intended purpose is to disrupt Usenet by giving everyone the power to say "I don't like that post" and then get rid of it ... definately a scary proposition. -rt Ryan Tucker http://www.ttgcitn.com/~rtucker/ UIN: 1976881 finger rtucker@ttgcitn.com for PGP pub key/contact info there's something quite bizarre i cannot see.. -Mansun/Wide Open Space [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Something else which occurred to me was a sophisticated person could put together an 'anti-spam' script which really was just the opposite: a 'pro-spam' script which attempted to kill everything but spam. I guess someone could put together a rather obtuse and difficult to understand binary; package it all up nicely; tar it and leave it in a directory somewhere. They'd then announce on the net: "New, guarenteed to work anti-spam software. All you need to do is come to our web site and get your free copy. You then take it back to your site, untar it, type 'install' and wait while it configures itself and starts in operation. It will then run silently and almost invisibly in the background 24 hours per day killing spam ..." Lots of folks would rush to get a copy -- especially since it was being given free, underwritten by a grant from some major corporation as a public service to the net -- and they would install it and go off to bed. The next day the Usenet would be *nothing but* spam, all the legitimate messages having been cancelled during the night. Really, I think all you would need to do is reverse the existing parameters now in place, i.e. looking for dollar signs, exclamation points and certain phrases. If those were *not* in the message, then cancel it. Ho,Ho Ho! Now what a mess we have. Not content to merely flood the net with spam, the spammers teach the innocent netizens how to kill off each other's messages to make more room for the lunchmeat. Sounds like a plan to me! PAT] ------------------------------ From: netnut@aol.com (NetNut) Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 04:26:48 GMT Organization: CampusMCI Reply-To: netnut@aol.com On 3 Oct 1997 13:09:10 -0700, Dennis.-.MCI.Stockholder@zippo.com wrote: > As a stockholder and former MCI employee, I would be very surprised if > this ever takes place. Not sure how it can be stopped. BT is already taking heat from their institutional shareholders for buying MCI in the first place. So BT won't come up with the money to match the WorldCom bid. The only way the deal with WorldCom won't take place is if the shareholders vote against it. > I do not believe the stockholders would have approved the revised > BT/MCI merger. That is why WorldCom has made this move. However, the > stockholders of both BT and MCI have approved the original merger. My > guess is that MCI and BT will merge under the orignal, approved terms > to thwart the Worldcom bid. Won't happen. In order to go back to the original terms BT will have to match the WorldCom offer. Remember: BT cut their offer price because of the losses MCI will suffer in order to enter the local market. When BT revised the bid their holders loved the new terms. From the MCI side it stunk for those folks who were in it just for quick buck, but for long term gain it was the better way to go. (The MCI losses would not have hurt Concert since the buying price was lower.) > PS: Any MCI stockholder that would vote to merge with MCI under the > revised plan needs to have their head examined. It stinks if you are a > stockholder. Agree and disagree. For the long term the revised merger is a good plan. Short term ... it kinda stinks. You would not see a return on the investment for a couple of years. Bottom line ... BT will retain their current 20% with MCI, WorldComm will buy the rest. This will keep the Concert alignment in tact and give BT what it needs the most: an America presence. (AT&T is unattainable and Sprint is already partially owned by the French and Germans for the Global One alliance.) MCI's local losses would greatly diminish since WorldCom already has local services in 96 markets (compared to about 40 or 50 for MCI). Nope, its gonna happen. In two years you probably won't even hear the name MCI, just Concert and WorldCom. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You think a return on the investment could happen in two years? I think that is unrealistic. I suspect five or six years is more likely. I mean, there is an awful lot of money involved here, and some very difficult technical details. If they see a nickle in two years I will be suprised. Like you though, I am sure it is going to happen, pretty much the way you say. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 07:22:45 -0700 From: ddalton@netscape.com (Doug Dalton) Organization: Netscape Subject: Re:Worldcom - MCI merger? Other side on this merger is that BT has been running a smear campaign against MCI, BT contends that MCI is a struggling company that made itself look better than it was actually performing and was providing misinformation during merger discussions. I don't know how much of this is propaganda, I don't think BT is trying to get out of the merger, but they sure make it seem that way, the UUNet offer must be stressing BT's protests. Doug Dalton - Network Manager - Netscape Communications ddalton@netscape.com - http://people.netscape.com/ddalton [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: If past history is any indicator, under Bill McGowan's reign at MCI in the company's very early days there was indeed a concerted effort by MCI to apply a lot of cosmetics and to use a lot of 'creative accounting' to make things look good. I do not know about the current management except to say many of them learned their trade under McGowan's leadership. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Jeremy Rogers Subject: Re: WorldCom - MCI Merger? Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 08:10:53 +0100 The message from Dennis.-.MCI.Stockholder@zippo.com contains these words: > PS: Any MCI stockholder that would vote to merge with MCI under the > revised plan needs to have their head examined. It stinks if you are a > stockholder. But the original deal stinks if you are a BT shareholder, so there seems a problem there. Indeed it is by no means certain that BT shareholders would approve the revised plan either. BT shares have risen substantially because it has been seen as getting out of a bad deal. Jez ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 05:33:33 PDT From: Eric Florack Subject: MCI Will Consider WorldCom Offer Internet Daily says: /E ** MCI will consider WorldCom offer MCI Communications Corp. said late Wednesday that the company's board would meet "in due course" to consider the historic $30 billion buyout offer from WorldCom Inc. Analysts have been scratching their heads all day trying to figure out what such an acquisition could mean for the Internet. Look for a clue in the company's statement following its deal to acquire CompuServe. WorldCom chief Bernard Ebbers said the purchase will "further distance us from all of the traditional carriers, as we continue to build a different kind of communications company." WorldCom's UUNet is already the world's largest Internet service provider, according to InfoWorld magazine. MCI has been transporting Internet traffic since 1987 and has connections in 70 countries. Such a deal between MCI and WorldCom "is the worst nightmare come true for AT&T and the RBOCs (region Bell companies)," said Tom Nolle, president of network consultant CIMI, in Vorhees, N.J. "WorldCom is a shark swimming with goldfish," he told InfoWorld. "It's showing that it knows how to put together a 21st century network ... with voice, data, local and long-distance services." All of which, of course, can be moved on the Net. MCI, which has agreed to be acquired by British Telecommunications, WorldCom shares fell about 3 percent, shares of AT&T were off half a percent. Among Internet service providers, PSINet was unchanged, while Netcom was up 4 percent. See DBC Report. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 4 Oct 1997 19:31:21 -0400 From: blw1540@aol.com (Bruce Wilson) Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: Re: Major Phone Cut in Mississauga, Ontario In article , David Leibold writes: > Meanwhile, a Toronto radio report today indicated about half of the > affected phone customers should have their service restored by > now. The repairs continue ... A little over 30 years ago, I don't know how many pairs went out when a big chunk of the old bridge carrying the cables (buried under the paving) dropped into the river in Des Moines, Iowa; and the cable was old enough it wasn't color-coded, so *every* pair had to be traced from each end to be matched with the corresponding pair at the other end. I don't recall now how long it took (then) NW Bell to restore service to everyone. And as I recall, the way they strung the temporary replacement cable was to get a dog with a light line to walk across what was left of the bridge then used that line to pull ever heavier line until they had something strong enough going across the bridge to pull the cable. Bruce Wilson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997 00:13:32 -0400 From: Jack Decker Subject: Re: Help With Line Noise Please Tony Ward writes: > I currently have two phone lines, one for voice and one for my modem. > My question is this: I have line noise on both lines (local radio > station). I have installed a noise supressor on both lines (close to > modem and phone). I currently have a 28,8 modem (connect at 26,4 or > 24) and was wondering wether the supressor inhibits modem connection > speed (actually I can not connect without the supressor being there). > Is there anything else I can realistically do to stop the interference > and is it worth my while getting a k56flex modem? Would it be better > to put a line supressor where my telco box comes into the house (if so > how?). I can tell you what the solution to this problem was in the old "Bell System" days (having lived most of my early years across the street from an AM radio transmitter