Blocking skynet.be

Tony Williams · Jun 30, 2003

In article <Xns93A96180628D6jbuserspc9org@205.200.16.73>,
Jem Berkes <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote:

Not email though, I think he means USENET posts. I still don't like the
idea, since skynet.be is hardly one of the worst offending domains on
the internet.

Oh yes, sorry. I was still in the groove of the
last thread. Total blocking by one ISP of another
ISP's posts is a bad idea though, it could start up
tit for tat wars.

--
Tony Williams.

Ian Stirling · Jun 30, 2003

In sci.electronics.design ?n?n?m?u? <respond@in.conference.com> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:48:08 GMT, "Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aichipREM@OVEcfl.THISrr.com> wrote:
They add more filtering algorithms so the software gets smart enough to
figure out what is spam all the time. Then they add more software so it can
trace forged headers and locate the sources.
Right there should be a huge trigger to help stop the spam source. If the source header doesn't match the written header
its NOT sent. Problem solved!

So, I can't send articles from my backup ISP with my real email address...

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | mailto:inquisitor@i.am | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
"Melchett : Unhappily Blackadder, the Lord High Executioner is dead
Blackadder : Oh woe! Murdered of course.
Melchett : No, oddly enough no. They usually are but this one just got
careless one night and signed his name on the wrong dotted line.
They came for him while he slept." - Blackadder II

Jim Thompson · Jun 30, 2003

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:56 +0100, Tony Williams
<tonyw@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In article <Xns93A96180628D6jbuserspc9org@205.200.16.73>,
Jem Berkes <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote:

Not email though, I think he means USENET posts. I still don't like the
idea, since skynet.be is hardly one of the worst offending domains on
the internet.

Oh yes, sorry. I was still in the groove of the
last thread. Total blocking by one ISP of another
ISP's posts is a bad idea though, it could start up
tit for tat wars.

But it's the ultimate cure for rogue ISPs who support spammers. Look
up NANAE and SPEWS.

As some of you may know I am working with Arizona legislators,
Senators Mead and Martin, and nationally with Senator McCain's office
to formulate anti-spam laws.

The more I look at the problem the more I realize that it's a hopeless
case, EXCEPT, consider the following:

Currently *fraudulent* spam cases are prosecuted by the FTC.

I would change that by having *all* spam complaints go to the FTC who
would track them for origin point (ISP) and actual advertiser.

The FTC would deal with the ISP *and* the advertiser to stop the
problem.

There would be *severe* *criminal* penalties against any ISP or
advertiser, who resided in the US, who did not cease and desist.

Foreign ISPs who refuse to cooperate would simply be blacklisted and
US ISPs would be required to honor the blacklist and block *all*
traffic from the rogues.

End of problem.

Why?

The legitimate subscribers of the rogue ISPs will take their business
elsewhere, thus there's a huge economic penalty for misbehaving.

What do you lurkers think?

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax

Jim Thompson · Jun 30, 2003

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:41:33 +0000 (UTC), abuse@MIX.COM wrote:

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> writes:

The legitimate subscribers of the rogue ISPs will take their business
elsewhere, thus there's a huge economic penalty for misbehaving.

Here are a couple articles of interest from ba.internet.

Billy Y..

From: shedevil@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.)
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Bill Gains In Senate
Organization: Guarantee to others that your email is not spam. http://www.habeas.com
Message-ID: <93A4E7511shedevilstopmailabus@205.179.156.40
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 06:25:57 GMT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14366-2003Jun19.html

Big Internet Firms Endorse Measure

The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved legislation
yesterday to combat unwanted commercial e-mail, as the first of
several anti-spam bills in both houses of Congress advanced.

The "Can Spam Act of 2003," sponsored by Sens. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.)
and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), takes aim at bulk e-mailers that disguise
their identities, peddle pornography or scams, and fail to honor
consumers' requests to stop receiving e-mail advertising.

