- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by Dean Anderson 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

At 03:35 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Ravi Pina wrote: >On Wed, Feb 03, 1999 at 02:59:21PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: >> 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 >> >> The interesting thing about this particular law is the part you didn't >> mention. > >No, the interesting thing is you only chose to respond to this law I >cited and none of the other points I brought up. None of your other points were new. They had already been answered. Didn't mean to offend you. >Remind me agian what crusade you're on, and where do you sign up? This is crusade: No signup. Anyone can be a member. >Secondly, the internet isn't a lawless place. There are already laws which >control how you must behave. Especially if you might have access to other >peoples private electronic communications. We don't need more privacy >laws. We just need to enforce those we have. Unfortunately, many people >think they can do whatever they please. I suppose if the laws aren't >enforced, then they are right. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by Dean Anderson 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

At 03:01 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Ravi Pina wrote: >Yes, I would have to agree with you here and was going to say nearly the >exact same thing. I wonder if his slanderous attacks to Verio are equally >illegal as the case he's trying to make. To be slanderous, it has to be false. o You say that you can do anything you want. That no laws apply to you. Including privacy laws. o You monitored protected communications to obtain private information (the number of smtp packets sent by Norcal), and then published that information. o You haven't said it was a mistake. Just the opposite. So how is this false? > 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. This looks like established fact. How many of OUR customers really want you to do that? How many of OUR customers really want you to think you can do anything you want, and that no laws apply to you regarding THEIR communications? I know MY customers don't want YOU to look at THEIR communications. Even if they aren't encrypted. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4 3

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by Dean Anderson 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

At 12:51 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Christopher Neill wrote: >On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 09:43:37PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: >> The anti-spammers usually claim the abuse exception as justification for >> instituting a block. Its their best (though still flimsy) argument. Its >> flimsy since the congress has the authority to regulate or ban spam, and >> the congress did pass laws banning junk faxes, and limiting calls to cell >> phones, yet they have not yet banned spam. Nor has any court found spam by >> itself to be an abuse. The one spam related law that was before the >> congress would have placed some requirements on spammers, but would have >> made it specifically not an abuse for 2511. In other words, the congress >> doesn't agree with the anti-spammers. >> > >I really would beg to differ--congress has the right to legistlate, certainly, and until they do legislate one way or the other on the matter its pretty much in the ISPs hands; They did legislate; a number of times in fact. It was called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. First created in 1968, then modified a number of times, most recently in 1996 to specifically to make it broad enough to protect email. You can see it in 18 USC 25xx (in-transit communications) and 18 USC 27xx (stored communications). One doesn't lose privacy protections merely because they are or might be doing something you don't approve of. But since we have already covered this territory, I'll refer you to the archives. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3 2

Re: Digital Bill of Rights? (Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats)
by owen＠dixon.DeLong.SJ.CA.US 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

Apologies to anyone who got the first copy of this. I don't know how the extra n got added when I hit reply. ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to mail.merit.edu.: >>> RCPT To:<nanong(a)merit.edu> <<< 550 <nanong(a)merit.edu>... User unknown 550 <nanong(a)merit.edu>... User unknown =============================================== Reposted due to error: > 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. > > Actually, even with the existing AUPs, that's still possible. Any two parties who wish to exchange anything may do so by establishing a tunnel. The AUPs are simply there to protect customers and ISPs from theft of services and theft of property among other harms. Spammers are thieves. They steal time and bandwidth on my network at my expense without my permission and against my express wishes. They don't compensate me and I don't want them on my network. Everyone who does compensate me has agreed that they don't want their stuff, too. As such, I don't see anyone's civil rights being violated, except mine. Owen ----- End Included Message -----

1 0

Hawaii Exchange Point?
by Ryan Brooks 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

Is there any type of exchange point / common meet in Honolulu or elsewhere? Thanks, Ryan Brooks ryan(a)inc.net

3 4

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by Dean Anderson 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

At 12:55 PM 2/3/1999 -0500, Christopher Neill wrote: >On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 09:43:41PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote: >> Of course, this is all moot with mutual consent. But then you have to show >> where Norcal signed off on Verio's policy. Since they aren't Verio's >> customer, it doesn't seem likely they agreed to Verio's policy. And of >> course, if Norcal claims they didn't agree to allow Verio to monitor and >> publish their traffic, and Verio has no paper that Norcal did agree, it >> seems difficult for Verio to prove that Norcal did agree. Which adds up to >> something called "exposure". > >Read our policy: 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. I did read it. It seems to be geared to dialin users. It mentions 2701 (stored communications) and says it will comply with applicable laws. However, perhaps you could send me a copy of the agreement that I signed with Verio. Or perhaps you can give me a copy of the agreement Norcal signed with Verio. I'm two providers away from Verio. Norcal is 3 providers away from Verio. Privacy laws apply to our communications that go through Verio. That was the purpose: To control your behavior when given access to our communications. But you also didn't answer answer the big question: Does Verio think that it can monitor and publish the communications that pass through it? Apparently it does. Your Peers should take note of that. Their customers should take note of that, too. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

brief followup (more DNS abuse)
by bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

you can also lookup many(most) ASN's using dig. %dig <yourASN>.rdi.int txt If you want to update/correct the entry, I can put in a pointer for you to keep your own data, like so: ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 267.rdi.int, type = TXT, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: 267.rdi.int. 1d11h59m27s IN TXT "CICNET2-AS;[CIC-NS-ARIN]" ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 267.rdi.int. 1d11h59m27s IN NS puck.nether.net. 267.rdi.int. 1d11h59m27s IN NS thorn.blackrose.org. 267.rdi.int. 1d11h59m27s IN NS dns.voyager.net. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: dns.voyager.net. 11h19m25s IN A 209.153.128.4 ... % dig @dns.voyager.net. 267.rdi.int. any ; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> @dns.voyager.net. 267.rdi.int. any ; (1 server found) ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch ;; got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10 ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 14, AUTHORITY: 3, ADDITIONAL: 3 ;; QUERY SECTION: ;; 267.rdi.int, type = ANY, class = IN ;; ANSWER SECTION: 267.rdi.int. 1D IN SOA puck.nether.net. jared.nether.net. ( 199809071 ; serial 8H ; refresh 4H ; retry 4W ; expiry 1D ) ; minimum 267.rdi.int. 1D IN NS puck.nether.net. 267.rdi.int. 1D IN NS dns.voyager.net. 267.rdi.int. 1D IN NS thorn.blackrose.org. 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0000 person:Jared Mauch" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0001 descr: NetherNet Networks" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0002 aut-num: AS267" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0003 as-in: from AS1225 80 accept ANY" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0004 as-in: from AS234 80 accept ANY" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0005 route: 204.42.252.0/22" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0006 route: 3FFE:900:5::0/48" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0007 admin-c: JM568" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0008 tech-c: JM568" 267.rdi.int. 1D IN TXT "RPS 0009 source: DNS" ...

1 0

Re: Monitoring, Flow Stats (Re: spam whore, norcal-systems)
by Roeland M.J. Meyer 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

Here is something germane to this thread. >Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 19:42:43 -0500 >From: "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf(a)MCI.NET> >Subject: EC Directive on IP Addresses and Privacy >X-Sender: vcerf(a)shoe.reston.mci.net >To: "ISOC Members Discussion" <isoc-members-discuss(a)lyris.isoc.org> >Reply-To: ISOC Members Discussion <isoc-members-discuss(a)lyris.isoc.org> >List-Owner: <mailto:ISOC-members-discuss-owner@lyris.isoc.org> >X-Message-To: [rmeyer(a)mhsc.com] > >I thought this would interest you - these are NOT my words but >the words of the source of the message to me: > > > >"Yesterday, I learned from a very well-placed U.S. Government source that >European law enforcement officials have told their American counterparts >that they interpret the E.C. Data Protection Directive as prohibiting >Internet service providers from maintaining records of users' IP >addresses unless necessary for service or billing. This position indicates >that E.C. officials consider both dynamic and static IP addresses to be >subject to the Directive as "personal data'...relating to an...identifiable >natural person" under Article 2(a) of the Directive. Therefore, it is >being interpreted that the European Directive prohibits the retention of >dynamic IP addresses even by an ISP unless it is used for billing purposes >(which is rarely the case). > >If shared by others in the E.C., the position could have significant >implications for Internet business models." >================================================================= > >See you at INET'99, San Jose, CA, June 22-25,1999 >http://www.isoc.org/inet99/ > > ___________________________________________________ Roeland M.J. Meyer - e-mail: mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com ___________________________________________________ KISS ... gotta love it!

2 1

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by Paul Vixie 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

phil(a)whistler.intur.net (Phil Howard) writes: > I don't want to ban spam. I think if two consenting adults wish to carry > on a spamming relationship, that should be their choice, not mine nor the > government's. What I do want to do is NOT SERVICE spam. I elect to offer > a service to deliver NON-SPAM mail, because I believe there is more of a > market in NON-SPAM mail than there is in either SPAM mail or a mix. There's a slight definitions problem with this. The definition of "spam" in the e-mail context is "unwanted bulk or robotic messages." It makes no difference whether the unwanting is being done by the carrier or by the recipient. Anything that two consenting adults do together is by definition NOT "spam" because "spam" is "nonconsensual". Note that there are plenty of newsgroups and mailing lists where this thread could be relevant if expanded upon. I have therefore directed replies to myself personally. -- Paul Vixie <paul(a)vix.com>

1 0

Re: spam whore, norcal-systems.net
by Dean Anderson 03 Feb '99

03 Feb '99

At 03:38 PM 2/1/1999 -0800, I Am Not An Isp wrote: >At 03:35 PM 2/1/99 -0800, Dan Hollis wrote: >>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, I Am Not An Isp wrote: >>> What type of monitoring are you talking about? Or are you saying I cannot >>> filter packets through my network as I please? >> >>You havent been on nanog for very long, otherwise youd know that all >>your networks and all your packets belong to Dean, our resident pro-spam >>nut. I take issue with being called pro-spam. It's kind of like calling anyone who thinks Clinton should be impeached anti-democrat, or perhaps pro-republican. I am pro-law. If you want to ban spam, there is a way to do that: People banned junk faxes, and banned telemarketers from calling your cell phone. However, they did that by passing laws. Not by taking the law into their own hands. Secondly, the internet isn't a lawless place. There are already laws which control how you must behave. Especially if you might have access to other peoples private electronic communications. We don't need more privacy laws. We just need to enforce those we have. Unfortunately, many people think they can do whatever they please. I suppose if the laws aren't enforced, then they are right. --Dean [note that I don't take issue with being called a nut ;-) I think Clinton should be impeached, too.] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean(a)av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3 2