Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id CAA11100; Sat, 15 May 1999 02:21:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 02:21:07 -0400 (EDT) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <199905150621.CAA11100@massis.lcs.mit.edu> To: ptownson Subject: TELECOM Digest V19 #84 TELECOM Digest Sat, 15 May 99 02:21:00 EDT Volume 19 : Issue 84 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Australian Pay Telephones (JF Mezei) Oregon's 971 Partial Overlay of 503 (Eric B. Morson) Subcriber Loop Test? (Quang D. Nguyen) Book Review: "Telecom Made Easy", June Langhoff (Rob Slade) Privacy Report Has Both Sides Scrambling for Spin (Monty Solomon) DNA Dragnet (Monty Solomon) Re: Vietnam City Codes (Linc Madison) Re: Pulse EPABX (Bruce Larrabee) Re: WorldXchange Terrible Experience - Update/Correction (Chris Eastland) Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming (Ted Ede) Re: Cell Phones in Airplanes: Costa Rica (Nate Duehr) "Jury" Decision on Alleged Spammer (TELECOM Digest Editor) 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copywrited. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occassional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 765 Junction City, KS 66441-0765 Phone: 415-520-9905 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe/unsubscribe: subscriptions@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * 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. * ************************************************************************* In addition, a gift from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert has enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 14 May 1999 17:54:42 -0400 From: JF Mezei Subject: Australian Pay Telephones Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:13:47 -0400 Last year, I noticed how Australia has rapidly begun to replace all its payphones with newer smart-card technology ones. (supposedly from Spain). This year, the changeover seems to have slowed down. Not only that, but instead of pushing the sale of smart cards, Telstra now seems to be pushing the slae of "PhoneAway" cards. These are pre-paid "calling" cards which give you reduced rates for long distance calls, allow you to make local calls and also allow you to call Australia from other countries. (And is much cheaper than Australia Direct). (Note Canadian and Australian dollars are roughly at par. For instance, calling Quebec, Canada from Australia: for a 2 minute call: Canada Direct's inflated prices: $6.66+taxes = $7.66 $5.19 first minute, $1.47 subsequent, no offpeak) Canada Direct with 40% reduction package: $4.60 (billed by minute) Telstra payphone smart card: $1.60 per minute (billed by $0.40 increments) $0.80 per minute weekends. 2 minute call: $3.20 (weekdays) 2 minute call: $1.60 (weekends) Telstra PhoneAway Card: $0.77 per minute, $0.44 on weekends. 2 minute call: $1.54 (weekdays) 2 minute call: $0.88 (weekends) Interestingly, the Phoneaway card, when used to dial from Canada to Australia, has the same rates. QUESTION: Considering the amount of money that Telstra has invested in the smart card phones and considering that both smart card and phoneaway are "pre-paid" concepts, why could Telstra not offer the smame low rates on the smart card as it offers on the PhoneAway card ? Seems to me that Telstra has invested a lot in the smart card, only to see it overshadowed by a simpler card. ------------------------------ From: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com (Eric B. Morson) Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:15:04 -0400 Subject: Oregon's 971 Partial Overlay of 503 The Portland and Salem aareas in northwest Oregon will receive a 971 overlay area code beginning January 30, 2000. Permissive 10-digit local dialing will begin on July 11, 1999 and become mandatory on January 30, 2000. See the full text of the press release at: http://AreaCode-Info.com/headline/1999/or990514.htm Eric B. Morson Co-Webmaster AreaCode-Info.com EMail: Eric@AreaCode-Info.com ------------------------------ From: s9609776@cse.rmit.EDU.AU (Quang D. Nguyen) Subject: Subcriber Loop Test? Date: 15 May 1999 01:40:39 GMT Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. Hi, I am currently doing a project to measure capacitance, loop resistance and induction resistance of telephone subcriber loop, to detect and locate faults on the telephone line. Does anyone have a idea to have it done? Any input is appreciated . ------------------------------ From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 08:30:44 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Telecom Made Easy", June Langhoff Reply-To: rslade@sprint.ca BKTLCMME.RVW 990331 "Telecom Made Easy", June Langhoff, 1997, 0-9632790-7-6, U$19.95 %A June Langhoff 71022.2131@compuserve.com %C 796 Aquidneck Avenue, Newport, RI 02842-7246 %D 1997 %G 0-9632790-7-6 %I Aegis Publishing Group Ltd. %O U$19.95 800-828-6961 fax: 401-849-4231 aegis@aegisbooks.com %P 400 p. %T "Telecom Made Easy, Third Edition" According to the book jacket, this is for very small companies