- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

> Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't > charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by > anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case, > you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't > claim the abuse clause. > Spammer is _NOT_ authorized to send SPAM packets through my network. Spammer has no way to get to my network other than through networks which have signed an AUP/TOS which specifically precludes them from sending SPAM packets through my network for SPAMMER. As such, spammers SPAM packets are theft of service, and I have the property rights to block them. Owen

1 0

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

> Owen DeLong in private communication points up that he thinks that this > permission is transitive. That has the problem that it trivially obviates > all privacy. Every provider is automatically authorized, no one is not > authorized. Privacy is in the eyes of the provider. The ECPA was intended > to prevent communications providers from looking at things they shouldn't > and don't need to. So I'm not convinced. **thanks to Dean Robb, the > Attorneys manual says it must be "specifically authorized" > Apologies to the list for posting this, but I had to respond to this violation of my privacy and this slander. No, I didn't. I said that my AUP/TOS can create a transitive OBLIGATION to disclose on the part of the downstream providers. Further, I have repeatedly said that if the downstream providers can provide their service to spammers without violating my AUP/TOS, then there is no issue. However, if they deliver content to my network for transit which is in violation of my AUP/TOS, then I have the rights to defend my property from this theft of service. Owen

1 0

persistent smtp connectins
by michael 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

Before anyone flames me I asked the moderators if this would be appropriate to post. The answer was "Sure". For several months we have experienced massive amounts of persistent smtp connections from a forged from address from various dialup accounts around the USA. With the help from one of these ISP's it was found to be a program that preports to scan various search engines, like four11, based upon a user supplied search criteria and generates a mail list. When a user would run this program is when we would see the smtp connections. Yet the user was unaware of this. In conversation with this user they were not aware of anything other than polling of these search engines and the generation of a mail list. I obtained a copy of the program and looked at the code. It has hundreds of domain names as well as the forged from address. A phone call to the distributor as well as the company that produces this program, they all say "all it does is query several search engines like four11". When I confronted them about the hundreds of domain names in their code and the forged from address they claimed ignorance. In conclusion, I have not run the program personaly and the above are my observations from looking at the code. For those of you who are interested in this fee free to email me and I will supply you with the url and program name. A hint to see if you or your users or your systems have been the victim of this program is a from address of savings.com in your sendmail logs.

1 0

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by Dean Anderson 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

At 04:48 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Dean Robb wrote: >This has been ssoooooooo hashed out here, with the general consensus being >that 18 USC 2511 was inapplicable to blocking email. It has been hashed out before. But the general consensus is not that 2511 is inapplicable. Initially, a number of people thought so. But they were wrong. 2511 was amended by Congress specifically to make it apply to email. How quickly some forget... >Also listed is the definition of "intercept", which is to acquire the >contents of a communication (blocking/filtering clearly fails here). You begin to aquire the packet as soon as the first bit of the version number is received. You are permitted to do things that are necessary incident to rendition of service. You can receive it into memory. You can route it. That doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. What you do needs to qualify as "necessary incident to rendition of service". Unless you are specifically authorized to do otherwise. >We >can also see that monitering to improve service or "...protection of the >rights or property of the carrier..." is specifically permitted. Yup. If you're at a NAP for example, and someone starts tunneling through your network to another NAP to get transit service without paying transit fees, you can stop 'em. >So, if >you're blocking email because you didn't give the spammer permission to use >your systems, you're legal. Thats a different claim. Spammer is authorized to send packets. You can't charge them with a real theft. "Theft of service" is a term used by anti-spammers, not a legal statement of a criminal activity. In this case, you don't have any bonafide abuse of your property rights. So you can't claim the abuse clause. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3 2

Digital Bill of Rights? (Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats)
by Christopher Neill 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 01:35:44PM -0500, Bob Allisat wrote: > Christopher Neill <chris(a)verio.net> writes: > : > : <http://www.qual.net/support/aup.html> > : > : Our customer, let's call them "X", agrees to our policy. Our > : policy clearly states that their connection is at will, and > : can be terminated or restricted at any time by us. > : > : So there you have it, CYA. > > If every ISP has the same AUP then every citizen > is forced under duress by a cartel of interests > into violating their own human rights, freedom > of expression and civil liberties. So fuck your > Acceptable Policies! What we need is a Digital > Bill of Rights <http://fcn.net> to over-ride > these sinister commercial carte blanche policies > and protect us from bastards like Mr. Neill. >From the "Digital Bill of Rights": The right to uncensored, free, and uncontrolled communications to and from unmoderated, public areas. Define "public", please.