Spammers would also be barred from using special software to collect
e-mail addresses from Web sites and from using programs that generate
millions of e-mail addresses using random numbers and letters.
[...]
Interestingly, nobody except the NYT, and that was buried in the back half
of the story at the jump site, seems to have picked up that just before it
was voted out of committee (Commerce), Sen. McCain (chair of Commerce)
added an amendment, which was unanimously approved, making the vendors who
are *advertised* in the spam, and those who provide support services to the
spammers, just as legally liable as the spammers themselves. I know,
because I worked closely with Sen. McCain's office on the language of the
amendment, and it closely mirrors the concept of our own lawsuits at Habeas
(where we have sued the vendors advertised in the spam which infringes our
trademark for vicarious and contributory infringement).

Anne

From: abuse@MIX.COM
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Bill Gains In Senate
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:58:00 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <bdncro$8mo$1@reader1.panix.com

Well, I personally really like this kind of thinking - but what would
you say to those asking about what happens when spam is sent by someone
else to intentionally cause trouble for the party advertised by it?

And - if this becomes law can I then prosecute Sprintlink (or other USA
based carriers) for supplying net connectivity to Chinese networks that
are spamming mine?

Billy Y..

[No response has been posted to my question yet...]

Indeed there will be cases of fraud as you say... but we have good
fraud laws, all we need to do is *enforce* them.

(Me *personally* I'd prosecute *any* ISP carrying traffic from China,
Korea, etc. ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax

ĺnřn˙mřu§ · Jun 30, 2003

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 10:06:58 +0000 (UTC), Ian Stirling <root@mauve.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In sci.electronics.design ?n?n?m?u? <respond@in.conference.com> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:48:08 GMT, "Sir Charles W. Shults III" <aichipREM@OVEcfl.THISrr.com> wrote:
They add more filtering algorithms so the software gets smart enough to
figure out what is spam all the time. Then they add more software so it can
trace forged headers and locate the sources.
Right there should be a huge trigger to help stop the spam source. If the source header doesn't match the written
header its NOT sent. Problem solved!

So, I can't send articles from my backup ISP with my real email address...
No, this is just a little bit different.

This would happen a few steps up the food chain. The server that the message originated at needs to be checked and then
OK'ed. Then the checking server would stamp it and send it out and so on. (Not to mention, that there has to be a half a
dozen different ways to do this!)

The ISP can also require the domain's email address be given and allow different reply to address to be given. The
domain's email address would aid them in finding the offenders (or spammers).

Jun 30, 2003

Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> writes:

The legitimate subscribers of the rogue ISPs will take their business
elsewhere, thus there's a huge economic penalty for misbehaving.

Here are a couple articles of interest from ba.internet.

Billy Y..

From: shedevil@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.)
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Bill Gains In Senate

Organization: Guarantee to others that your email is not spam. http://www.habeas.com
Message-ID: <93A4E7511shedevilstopmailabus@205.179.156.40>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 06:25:57 GMT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14366-2003Jun19.html

Big Internet Firms Endorse Measure

The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved legislation
yesterday to combat unwanted commercial e-mail, as the first of
several anti-spam bills in both houses of Congress advanced.

The "Can Spam Act of 2003," sponsored by Sens. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.)
and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), takes aim at bulk e-mailers that disguise
their identities, peddle pornography or scams, and fail to honor
consumers' requests to stop receiving e-mail advertising.

Spammers would also be barred from using special software to collect
e-mail addresses from Web sites and from using programs that generate
millions of e-mail addresses using random numbers and letters.
[...]

Interestingly, nobody except the NYT, and that was buried in the back half
of the story at the jump site, seems to have picked up that just before it
was voted out of committee (Commerce), Sen. McCain (chair of Commerce)
added an amendment, which was unanimously approved, making the vendors who
are *advertised* in the spam, and those who provide support services to the
spammers, just as legally liable as the spammers themselves. I know,
because I worked closely with Sen. McCain's office on the language of the
amendment, and it closely mirrors the concept of our own lawsuits at Habeas
(where we have sued the vendors advertised in the spam which infringes our
trademark for vicarious and contributory infringement).