with less than five phones installed. The text seems to hit the target quite well. Chapter one is a standard promotional piece for modern telecommuni- cations services. Basic (very basic) user premises equipment is reviewed in chapter two, concentrating on wiring and connections. For those with no background in telephony, these explanations are clear and detailed, although for anyone with some experience the material gets a bit tedious. A variety of phone services, such as Caller-ID and 900 numbers, are briefly described in chapter three. Chapter four looks at phone "lines," or the basic service that you get. The section on ISDN (Integrated Services Digital Network) has a number of points in it, but still may not give the reader enough information about how, actually, to connect to and use the service. A wide range of features for "basic" phone sets are listed in chapter five. Private branch exchanges (PBXs) and other types of phone systems are discussed in chapter six. Chapter seven not only describes the various types of mobile phone service, but also offers tips on security and saving money. Voice mail is covered in chapter eight, and answering machines in nine. Chapter ten deals with pagers. Online services get a look in chapter eleven. The chapter obviously has its origins in commercial services and BBSes, with the Internet as an afterthought, but for all of that the information, though brief, is well thought out. Even the section on viruses isn't bad, until it gets into MS Word macro viruses ("a group of viruses commonly named the Microsoft Concept virus") and protection. The material on modems, in chapter twelve, has lots of tips, but lots of gaps as well, unfortunately. Installing a modem is still a tricky business. Fax is fairly straightforward, and so is chapter thirteen. Chapter fourteen deals not only with telecommuting, but with communicating, and computing, on the road. Chapter fifteen "shows us the money" on phone bills. From my perspective, the advice is pedestrian, but then, I'm a Scot. A miscellany of LANs, disaster recovery, and other topics finishes off in chapter sixteen. Sprinkled throughout the text are boxes with tips or "A Day in the Life of ..." descriptions of use by diverse small businesses or operators. At the end of each chapter there are suggested books for further readings in the topic. I'd never heard of most of them, and of those I had, a number were in the mediocre range. For those just starting out in business, or starting to get to the point of needing more telecommunications services, this work should be a good introduction. In addition, consultants may wish to keep copies around for small business customers in order to get them over the initial hurdles, and keep common questions to a minimum. copyright Robert M. Slade, 1999 BKTLCMME.RVW 990331 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca rslade@sprint.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca p1@canada.com Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. - W. Churchill http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 02:24:07 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Privacy Report Has Both Sides Scrambling for Spin http://www.thestandard.com/articles/mediagrok_display/0,1185,4555,00.html It was a classic case of the glass being half empty or half full - or more precisely, two-thirds full or one-third empty. A Georgetown University study on commercial Web sites' privacy policies found that two-thirds of the top 300-plus sites had a privacy policy posted. That compares to the paltry 14 percent that had policies posted last year when the FTC did a similar study, sparking debate between an online industry that wants to regulate itself and privacy groups that are pushing for legislation. The Washington Post's Robert O'Harrow Jr. set the scene perfectly, saying "the scramble to gain the high ground of interpretation began within hours of the report's release, as people on all sides of the debate issued statements, held press conferences and dissected what it all means." (The study's genesis at nearby Georgetown may have helped O'Harrow's story land on the Post's front business page.) Industry mouthpieces quickly seized on the positive upswing, saying laws weren't needed; indeed, the Wall Street Journal story led with the conclusion that the study's release means "the Clinton administration is likely to back away from threats to press for new privacy laws.'' But critics pointed out that the survey also showed that only 10 percent of major sites had comprehensive privacy policies that allowed surfers to access their own data, which became the focus on tech sites like News.com and ZDNet. In the half-empty camp, Beth Givins of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse complained to CyberTimes that "one-third posted no privacy practices at all." Electronic Privacy Information Center director Marc Rotenberg was even more critical, telling the Post that "I think the time for self-regulation is running out." Still, there were some voices of compromise in the debate. FTC