3 2

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by Jim Dixon 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Bob Allisat wrote: > Jim Dixon writes: > > ... not only do European ISPs maintain Radius logs that tie > > dynamic IP addresses to user accounts but they are also strongly > > encouraged to do this by their national governments in most or > > all member states of the European Union. > > EuroISPA, the European ISP trade association, checked with > > officials at DG XV, the relevant directorate of the European > > Commission, for their opinion regarding the statements quoted ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > above. So far their opinion appears to be that maintenance of such > > logs is OK so long as customers are aware that logs are being kept > > and the logs are not kept for too long. Bob omits "the statements quoted above", confusing the meaning of what I wrote. What he clipped out were assertions to the effect that it is illegal in the European Union to keep records of user IP addresses, including dynamic IP addresses. These statements were supposedly made by EU "law enforcement officials". > Logging of an individual's activities on the Internet > is one of those Big Brother kind of infringements ISPs > love to advocate "on our behalf". The actual interests As I tried to make clear, Europe's ISPs are not advocating logging; they are being urged or even required to do so by national governments. If the European Commission were to make maintenance of such logs illegal, this would put ISPs in an impossible situation. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015

1 0

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by Dean Anderson 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

At 11:58 PM 2/2/1999 -0500, Ravi Pina wrote: >In regards to no law dealing with "unsolicited or misleading electronic >mail", what about Washington State Law RCW 19.190.020. Source: >ftp://ftp.leg.wa.gov/pub/rcw/title_19/chapter_190/rcw_19_190_020 Norcal appears to be in California. Av8 is in New Hampshire or Mass. depending on which mail server was used. The communication between the two is interstate commerce subject to federal law. Washington state law wouldn't apply. The rest of this is a bit of a digression on the Washington law. The Internet is primarily interstate. So state laws can probably be easily challenged as unconstitutional attempts to regulate interstate commerce. This one is more careful to make sure its boundaries are the state of Washington. This particular law is foolishness because it only applies to things that are already illegal: Using a third party domain name is a trademark infringement anywere in the US. There are several successful court cases on just this topic. Much spam doesn't have a misleading subject. Some does. But I'd say more than half or 3/4ths doesn't. The part that has misleading subjects aren't the major spammers. And not least, its not likely that any major provider is going to be "Washington only". Aol might have servers in Washington, but who knows what users are in Washington. The laws major effect is that spammers in Washington must include something in the subject to indicate its commercial. Big deal. Not much of an anti-spam law. The interesting thing about this particular law is the part you didn't mention. It includes a section about immunity from liability for blocking UCE. Since the only liability is Federal & criminal, and would be found in a federal court with fines payable to a federal court and jailtime served in a federal prison, I'm not sure how this would work. There is a civil liability section in the ECPA, but I didn't think a state could invalidate a judgement made by a federal court. But its certainly a new twist. This will be an interesting one to watch. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3 2