Anne

From: abuse@MIX.COM
Subject: Re: Anti-Spam Bill Gains In Senate

Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:58:00 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <bdncro$8mo$1@reader1.panix.com>

Well, I personally really like this kind of thinking - but what would
you say to those asking about what happens when spam is sent by someone
else to intentionally cause trouble for the party advertised by it?

And - if this becomes law can I then prosecute Sprintlink (or other USA
based carriers) for supplying net connectivity to Chinese networks that
are spamming mine?

Billy Y..

[No response has been posted to my question yet...]

Roy McCammon · Jun 30, 2003

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:56 +0100, Tony Williams
tonyw@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In article <Xns93A96180628D6jbuserspc9org@205.200.16.73>,
Jem Berkes <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote:

Not email though, I think he means USENET posts. I still don't like the
idea, since skynet.be is hardly one of the worst offending domains on
the internet.

Oh yes, sorry. I was still in the groove of the
last thread. Total blocking by one ISP of another
ISP's posts is a bad idea though, it could start up
tit for tat wars.

But it's the ultimate cure for rogue ISPs who support spammers. Look
up NANAE and SPEWS.

As some of you may know I am working with Arizona legislators,
Senators Mead and Martin, and nationally with Senator McCain's office
to formulate anti-spam laws.

The more I look at the problem the more I realize that it's a hopeless
case, EXCEPT, consider the following:

Currently *fraudulent* spam cases are prosecuted by the FTC.

I would change that by having *all* spam complaints go to the FTC who
would track them for origin point (ISP) and actual advertiser.

with an enabling increase in FTC funding?

--
local optimization seldom leads to global optimization

my e-mail address is: rb <my last name> AT ieee DOT org

Jim Thompson · Jun 30, 2003

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:03:30 -0500, Roy McCammon <rbmccammon@mmm.com>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:56 +0100, Tony Williams
tonyw@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In article <Xns93A96180628D6jbuserspc9org@205.200.16.73>,
Jem Berkes <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote:

Not email though, I think he means USENET posts. I still don't like the
idea, since skynet.be is hardly one of the worst offending domains on
the internet.

Oh yes, sorry. I was still in the groove of the
last thread. Total blocking by one ISP of another
ISP's posts is a bad idea though, it could start up
tit for tat wars.

But it's the ultimate cure for rogue ISPs who support spammers. Look
up NANAE and SPEWS.

As some of you may know I am working with Arizona legislators,
Senators Mead and Martin, and nationally with Senator McCain's office
to formulate anti-spam laws.

The more I look at the problem the more I realize that it's a hopeless
case, EXCEPT, consider the following:

Currently *fraudulent* spam cases are prosecuted by the FTC.

I would change that by having *all* spam complaints go to the FTC who
would track them for origin point (ISP) and actual advertiser.

with an enabling increase in FTC funding?

480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax

daestrom · Jun 30, 2003

"Jim Thompson" <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote in message
news:d5k0gv8qokf9q21i0apfd36pnfdrnr5igd@4ax.com...

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:56 +0100, Tony Williams
tonyw@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:

As some of you may know I am working with Arizona legislators,
Senators Mead and Martin, and nationally with Senator McCain's office
to formulate anti-spam laws.

The more I look at the problem the more I realize that it's a hopeless
case, EXCEPT, consider the following:

Currently *fraudulent* spam cases are prosecuted by the FTC.

I would change that by having *all* spam complaints go to the FTC who
would track them for origin point (ISP) and actual advertiser.

But some spam, that isn't fraudulent nor violates local standards of
pornography, just unsolicited advertisements from businesses would also be
affected. Doesn't this restrict their rights of free speech?

Maybe unsolicited advertising needs to be a paid-for type of service where
the spammer pays a 'postage' to deliver it to mailboxes (much like
third-class mail in the postal service).

If such legislation were to pass, the next logical step would be to ban
snail-mail spam and arrest the postal employee for delivering it?