chair Robert Pitofsky told the Post that online firms deserve credit for making progress over the last year, though he added that the FTC would analyze the survey's results before reporting to Congress. And Jerry Berman, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, told CyberTimes, "I think that the self-regulatory efforts that are being made deserve credit for moving a lot of those numbers up, but I don't think ... we can get privacy to be the rule simply based on the self-regulatory efforts of industry." Reporters' heads weren't only spinning from the dueling experts, but also from the concept of Web reach touted by Media Metrix. CyberTimes' Jeri Clausing said the study showed that two-thirds of "all commercial Web sites" display warnings on collecting personal information, while the Post's O'Harrow said the sample accounted for "99 percent of the activity on the Web." Hogwash. Wired News' Declan McCullagh got it right, saying the survey included 364 "dot-com" Web sites that together reach 98.8 percent of home Internet users, according to Media Metrix's confusing metrics. That doesn't mean all Web sites or all Web activity - just the most visited sites according to one ratings house. More Web Sites Appear to Post Privacy Policies http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPcap/1999-05/13/067r-051399-idx.html New Privacy Study Says Majority of Sites Provide Warnings http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/13privacy.html Survey: Web Privacy Improving http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/19643.html Study: Data Privacy Policies Fall Short http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,36470,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh.ni Web Has Work to Do on Privacy http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2258012,00.html?chkpt=hpqs014 [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I feel like such an idiot sometimes. When I recently tried to renovate and improve the telecom-archives web site at http://telecom-digest.org, one of the first things I did was add a short blurb about 'your privacy at this site'. It is avail- able to readers with java-enabled browsers since those readers get a small cookie offering from me if they wish to accept it, and I ask for the same cookie back on subsequent visits. It just seemed to me it was extremely important to let people know my intentions and the specifics about the cookie information. I do not give the file to Lynx browsers because I do not have the ability right now to ask a Lynx user anything anyway. Any non-java browser which does not see that file in the greeting at the top of the page can still read it if they wish at http://telecom-digest.org/cookienotes.html Then I read a report like the one Monty sent in today, and it frankly annoys me no end that so many *huge* 'dot com' sites do not bother to explain anything at all, nor sometimes even the fact that they are busy raping your hard drive while you read whatever they have to offer. Others insist you either take their cookies or you cannot participate at all. Maybe *they* have so many callers each day they can afford to offend and send away users with privacy concerns, but I sure cannot afford it. The other day I saw a web site (if I can recall its URL I will get it again and post it here) where the webmaster talked openly about the techniques he uses in cooperation with several other sites to share 'cookie data' and user information. He claims if you visit even a few 'cooperating sites' with what he termed 'double-click and/or 'click-trade' schemes over a period of a few days, you can then go to his site and he can tell (and does look to see) all the other places you have been. As he explained it, site A trades cookies with B, but not with C. However B trades with D and E, and E trades with C. So soon enough, all sites which collect cookie information have all the information on users who went to any of the others. He contends that many sites not only use cookies, but have no compunction at all against just looking through your cache, i.e. Windows Temporary Files, grabbing up all the URLs they can find in there as well, which become part of your 'UserID' information which is stored in the cookie. I guess the first one of these sites to discover you do not have a cookie with a userID embedded in it assigns you one, and plants a cookie with it on your computer. Subsequent sites use whatever userID was assigned by whichever site assigned it. And from that day on, as your 'dossier' grows, each site references that same userID when it trades with other sites. So he concluded, "go ahead, surf the net for a couple days, I will wait for you. You'll be bound to hit at least one double-clicker or cookie collector in that time, and when you get around to my site eventually, I'll be able to tell you exactly when and where you went when you downloaded the porn pictures of those naked boys ... but at least I am honestly telling you what is going on; most sites won't. And did it ever occur to you that certain government and law enforcement sites which encourage the public to visit might also be double-clicking behind your back and looking to see what you are about? You bet they do ..." Well, like I said two or three paragraphs ago, it makes me feel like an idiot at times, sitting here with my dinky little thing and puny little website, putting up a notice about user privacy. If so few in dot.com seem to care about it, why the hell should I? I get mail every day from sites who want me to join in 'click-trade' with them. I think the privacy problem on the net may be even worse than some privacy experts believe. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 02:34:49 -0400 From: Monty Solomon Subject: DNA Dragnet Tom Schoenberg Legal Times May 10, 1999 DNA is in the criminal justice headlines nearly every day: A prisoner on death row for a crime he didn't commit is released; a defendant awaiting trial for rape is exonerated. But if DNA's capacity to exculpate makes for a compelling story, its ability to help cops solve crimes is reshaping law enforcement. After a push by Congress begun in 1994, every state is now collecting DNA from violent offenders, while the courts are batting away constitutional challenges to the practice. And last October, the Federal Bureau of Investigation unveiled a national database that links DNA information from the states, allowing authorities throughout the country to match traces of crime scene evidence to possible suspects. http://www.lawnewsnet.com/stories/A1301-1999May7.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Police have long had the right to take fingerprints from persons who are arrested, and we do not hear too many complaints from civil liberties advocates about that. I would assume by extension that police have the right to gather whatever identifying information they can from arrested people, but the catch is that fingerprints -- once years ago the latest technology in people identification -- are rather feeble when compared with DNA type-casting. DNA records are just a bit too-perfect for comfort it would seem compared to fingerprints, handwriting analysis and all those older techniques, although the most banks have started using thumbprints on checks they cash now; had you noticed that? Ah, DNA and cookies; what a combination as we enter Century 21. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 01:30:26 -0700 From: Telecom@LincMad.com.NOSPAM (Linc Madison) Subject: Re: Vietnam City Codes Organization: LincMad Consulting In article , Matthew Andrion wrote: > I really appreciate all the information that on your site. It's by far, > the most complete listings of country and city dialing codes I've ever > seen. I'm looking for more information on Vietnam city dialing > information. Do you know of any other resources I might try? If nothing > else, thanks for your time and great web site. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Thanks for your complimentary remarks > on the Telecom Archives city and country code files. While still a > good reference, far better ones can be found on the net. I have been > 'meaning to' get some updated information there for a long time, and > never quite get around to it. Two regular participants here, Linc > Madison and someone else whose name escapes me for the moment both > have excellent dialing code references at their web sites. I am > asking them now if they won't please send you a link so you can > review their files as well. PAT] My site, , has area codes for North America and country codes for other locations, and the most accurate map of area codes available anywhere. The best resource I can recommend for city codes outside North America would be the World Telephone Numbering Guide by Dave Leibold, ** Do not send me unsolicited commercial e-mail spam of any kind ** Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * Telecom@LincMad-com URL:< http://www.lincmad.com > * North American Area Codes & Splits >> NOTE: if you autoreply, you must delete the "NOSPAM" << ------------------------------ Date: 14 May 1999 15:12:00 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: larb0@aol.com (Bruce Larrabee) Subject: Re: Pulse EPABX You might try earlier references than 1981 - I sold systems in the 1977-1980 timeframe and the Pulse systems were largely obsolete then. Take a look in documents in the mid-70s. Bruce Larrabee ------------------------------ From: Chris Eastland Organization: Shoreview Consulting Inc. Subject: Re: WorldXchange Terrible Experience Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 11:28:41 -0400 It seems I spoke too soon. A follow on to this. It turned out to be BELL ATLANTIC's fault!! WorldXchange took the time and trouble to make BA see the error of their ways. Although World Exchange's customer service could do with some improvement, once they realized there was a problem (someone senior got involved thanks to the agent who signed me up in the first place), they worked to fix it. I apologize to WorldExchange for implying it was their problem BEFORE all the evidence was in. I guess I believed Bell Atlantic's strenuous denials that the fault lay with them. I am now a WorldXChange devotee -- and their rates are fantastic (7c US- to UK). Chris Eastland Email: chrise@shoreview.com, Web: www.shoreview.com Shoreview Consulting Inc. 1770 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 597 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02140, USA Tel: (617) 876-6673 Fax: (978) 525-4908 ------------------------------ From: ted@roxie.ede.com (Ted Ede) Subject: Re: Unsolicited FAX Spamming Date: 14 May 1999 15:33:26 -0400 Organization: Road Runner My guess is they simply gather the fax number from the domain registrations on the Internic. I too received an international fax. They have quite a nerve asking you to call a 900 number. Do they honestly think anyone is dumb enough to reply to this? ------------------------------ From: Nate Duehr Subject: Re: Cell Phones in Airplanes: Costa Rica Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 13:57:38 -0600 Organization: NateTech As a pilot, long time comp.dcom.telecom reader, telcom professional, and concerned bystander to this discussion ... Flying non-U.S. flag carriers in countries outside the U.S. raises the risks associated with flying. A few exceptions would be SwissAir, British Airways, and Lufthansa. (I'm sure there are others worth mentioning ... it's not where my point is going.) First, they're not going to be flying under the FAA's rules that you're used to in the U.S., and even if there are rules to be followed, there's very little enforcement of those rules in many areas of the world. Your message mentioned that it was an 18-pax single-engine aircraft. That's not allowed under U.S. regulations. Not only would it not be possible under current law, you'd have to have at least one flight attendant for that many people. Sounds like flying around on an airline like that, I'd be glad to see there were at least two cell phones aboard to call for help after the crash! (-: BUT: A couple of items in the pilot's defense. It appears it was not instrument conditions, the pilots are the only two people aboard qualified to see if their cell phones are interfering with the aircraft systems, and they probably fly the route so much they could do it in their sleep. So, I'm certainly not condoning their actions, but there's a few more things to think about. Were they acting like professionals? Hell no. Were you safe? Probably. If it was a U.S. flag carrier operating under FAA Part 121 rules, I'd have called the chief pilot and hung 'em out to dry, but you probably don't have that option in this case. Nathan N. Duehr, nate@natetech.com ------------------------------ From: TELECOM Digest Editor Subject: "Jury" Results on Alleged Spammer Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 01:00:00 EDT To conclude this issue of the Digest, a few remarks by readers who participated on the 'jury' in the 'case of Joey vrs. Adrian' ... Adrian has been charged with attempted spamming, a very serious offense in our community. Readers will recall that Joey got a piece of email from Adrian asking him certain things, and referencing a web site. He considered it to be spam, and mentioned others who had received the same mail. Adrian responded to Joey, he rebutted, then Adrian asked for a bit more space for a further rebuttal. All this occured here in the Digest on Monday through Wednesday of this past week. Then I asked the readers, 'what do you think?' and those responses will be presented now. First -- From: Wlevant@aol.com (Bill Levant) Subject: Is he is, or is he ain't a spammer ? (Was : Where in the World...) > The question for the jury to decide: is Adrian guilty of > attempted spamming or not guilty of attempted spamming? Well, are we in criminal court (beyond a reasonable doubt) or in civil court (preponderance of the evidence/more likely than not) ? In criminal court, I say "not guilty". In civil, well, I dunno. He gets points, though, for responding in person. On balance, probably not guilty, even in civil court. Bill Next we hear From: Ralph Seberry Subject: Is it SPAM? Is it SPAM? My first impression was: "It depends what the meaning of it is". Adrian McElligott acknowledges a mail-out of unsolicited commercial email. To me, this is spam. But perhaps not the worst kind [bulk e-mail]. But a bit more digging makes me feel that Mr McElligott is sort of sleazy. There is a widespread newspaper in Australia called "The Trading Post" which has a site www.tradingpost.com.au. A check of the trade mark database (search at pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au) shows they have "Trading Post On-Line" registered. The site www.tradingpostonthe.net is remarkably similar to the real one. Mr McElligott's email and a check of the company names (search at www.asic.gov.au) show that the company (his client) changed their name from "Ads On-line" to "Trading Post On The Net" in 1998, after the real Trading Post had established its web presence. Second, his domain name is "ezymail". Telstra has a product called "EasyMail" that they're promoting heavily, and his domain name irks me. I should note that Internic records show that he had ezymail before Telstra's product, and their TradeMark is only "pending". Ralph A third response comes From: mattack@area.com (Matt Ackeret) Subject: Re: Where in the World is joey@lindstrom.com?? Organization: Area Systems in Mountain View, CA - http://www.area.com In article ... Judge Judy Noted in part: > The question for the jury to decide: is Adrian guilty of > attempted spamming or not guilty of attempted spamming? Of course he is guilty. It is unsolicited mail _advertising_ a web site and asking you to go to it. Even if it is not specifically selling something, it is spam. I am perfectly happy to get responses to any Usenet postings I make, or email out of the blue, as long as it is not an ad or charity spam or something like that. I also do not use a munged email address, because that is attacking the problem from the wrong end and makes it difficult for someone who is truly trying to respond to a Usenet posting to help you or discuss the topic with you. So for all spam, I either (1) send it to an antispam address if it comes into my work mail, or (2) send to abuse,root,postmaster,admin at the originating site in the Received header and/or all entries (plus the 4 previous) in the whois database entry for the site if it's a web site spam. This doesn't take very long nowadays, because all of the items in my pine address book are shorthand for common spam sites (uunet, mindspring, etc.). mattack@area.com The next juror we hear From: James Wyatt Subject: Re: Where in the World is joey@lindstrom.com?? Organization: Fastlane Communications (using Airnews.net!) I gotta admit that Adrian's being a fairly good sport about this... >> Simply surfing to www.ezymail.com by itself shows the lie > That is an assumption I am afraid, and once again it is wrong. Just > because you own the server, and you don't use the root web, doesn't > mean that your are trying to deceive anyone. I have good reason for > not using the root web, you assumed that it is because I wanted to > deceive people, but the fact is that I have many web sites on my > server, and only one can be root. As I said earlier I develop web > sites for people, well I also host sites for people. The reason why > the root web is empty, not that it is any of your business, is that I > was running a e-mail notification site there, which I have since > closed. I still have the source to it, if you want proof. Uh, the 'root' URL of any www server (and most others) *should* at least include contact information. It can be useful for folks to contact you and prevents you from *looking like* you don't know how to correctly configure your server -- not good for business. If you have customers that don't want to blow the money for a domain, you might link to them from the root as a courtesy ... If you have multiple domains, you can have many 'roots' if you have a decent (or industrial strength) server. [ ... ] > I route my mail, incoming and outgoing though their site, they know > it, you can tell them if you like. Please, please!! I don't do this to > be deceptive, I know that you would be thinking that. I do that > because I am multi-homed, and my ISP don't support multi-homed > routing, so to split my traffic across my two links, I send everything > that I can't individually direct across one link, and everything that > I can't across the other. BTW: How can you be multi-homed when your 'ISP don't support' it? If you really have a technically inept ISP, you might consider running your web business via a different provider. [ ... ] > So you think that anyone who uses someone else's system is a 'lowly > user' ... mmh that is sad, but you are entitled to your opinion. Your > final conclusion, for which there are now no facts to base it on is Most admins are 'lowly users' on other admin's systems too. (^_^) I thought PAT was a 'lowly user', though he admins the list. Please, let's stop demeaning 'lowly users'; they are who use our servers and services. Adrian, are you going to make your results available to the rest of if we help you? It would be nice if you would put a query page up so we could play with it. If you are going to get a meaningful amount of data, you must have some drive space set-aside for it! How much response are you expecting and how is it going so far? - Jy@ ---------------------- So on our four-person jury, we come up with four different answers: one, that there is no absolute proof, nor a preponderance of evidence and therefore Adrian is not guilty. One juror says it all sounds sleazy, third says Adrian is guilty, and the last juror neither says guilty or not-guilty, but discusses how the root page should be set up, and notes that Adrian is being a very good sport about all this. Yes Adrian, you have been a good sport; thanks for playing! Now to conclude this thread, if Adrian wishes to make a final comment or if Joey has anything to add, please send it in over the weekend. PAT ------------------------------ End of TELECOM Digest V19 #84 *****************************