RE: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by James D. Wilson 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 And I claim to be king of the world. Now give me your assets in taxes, Bob, since you are on my planet. You or I can claim any right we want, but that does not have any automatic association with reality. - - James D. Wilson "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" William of Ockham (1285-1347/49) - -----Original Message----- From: Bob Allisat [mailto:bob@fcn.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 8:29 AM To: Rodent of Unusual Size Cc: Phil Howard; Dean Anderson; John.Fraizer(a)EnterZone.Net; nanog(a)merit.edu; ietf(a)ietf.org Subject: Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems) I, Bob Allisat wrote: > Technicians have no right to scan any mail for > contents that does not violate the more important > civil rights of citizens to privacy and precious > freedoms of expression. Ken.Coar replied: = Pardon me, but that sounds a crock. A service has = whatever scanning rights its T&C provide, and subscribers = recognise that and authorise them by accepting those = T&C. Terms and Conditions are secondary to fundamental human rights, freedoms and liberties. Just because the American constitution has preserved businesses in the US from respecting these inalienables does not mean they do not exist everywhere. My right to freely and civilly express myself, to associate with whom I please & so on (see <http://fcn.net> ) extend to most places and almost all circumstances, especially publically accessible facilities and networks. I claim those rights as superior to any damned Acceptable Use Policy, unconstitutional contract or agreement made in duress. I, Bob, wrote: > What Mr. Howard is, in fact, > proposing is the computer systems equivalent of that > staff of thousands in the form of software that scans > and then junks anything the programmers decide is > unacceptable. Which is totally egregious. Ken Coar: = I rather expect that the criteria originate elsewhere = than with the programers. The prograammers will institute it and directly participate in it's implimentation. They bear full responsibility of their actions. Can't blame it on someone else forever, eh? Technology and technologists which aide and abed political overlords are no less (and some might argue are more!) guilty. You folks have alterior motives and oppressive so-and-so's among ya'll just like anywhere else. I continued: > Instead of designing systems and software that can > handle the modern volume of electronic communications > (the good the bad and the ugly) these allegedly capable > professionals advocate choking off what "We the People" > can or cannot send each other and call it a public > service. When in fact the public would be served far > more by recieiving all of the mail from systems that > didin't choke at every silly cyber-flyer, dumb make > money scheme or wedding/birth announcement. Ken: = I don't buy anything resembling this argument. There are = reasons why chain-letters are illegal in the U.S., y'know. There may be better reasons they are not illegal elsewhere. You engineering people have sat on your lazy or politically motivated asses far too long. The volume of normal, civil, human mail has grown by magnitudes. You try and stem that over-whelming tide by restricting our freedoms to express ourselves instead of building better mailboxes, faster and more robust processing systems and so on. Lazy, arrogant, biassed, censorous motherphuckers! Do your freaking jobs instead of bitching about how stupid people are and scheming ont he ways to shut us all up. Our patience is not eternal and if you're not careful there may be a backlash that makes your phoney "Green Card" counter-spam look like a picnic. Stupid IETF lethargic nimrods of corpulant intellect! Bob Allisat Free Community Network _ bob(a)fcn.net http://fcn.net _ http://fcn.net/allisat http://robin.fcn.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.0.2 Comment: Spammers are NetAbusers - Jail Them With The Other Criminals iQA/AwUBNrlBnzAufbtGOmgdEQJr7QCg/dXa9GZGn9GaVfjLaqQhB2K4p+gAoKJ+ iVk8vebeVLD+YuseXcNDh9rV =XrAZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by Dean Anderson 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

At 04:48 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Dean Robb wrote: >"Scope of 18 U.S.C 2511 Prohibitions > >Section 2511 of Title 18 prohibits the unauthorized interception, >disclosure, and use of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The >prohibitions are absolute, subject only to the specific exemptions in Title >III. Consequently, unless an interception is >specifically authorized, it is impermissible and, assuming existence of the >requisite criminal intent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511." Whoa, whoa, whoa. "specifically authorized" means no transitive authorization. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2 1

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by Dean Anderson 04 Feb '99

04 Feb '99

At 01:00 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Christopher Neill wrote: >On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 09:43:33PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: >> Thanks. Now maybe we can get a court case on record. >> >> --Dean > >Sweet! Think of the money our marketing department will save with all the free publicity! Are you sure you arent on our payroll? > Unless of course the publicity is that Verio can't be trusted to keep private information private. Or that the publicity is that Verio thinks it can use any private information that passes through it to its own ends. How many people want a security service that thinks it can publish the security camera tapes if they catch a juicy scene? Probably not many that value either their security or their privacy. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4 3