There would be *severe* *criminal* penalties against any ISP or
advertiser, who resided in the US, who did not cease and desist.

Sounds like restraint of trade and a free speech issue.

daestrom

Dennis M O'Connor · Jul 1, 2003

"daestrom" <daestrom@twcny.rr.com> wrote ...

"Jim Thompson" <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote in message
news:d5k0gv8qokf9q21i0apfd36pnfdrnr5igd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:56 +0100, Tony Williams
tonyw@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:

As some of you may know I am working with Arizona legislators,
Senators Mead and Martin, and nationally with Senator McCain's office
to formulate anti-spam laws.

The more I look at the problem the more I realize that it's a hopeless
case, EXCEPT, consider the following:

Currently *fraudulent* spam cases are prosecuted by the FTC.

I would change that by having *all* spam complaints go to the FTC who
would track them for origin point (ISP) and actual advertiser.

But some spam, that isn't fraudulent nor violates local standards of
pornography, just unsolicited advertisements from businesses would also be
affected. Doesn't this restrict their rights of free speech?

No. Just as with unsolicited faxes, which were outlawed
years ago, your right to free speech does not include the
right to use resources _I_ pay for to deliver your speech.

"Free speech" doesn't mean you get to force other people
to pay for it, or to "hear" it: it means you can say what you
want at your own expense to anyone willing to listen.
--
Dennis M. O'Connor dmoc@primenet.com
"We don't become a rabid dog to destroy a rabid dog,
but we do get a bit rude."

Blair P. Houghton · Jul 1, 2003

daestrom <daestrom@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

If such legislation were to pass, the next logical step would be to ban
snail-mail spam and arrest the postal employee for delivering it?

I'd vote for anyone who'd vote for that.

--Blair
"That shit's harder to delete,
and it swallows other mail."

Ben Bradley · Jul 1, 2003

I hesistate to get into this. I saw the long "what to do about
spam" threads in recent months but avoided reading most of the posts.
But here goes...

In
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic,sci.electronics.cad,sci.electronics.design,sci.electronics.misc,alt.primenet.recovery,
Jim Thompson <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:56 +0100, Tony Williams
tonyw@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:

In article <Xns93A96180628D6jbuserspc9org@205.200.16.73>,
Jem Berkes <jb@users.pc9.org> wrote:

Not email though, I think he means USENET posts. I still don't like the
idea, since skynet.be is hardly one of the worst offending domains on
the internet.

Oh yes, sorry. I was still in the groove of the
last thread. Total blocking by one ISP of another
ISP's posts is a bad idea though, it could start up
tit for tat wars.

But it's the ultimate cure for rogue ISPs who support spammers. Look
up NANAE and SPEWS.

I've seen many stories of users complaining to/suing the ISP and/or
the entity publishing the blacklist, rather than to their host for
also hosting spammers. But these are the loud minority. I imagine
these would be the same people wanting to rescind the law you propose
below when they get blocked, rather than change hosts.

As some of you may know I am working with Arizona legislators,
Senators Mead and Martin, and nationally with Senator McCain's office
to formulate anti-spam laws.

The more I look at the problem the more I realize that it's a hopeless
case, EXCEPT, consider the following:

Currently *fraudulent* spam cases are prosecuted by the FTC.

You mean "spam which has fraudulent CONTENT." All unsolicited email
is fraudulent in the means of its transmission. Email is essentially a
shared resource, and spam is blatant abuse of that resource. It is
against the terms of virtually every ISP. But you already know all
that...

I would change that by having *all* spam complaints go to the FTC who
would track them for origin point (ISP) and actual advertiser.

The FTC would deal with the ISP *and* the advertiser to stop the
problem.

There would be *severe* *criminal* penalties against any ISP or
advertiser, who resided in the US, who did not cease and desist.

How about having some sort of penalty (for the advertiser/source)
for the FIRST offense?
Of course, the second offense is likely to come from another ISP,
and I don't think you could do more to them than to the first ISP.