that seemed to come in on just about everything but the fillings in my teeth!). The most usual course of action was to use an inexpensive electronic component called a capacitor... in particular, they used to use capacitors made of mylar, because these are small and tend to outlast many other types of capacitors, and also they are better at filtering out high frequencies. The usual rating for the capacitor was .02 microfarad at 600 volts. Typically they would first try installing one inside the phone, wired so that it would connect across the line only when the receiver was off-hook. Since most people don't want to open up their phones, I'd go with their second choice, which was to install two of them at the protector block (now the network interface usually located outside your home) - one connected between each side of the phone line and ground. Now, you have to understand that a capacitor works in this application by acting as a near-dead short for high (radio) frequencies (shorting them to ground), while still offering a high resistance at lower (audio) frequencies. But if the value is too high, it can also start to affect audio frequencies. What I am saying is that the value of the capacitor is important. The 600 volts isn't as critical; in a pinch you could probably get by with as low as a 400 volt rating (but it might fail in a voltage surge situation, shorting out your phone line) and if you can get a higher voltage than 600 that is great - the higher the voltage, the more protection against damage by voltage surges. But on a voice line, I'd stick pretty close to the .02 microfarad rating. On a high speed modem line, you might want to see if you can get by with an even lower value (I'd start with .001 microfarad and if that didn't work I'd try .005, .01, and finally .02 in that order - use the lowest value that seems to eliminate the interference). You should be able to find mylar capacitors in these values at anyplace that sells electronic components, including Radio Shack. If you can't find a mylar capacitor with the proper ratings, any other type of non-polarized capacitor with the proper ratings might work, but may not attenuate the radio frequencies quite as well. Don't use a polarized capacitor (one with + and - markings) in this application. If a pair of .02 microfarad capacitors doesn't work, it may mean that you have a problem with a bad connection, either on the wires inside your home or the wires leading to your home. Plug a phone into the network interface outside your home (make sure that phone has very good cords on it!) and see if you get the interference. If so, call the phone company and tell them you need them to check any junctions or splices in the pair leading to your home, to see if perhaps there is a poor connection that is acting as a detector for radio signals (much like the old-time crystal radio sets that your grandparents may have used). In any case, check your inside wiring and disconnect any unused pairs, and clean up all connections (replace any corroded terminals, etc.). When things got really rough, the Bell service techs used a filter that internally consisted of a pair of choke coils, one each in series with each leg of the phone line. This replaced the terminal block that the phone was connected to (remember, this was prior to the days of modular plugs and jacks). These were VERY effective in blocking radio interference (one of the phone guys gave me one to use on an intercom line between our house and garage, and it knocked out the radio interference cold where nothing else had worked). Nowadays, I suspect that there may be more effective ways than choke coils to impede radio frequencies, and if you have any friends that are ham radio operators they could probably tell you about them. Virtually any ham radio swap meet will have one or more vendors selling radio frequency supression devicies; the same devices that are used to keep RF from moving down an AC power line might also work well enough on a phone line, but you'd probably have to experiment to find out what works without knocking out the audio frequencies that you want to keep. But in most cases, a pair of capacitors will be adequate. Interestingly enough, a service tech used essentially this same recipe to eliminate RF interference (that showed up as diagonal lines) in a new TV we had purchased ... he connected a capacitor between each leg of the incoming power line and the chassis ground inside the TV set. Ah, the joys of living in the shadow of an AM radio station! Jack [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: This very topic of interference from radio stations was discussed in great detail several years ago in this Digest. See Volume 9, Issue 208 (Friday, June 23, 1989) for an article entitled 'Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters' for an account of radio station WYCA in Hammond, Indiana. The folowup messages continued over the next several issues. PAT] ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V17 #272 ******************************