Foreign ISPs who refuse to cooperate would simply be blacklisted

Very good ... that sort of thing is done now by some.

and
US ISPs would be required to honor the blacklist and block *all*
traffic from the rogues.

Now THAT sounds scary. Having The Government require blocking sure
seems like a bad precedent to me. I've not heard of this sort of thing
being done yet, and hope it never happens. Governments would love to
regulate the net, and spam (certainly the worst problem on the net)
would be the perfect excuse to get their foot in the door.
One of the earliest spam-related bills in Congress, the "Smith
bill" (from circa 1996-1997) would treat unsolicited email just like
unsolicited faxes (where the receiver quite obviously, plainly and
unwillingly pays for the sender's use of paper and ink/toner. Under
the junk fax law, a recipient can get $500 for each unsolicited fax in
small claims court. Junk faxes were becoming quite common about ten
years ago when fax machines were first becoming common in many
businesses and offices, but virtually disappeared overnight when this
became law. This law apparently isn't as well known as it should be,
else there would still be virtually no junk faxes.
Here's a link to info on the junk fax law:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/other/fs/fs002105.php3
Out of a million recipients of a spam, there would be a few would
track down the source (even of political, religious or other
non-advertising spam) to get their $500. Once someone has determined
the entity responsible for a spam, he can post it, and many others can
use that info for the same spam, thus a high-volume spammer could end
up with court judgements to millions of people for a sum of over one
billion dollars.

End of problem.

Why?

The legitimate subscribers of the rogue ISPs will take their business
elsewhere, thus there's a huge economic penalty for misbehaving.

What do you lurkers think?

I still like the original Smith bill. It doesn't enable The
Government to get into blocking or other types of interference with
the Internet, yet it enables the recipient to get a legal judgement
against the perpetrator.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

Ben Bradley · Jul 1, 2003

In sci.electronics.design, "daestrom" <daestrom@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <Jim-T@analog_innovations.com> wrote in message
news:d5k0gv8qokf9q21i0apfd36pnfdrnr5igd@4ax.com...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:50:56 +0100, Tony Williams
tonyw@ledelec.demon.co.uk> wrote:

As some of you may know I am working with Arizona legislators,
Senators Mead and Martin, and nationally with Senator McCain's office
to formulate anti-spam laws.

The more I look at the problem the more I realize that it's a hopeless
case, EXCEPT, consider the following:

Currently *fraudulent* spam cases are prosecuted by the FTC.

I would change that by having *all* spam complaints go to the FTC who
would track them for origin point (ISP) and actual advertiser.

But some spam, that isn't fraudulent nor violates local standards of
pornography, just unsolicited advertisements from businesses would also be
affected. Doesn't this restrict their rights of free speech?

No. Spam is not free speech. Sending out large numbers of
unsolicited emails is abuse of the Internet.
Road Runner deletes the accounts of those who send unsolicited
emails (regardless of whether there is illegal content), just like any
other ISP. If you don't believe it, try it... they might let you by
with a warning if you're clearly a regular user who has never spammed
before, but I have no doubt that repeated spamming will get your
account deleted. Is Road Runner restricting free speech?
Most areas of the USA have laws against putting signs (whether
advertising, religious, political or otherwise) on utility poles. Is
that "restricting someone's right of free speech?" I don't think so.

Maybe unsolicited advertising needs to be a paid-for type of service where
the spammer pays a 'postage' to deliver it to mailboxes (much like
third-class mail in the postal service).

This has been discussed many times in antispam discussion groups.
The argument I've seen against this is that it just isn't feasible to
change over to a pay-per-email-sent system.

Most arguments for spam have been discussed ad nauseum. Here are a
couple of sites that have a lot of info about spam:
http://spam.abuse.net/ (click on About Spam, then read through the
links)
http://www.cauce.org

If such legislation were to pass, the next logical step would be to ban
snail-mail spam and arrest the postal employee for delivering it?

I don't think so. From what I've seen, the laws are pretty specific
and difficult to apply other than as intended. I recall online
diuscussions six or seven years ago regarding the junk fax law, where
the definition of fax is worded as something like an 'electronic
communication by telephone', and people tried to take spammers to
court trying to stretch that definition to also cover email, but ISTR
it was ruled that the law didn't apply to email.

There would be *severe* *criminal* penalties against any ISP or
advertiser, who resided in the US, who did not cease and desist.

Sounds like restraint of trade and a free speech issue.

The main restraint would be telling an ISP that it is required by
law to block certain parts of the Internet.

daestrom

Jul 1, 2003

Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_bradley@mindspring.com> writes:

How about having some sort of penalty (for the advertiser/source)
for the FIRST offense?

Works for me. Death by electrocution will be fine.

US ISPs would be required to honor the blacklist and block *all*
traffic from the rogues.

Now THAT sounds scary. Having The Government require blocking sure
seems like a bad precedent to me.

Nothing can get anywhere until someone carries it there, therefore
you make it real easy for all the spammees to extract real money out
of the sleezey lower-than-snake-shit American transit nets that up
until now have been way too busy sucking up all that money to even
think about giving a damn when anyone like you or me complains about
all the time and resources they knowingly allow their customers to
waste..

That's all the government has to do - provide an appropriate remedy
for the theft of services - then simple economics will allow water to
seek its own level. Who knows, some people may even start sucking up
spam just to collect the cash.... if there's even any left.

Billy Y..

Fred Bloggs · Jul 1, 2003

From: shedevil@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.)

A female "Esquire"?- quite the genius there- no wonder the country is so
screwed up with that kind of moron attempting to draft legislation-
simple minded idiots.

Jim Thompson · Jul 1, 2003

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:02:28 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

From: shedevil@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.)

A female "Esquire"?- quite the genius there- no wonder the country is so
screwed up with that kind of moron attempting to draft legislation-
simple minded idiots.

480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax

Fred Bloggs · Jul 1, 2003

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:02:28 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:

From: shedevil@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.)

A female "Esquire"?- quite the genius there- no wonder the country is so
screwed up with that kind of moron attempting to draft legislation-
simple minded idiots.

I guess the village idiot ought to know one when he sees one ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Really? They all seem to congregate in Arizona- so you probably think
it's normal to be one

Jim Thompson · Jul 1, 2003

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:43:31 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 12:02:28 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:

From: shedevil@stop.mail-abuse.org (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.)

A female "Esquire"?- quite the genius there- no wonder the country is so
screwed up with that kind of moron attempting to draft legislation-
simple minded idiots.

I guess the village idiot ought to know one when he sees one ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Really? They all seem to congregate in Arizona- so you probably think
it's normal to be one

Fred, I didn't realize you were so sexist.

Clearly you've never had any bright daughters in the professions. I
have two, one a public administrator (politician

480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax

Tom Del Rosso · Jul 1, 2003

"Chris Hodges" <chrisjhodges@127.0.0.1> wrote in
message news:3EFF0ED5.1010606@127.0.0.1...

Lets block nntp-posting-host == AOL shall we?

AOL doesn't even have a NNTP server.

Chris Hodges · Jul 1, 2003

abuse@MIX.COM wrote:

Chris Hodges <chrisjhodges@127.0.0.1> writes:

The nntp-posting-host header (i.e. the actual IP address of the machine
used to post the message) points to AOL, not skynet.

You do realise I wasn't serious don't you - I know I forgot the <g>.

I hope so because news articles are easily forged. Just because
some header says something does not necessarily mean that'd true.

This is one of the less easy headers to forge, though you're still right.

--
Chris
-----
Spamtrap in force: to email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder.co.uk

Blocking skynet.be

Tony Williams

Guest

Ian Stirling

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

ĺnřn˙mřu§

Guest

Guest

Roy McCammon

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

daestrom

Guest

Dennis M O'Connor

Guest

Blair P. Houghton

Guest

Ben Bradley

Guest

Ben Bradley

Guest

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Fred Bloggs

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Tom Del Rosso

Guest

Chris Hodges

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor