For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal
or 
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
Add this Digest to your personal
or
TELECOM Digest Sat, 23 Jul 2005 20:05:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 336
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
R-TEC Isolation Filter and Unknown Box (wh349055@netscape.net)
Re: Need to Drop SBC LD Service. Info on Other Carriers? (jmeissen)
Re: Need to Drop SBC LD Service. Info on Other Carriers? (C Griswold Jr)
Re: VoIP Intercom? (Daniel AJ Sokolov)
Re: VoIP Intercom? (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Spam Fighting Technique Fought by Some Netizens (jmeissen@aracnet)
Re: Ethics of Deterrence (Barry Margolin)
Re: Ethics of Deterrence (Robert Bonomi)
Re: Ethics of Deterrence (mc)
Re: Ethics of Deterrence (Bob Vaughan)
Re: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster (Steve Sobol)
Re: Old London Telephone Exchange Names (Paul Coxwell)
WTB Marconi &Tellabs (wwwSDHPDHcom)
Another Home Business (Steven Lichter)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and
the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other
journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are
included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address-
included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article
herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the
email.
===========================
Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be
sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters,
viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome.
We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we
are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because
we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands
against crime. Geoffrey Welsh
===========================
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details
and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wh349055@netscape.net
Subject: R-TEC Isolation Filter and Unknown Box
Date: 23 Jul 2005 16:36:10 -0700
I was in my basement, trying to remove the mess of wires, and putting
them all on a punchdown block. I noticet two old grey bell co wires
going to a box called an isolation filter. From there they went into a
box called an "R-tec STU-7". Inside the r-tec box, there is a
rechargable battery, and an instruction sheet. The sheet says:
-Telephone must be wired for briged ringing
-Use straight line ringers only with bias spring at minimum setting.
The box is grey, says "Phone Co Property" and is about 9'' by 5'' by
2'' deep.
What is this, and what does/did it do (it was disconected)
Thanks,
Warren
------------------------------
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Need to Drop SBC LD Service. Info on Other Carriers?
Date: 22 Jul 2005 22:05:20 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
In article <telecom24.335.7@telecom-digest.org>, George
<gh424NO824SPAM@cox.net> wrote:
> Beginning in September, all of SBC's LD calling plans will have a
> monthly charge, so I need to find a new home -- one that will only
> charge me for calls, with no monthly fee or minimum. Assuming there
> still is such a thing.
I use PowerNet Global http://www.powernetglobal.com . I've been with
them for a couple of years, and never had a problem. I believe they
now charge $1 for a paper invoice, although they didn't when I signed
up and they haven't tried to charge me as long as I don't set up an
Internet account.
John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com
------------------------------
From: Clark W. Griswold, Jr. <spamtrap100@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Need to Drop SBC LD Service. Info on Other Carriers?
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:43:57 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
George <gh424NO824SPAM@cox.net> wrote:
> Beginning in September, all of SBC's LD calling plans will have a
> monthly charge, so I need to find a new home -- one that will only
> charge me for calls, with no monthly fee or minimum. Assuming there
> still is such a thing.
I've been very pleased with Pioneer Telephone for 2 or 3 years now --
www.pioneertelephone.com
Don't confuse the URL with similar sounding ones.
No referral credit, no relation, just like the company.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:56:00 +0200
From: Daniel AJ Sokolov <sokolov@gmx.netnetnet>
Subject: Re: VoIP Intercom?
Am 22.07.2005 20:59 schrieb Scott Dorsey:
> Does anyone have any suggestion for a device that does this as a
> simple standalone device, preferably with minimum configuration? I
> know Telex makes some VOIP modules which can be integrated with their
> intercom frames, but they all seem to require a central switch.
Maybe http://www.nimcatnetworks.com/ can help. They've developed a
software for VoIP-phones that seems to be quite clever. The design is
such that you don't need a central switch or something, the PBX
functions are there in any of the phones. It also works as an
intercom. You even get redundancy for the voice box -- backups of your
voicemail are automatically stored in other phones on your LAN. It's
also self-configuring.
I'm not related to Nimcat in any way, but I saw their stuff at CeBIT
this year. It was quite impressive, because it was so simple.
Yes, it offers much more than you require, but I suggest you just send
them an e-mail and ask if they have anything affordable that suits your
needs.
HTH
Daniel AJ
My e-mail-address is sokolov [at] gmx dot net
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: VoIP Intercom?
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:05:29 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.335.8@telecom-digest.org>, Scott Dorsey
<kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> We have a number of stations, some of them in the same building on a
> single ethernet switch, and some of them in another building somewhere
> else in the world but with internet or intranet connections to that
> switch.
> These stations need to be linked with an intercom, using external
> hardware. This should act like a party line, where one unit can press
> a talk button and be heard on all the other units.
> Selective calling features or multiple channels would be nice, but not
> essental. There will be fewer than ten total units in place.
> Does anyone have any suggestion for a device that does this as a
> simple standalone device, preferably with minimum configuration? I
> know Telex makes some VOIP modules which can be integrated with their
> intercom frames, but they all seem to require a central switch.
This should be almost trivially easy to roll your own -- around an
IP-enabled micro-controller (something only a little smarter than a
Basic STAMP(tm), and using IP multicast.
------------------------------
From: jmeissen@aracnet.com
Subject: Re: Spam Fighting Technique Fought by Some Netizens
Date: 22 Jul 2005 22:00:34 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
In article <telecom24.335.13@telecom-digest.org>,
<jmeissen@aracnet.com> wrote:
> While generating an auto-ack for submissions seems like a nice
> gesture, in the case of spam all it does is aggravate the
> situation. It might be more effective to do something like comp.risks
> does now -- ask submitters to tag submissions with a unique identifier
> in the subject line. Or create a unique email address that's
> recognizable but not harvestable (maybe by adding a tag line to
> postings with instructions on how to construct the submission
> address).
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: First of all, if I were interested in
> 'doing like comp.risks does' that's one thing, however although I do
> have many regular correspondents here, there are also many newer and
> inexperienced netizens who write me to _ask questions_ about how
> _telephones work_, etc. I cannot have a system where if someone wishes
> to write me, he has to include 'keyword' in the subject line. I do not
> have a closed-loop of my friends or enemies as my only writers. Far too
> much good letters would get trashed that way. And with twenty some
> years of postings in our own archives here and many other places, it
> would take a long time to teach people how to construct the submission
> address.
Unfortunately, you are in a somewhat unique position. I have
implemented pretty effective blocking here, but basically by
blacklisting most of the Internet :-) For instance, I blacklist every
email whose sending hostname or return address uses any of the Country
Code Top Level Domains (i.e., .uk, .fi, .kr, etc), something you
obviously can't do.
But it's no less legitimate to ask someone to include a keyword on
their subject line than to ask them to respond to a challenge
email. And as for dealing with an address from an archive, you could
set up an auto-responder for that address which would provide the
necessary instructions. It doesn't solve the negative side-effects of
an auto-responder, but it might help with your spam problem.
I agree you have some unique circumstances that don't have easy
solutions. Mostly I was just trying to point out that it's not the
spammers who see the auto-response to spam, but some previously
uninvolved third party. So it's really pointless to use the
auto-responder with regard to spam.
The Internet has indeed become a dirty place. :-/
John Meissen jmeissen@aracnet.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: One reason I do not wish to block off
email from any two-letter country domain is because I do get mail from
.ru(ssia), .uk (United Kingdom), .de (Germany), etc. What should I do,
tell them I cannot be of help or respond to them unless they move into
the United States? I have readers in those countries as well. I think
it is sort of a slap in the face of _those_ people to imply they are
not good enough to participate in the same internet as myself. If
anything, I should block off all email from (anything).com since .com
is responsible for so much spam/scam is it not? And I have various
domains of my own in the 'us.tc' and 'us.tf' country codes. Now
admittedly, all they do at the present time is re-direct all calls to
wherever else you _really are at_. One thing I like about those domain
names, along with 'n3.net' (another one I use) is that the people who
run those top level domains ('tc' and 'tf') charge nothing for
registration, allow remote registrations, _and_ if you ask them to do
so, they will 'cloak' the actual place where you are at, by using
frames with your real location buried inside the frame and the bar
across the top gives _their_ name for you. For an example, look at
http://weatherforecast.us.tf which redirects to my page at berkeley.
PAT]
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Ethics of Deterrence
Organization: Symantec
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:08:42 -0400
In article <telecom24.335.14@telecom-digest.org>, Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> It's trivially easy for someone to put an URL of a website I own into
> a spam.
> And if you attack my website in response, and I had nothing to do with
> the original spam, you will have law enforcement knocking on your
> door.
Did you miss the part where they say that they send a warning first?
If you've been framed by the spammer, you'll have a chance to let them
know that it was a forgery. This should hopefully forestall the
attack.
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Yes, it will stop the whole one-for-one
complaint process. They look for any possible reason to _not_ start
the robots going, not the other way around. You can come back to them
with complete denial (and start them investigating further) or you can
go back and tell them you want to clean up your list, or whatever. PAT]
------------------------------
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Deterrence
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:17:54 -0000
Organization: Widgets, Inc.
In article <telecom24.335.14@telecom-digest.org>, Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> Eren Reshef wrote:
>> Some bloggers have recently claimed our fight is morally flawed.
> I'll go further and tell you you're a criminal.
> It's trivially easy for someone to put an URL of a website I own into
> a spam.
> And if you attack my website in response, and I had nothing to do with
> the original spam, you will have law enforcement knocking on your
> door.
> You're in California, I'm in California, should be as easy as a phone
> call.
> Did you mention something about the US Constitution? God, I *hate*
> when ignorant people claim that the Constitution gives them rights
> with no restriction -- you are welcome to certain rights as long you
> don't infringe on others' rights in the process of exercising
> yours. People who whine about their First Amendment rights being
> impugned often forget that.
> Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
> Company website: http://JustThe.net/
> Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
> E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Steve, you are forgetting a couple
> of important factors: although yes, it is 'trivially easy' to put
> someone else's URL (for a web page) into spam a third party wants to
> send out, if you have a web page, your web page would have to have
> one or more 'forms' on it for people to use to fill in their credit
> card numbers in order for other folks to come along and deface your
> web site, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be quite a coincidence if you,
> the innocent web site owner happened to have forms all over your
> web page which related to the product or service being spammed by
> some other person, _and_ through some 'human error' your web site
> got chosen?
Would it surprise you to learn that an unscrupulous operator might
DELIBERATELY spam "on behalf of" a competitor, for the express purpose
of getting that competitor knocked off the 'net?
Would it surprise you to learn that that _has_ happened?
*MORE*THAN*ONCE*
Would it surprise you to learn that business *have* gone under, as a
result of such actions?
If so, you are *unaware* of events on the Internet, more recent than
*1996*.
The prototypical such actions (from which the name "joe job" for
describing such things is derived) occurred in late 1996. Google for
"joe job" (with the quotes, for lots of history -- or see (among many
others) the page at: <http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/J/joe-job.html>
for the "jargon files" definition.
Such things are a "not infrequent" event, to this day.
> I really have to wonder if you read any of the FAQ on
> how the BlueSecurity.com system works ... let's say for example, I
> am offended by a piece of spam I recieve; I forward it to BlueSecurity;
> someone there who has a modicum of intelligence (about as much
> intelligence as the people who write up filtering software) looks at
> it, quickly finds mid the HTML crap on the source page an IP address
> which _appears to be_ the offender. He (the investigator) goes to
> the URL; is it in fact the product or service being spammed? If not,
> then he junks it. If it is the product being spammed, and it has
> 'forms' around the page for things like credit card numbers, comments
> or names/addresses, etc then it gets put somewhere. Now the investi-
> gtor finds a thousand more pieces from the same spammer, referring
> to the same URL, then acts on it. It is not a willy-nilly process
> where 'you' sent me spam so I 'crash your system'. They only release
> the 'do not spam me further' notices (which simply goes to that URL
> and fills in the aforementioned, already located 'forms') once they
> have discovered the _actual offender_, not some innocent bystander.
That is a lie. They *cannot* tell who "really sent" the e-mail
message.
All they can tell is that the material on the web-site, and material
in the message are 'consistent' with each other.
Which can be explained in _at_least_ two ways:
1) the web-site operator actually sent the message(s).
2) "somebody else" -- *deliberately*and*maliciously* -- posing as the
web-site operator sent the message(s) for the express purpose of
discrediting the actual web-site operator.
There is *no*way* to tell which of those scenarios is the "real"
explanation. Those who act, based on assumption #1, when the reality
is assumption #2, can find themselves in legal hot water.
> They got a lot of money from somewhere to put investigators to work
> tracking down _good_ URLs of spammers. Admittedly they cannot get
> anywhere with much of the crap which comes to them, but they do find
> some of them. And it is _not_ DDOS since the spammer is first given
> ample warning, and assistance as needed in cleaning his list.
You know. There's something really "funny" about their ENTIRE
operation. "Blue Security, Inc." according to their website, is
located in Menlo Park, California. With a claimed telephone number,
at that address, of "972-9-9577736", per the whois entry for the
domain.
Yet, according to the California Secretary of State, the *legal*owner*
of that _Corporation_Name_, is a locksmith in La Jolla, California,
who has had that name since 1997. (That information, and the info in
the following 3 paragraphs, *can* be verified by anyone who cares to,
on the State of California web-site.)
They can't legally have some other name, and be using "Blue Security,
Inc." as a "doing business as" (DBA) -- what California calls a
"fictitious name" -- because California *expressly* forbids the use of
a corporate ("Inc.", "Corp.", "Corporation", etc.) or LLC indicator as
part of a fictitious name.
One *cannot* legally register a corporate name (whether an in-state
corporation, or an out-of-state one doing business in California) that
is the same name as an existing Calif. corporation. One can register
a name that is "similar" only with the *written*consent* of the
presently- registered corporation, _and_ the agreement from the
Secretary of State that the naming would _not_ be unduly confusing to
potential customers.
Operating an unregistered business *is* a violation of California law.
Based on that, alone, Blue Security *does* appear to be a criminal
operation.
Blue Security's published INTENT regarding the co-ordinated
complaint-bombing of the targeted web-site is to make it 'unusable' by
people attempting to do legitimate business with that company.
One doesn't have to assume anything about how they work. One doesn't
have to do any interpretation. All one has to do is look at WHAT THEY
HAVE SAID THEIR INTENT IS.
Their intent, per their own words, *is* to inflict a "denial of
service" on the "guilty" web-site owner.
That *is* a criminal action, under the law.
That isn't the only issue. If they're *not* doing what they say they
do, then there are issues of false advertising, and/or wire-fraud. If
they _do_ do what they proclaim (a crime, per the above analysis),
there are additional possible charges of:
soliciting for participation in a criminal enterprise
conspiracy
accessory before the fact
RICO
just to name a few.
Those 'co-conspirators' that get sucked into their scheme could get
names on any/all of the latter 3 counts named above.
Incidentally, *IF* the mail-senders must pay for the 'list-washing'
service that Blue Security offers, then one can probably add
"extortion" to the possible charges. Blue Security _has_ issued a
public 'threat' to attempt DDoS on the web-sites of people who send
them e-mail without going through the list-washing process. Avoidance
of that 'threat' by the payment of money (whether or not a service is
provided for that money) is the essence of extortion.
Note: somewhat deeper digging into "Blue Security" indicates that the
_actual_ ownership is apparently with a company in Israel. One that
many people belive as having a lot of business dealings with the
Mossad.
One might speculate that "Blue Security" is a 'front' for testing some
actual "information warfare" tools. Emphasis on "warfare".
> Oh, and by the way, if http://telecom-digest.org 'suddenly stops
> working' sometime soon, well ... its just ICANN doing their thing,
> trying to silence anyone who tells you how naked they and their merry
> band of choristers are. Anytime you cannot get through on
> telecom-digest.org, remember that ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu is still
> a good address and points to the very same place. PAT]
REALLY??? My web browsers (4 different ones, on 3 different
platforms) insist that "ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu" is not a valid
URL.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: As I tried to explain to Robert Bonomi
in private email, these two URLS are _identical_ in where they go:
http://telecom-digest.org (and) http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives
These two emails are identical in where they go:
ptownson@telecom-digest.org (and) ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
I tried to explain to Robert Bonomi that a 'valid URL' (as in web
site) does not have an 'at sign' @ in the middle of it. PAT]
------------------------------
From: mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu>
Subject: Re: Ethics of Deterrence
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:18:09 -0400
Organization: Speed Factory (http://www.speedfactory.net)
Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:telecom24.335.14@telecom-digest.org:
> Eren Reshef wrote:
>> Some bloggers have recently claimed our fight is morally flawed.
> I'll go further and tell you you're a criminal.
> It's trivially easy for someone to put an URL of a website I own into
> a spam.
Well said!
This is exactly why, ten years ago, we had to tell people not to "mail
bomb" obnoxious e-mailers or newsgroup posters.
The other issue is collateral damage. In an attempt to bombard a
spammer, even if you get the spammer's true address, there's too much
risk of clogging up innocent sites along the way.
------------------------------
From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
Subject: Re: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:25:41 -0700
Organization: Glorb Internet Services, http://www.glorb.com
Pat said:
> Also I would like to comment on your allegation 'the only way to get
> infected is by user stupidity'. I think that is sort of a harsh
> assessment. _Not everyone_ who owns a computer knows everything about
> it
Pat's right.
You can be computer-savvy, even, and not necessarily know within hours
every time a new exploit comes out. It's not a question of
stupidity. New malware releases tend to happen quickly.
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
Company website: http://JustThe.net/
Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/
E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307
------------------------------
From: techie@tantivy.tantivy.net (Bob Vaughan)
Subject: Re: Ethics of Deterrence
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:17:20 UTC
Organization: Tantivy Associates
In article <telecom24.335.14@telecom-digest.org>, Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
> Eren Reshef wrote:
>> Some bloggers have recently claimed our fight is morally flawed.
> I'll go further and tell you you're a criminal.
> It's trivially easy for someone to put an URL of a website I own into
> a spam.
> And if you attack my website in response, and I had nothing to do with
> the original spam, you will have law enforcement knocking on your
> door.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well Steve, you are forgetting a couple
> of important factors: although yes, it is 'trivially easy' to put
> someone else's URL (for a web page) into spam a third party wants to
> send out, if you have a web page, your web page would have to have
> one or more 'forms' on it for people to use to fill in their credit
> card numbers in order for other folks to come along and deface your
> web site, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be quite a coincidence if you,
> the innocent web site owner happened to have forms all over your
> web page which related to the product or service being spammed by
> some other person, _and_ through some 'human error' your web site
> got chosen? I really have to wonder if you read any of the FAQ on
> how the BlueSecurity.com system works ... let's say for example, I
> am offended by a piece of spam I recieve; I forward it to BlueSecurity;
> someone there who has a modicum of intelligence (about as much
> intelligence as the people who write up filtering software) looks at
> it, quickly finds mid the HTML crap on the source page an IP address
> which _appears to be_ the offender. He (the investigator) goes to
> the URL; is it in fact the product or service being spammed? If not,
> then he junks it. If it is the product being spammed, and it has
> 'forms' around the page for things like credit card numbers, comments
> or names/addresses, etc then it gets put somewhere. Now the investi-
> gtor finds a thousand more pieces from the same spammer, referring
> to the same URL, then acts on it. It is not a willy-nilly process
> where 'you' sent me spam so I 'crash your system'. They only release
> the 'do not spam me further' notices (which simply goes to that URL
> and fills in the aforementioned, already located 'forms') once they
> have discovered the _actual offender_, not some innocent bystander.
You have just described a legitimate online business..
ie: a site, offering product(s), and providing a means to order those
products online. There are thousands of these types of businesses, and
the majority of them are legitimate.
Lets use Online_Vendor_A as an example, we'll refer to them as
'_target_', and we will refer to the person(s) attacking them as
'_attacker_'.
Just because _target_ is being advertised via spam, does not mean that
_target_ is responsible for the spam. It is certainly possible that
_attacker_ does not like _target_ for some reason or another, and
decides that the easiest way to attack them is to send out a few
million spam emails, advertising the _target_ site. Well guess what,
Blue Frog is here, ready to launch a DDOS attack against the _target_
site on behalf of all the people who just got spammed, adding yet
another layer of shielding between the _attacker_, and _target_.
Do you really want to know how many phishing spam I get that have the
URL of the real website somewhere in the spam?
> They got a lot of money from somewhere to put investigators to work
> tracking down _good_ URLs of spammers. Admittedly they cannot get
> anywhere with much of the crap which comes to them, but they do find
> some of them. And it is _not_ DDOS since the spammer is first given
> ample warning, and assistance as needed in cleaning his list.
In the example above _target_ IS NOT the spammer, and DOES NOT hold
the list, or even have knowledge of the existance of the list, nor do
they have any control over it, or contact with anybody who does. While
_target_ may appear to benefit from the spam, the opposite is true,
since the false accusations, and DDOS attacks have the effect of
placing a undue burden on _target_'s legitimate business, and
computing resources..
This is a Joe-Job, and unfortunately there is no easy way to determine
if _target_ is being subjected to a Joe-Job without asking _attacker_
or _target_. Now, if you ask _target_, but assume that _target_ is a
spammer, and refuse to believe their answer, then you are back to step
1.
> Oh, I know ICANN would not approve of it, nor would many of the old-
> time netizens who prefer being in denial about spam/scam, etc. ICANN
> tolerates it since it does the dirty work they don't have to do;
> driving small web site owners and netizens off of 'their' network,
> then when anyone like Blue Security gets a sum of money for their
> 'start up costs' and proceeds to catch and punish eve a few of the
> spammers, the ICANN-favored users start chanting against it, with all
> sorts of warnings: it won't work; even it does a little it is a stupid
> thing; those spammers may claim _their_ First Amendment rights and
> get _you_ in trouble, yada yada yada ad nauseum ...
I do not like spam one bit, but I feel that this method is targeting
the wrong issue. Complaining to the spam source based on IP address is
one thing, complaining to the website mentioned in the spam, unless
properly verified >by human analysis< is another, and in many cases it
will simply be impossible to determine if the two are connected.
This method might be effective against phishing spams, and spams
advertising obviously illegal products, but beyond that is is worse
than useless.
By providing the mechanism with which to facilitate the DDOS attack,
Blue Security is opening themselves up to some serious liability
problems in the likely event of a attack on an innocent site, using
Blue Frog as a proxy.
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine --
Bob Vaughan | techie @ tantivy.net |
| P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 |
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Have you been following the discussion?
Blue Security does absolutely _nothing_ until they are 99.7 percent
sure they have the right party, and even the, the right party is given
a chance to respond (not me, it was a joe-job, etc) or clean up his
mailing list, or subscribe to a list instead of using dictionary attacks
etc. Only when there is absolutely no response from the offender, or a
very casual 'too hell with the net' answer, then is the 'one
complaint for one spam' process started. PAT]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:50:49 +0100
From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Old London Telephone Exchange Names
Pat,
Re the list of old London exchange names which is archived here:
http://massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/history/dialing-history
It's been pointed out to me that the entry for BOWes Park 209
incorrectly shows that this office served the Twickenham area, which
is in southwest London.
In fact the BOWes Park office served the Wood Green / Bowes Park
district of north London. I'm not sure why I didn't spot the mistake,
as my own family lived around that part of north London years ago, so
Bowes Park was only just up the road.
Anyway, perhaps you could make an appropriate amendment in the arhives.
- Paul.
------------------------------
From: wwwSDHPDHcom <Offers@nortelreseller.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:30:57 +0100
Subject: WTB Marconi &Tellabs
Wants to Buy
Marconi
MSH 80, 83, 84
Racks subracks and cards.
Tellabs Titan 5500
550N High Density
Shelf and cards.
If you have for sale any of the above, please e mail us on Buy.
------------------------------
From: Steven Lichter <shlichter@diespammers.com>
Reply-To: Die@spammers.com
Organization: I Kill Spammers, Inc. (c) 2005 A Rot in Hell Co.
Subject: Another Home Business
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:48:21 GMT
This one is real good and gives you a toll free number to find out
about it. Be sure to let them know the person's id that you got their
number from, I'm sure they would like to thank them for all the phone
charges.
Just call 1-800-704-7344 --
and please give them my ID 4733MW.
To your success,
Michelle
The only good spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2005 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Co.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well thank you Steven, or Michelle, or
whoever ... I am sure all the guys know the routine by now. But my
question is, what makes calling on complaints via an 800 number used
for spam any different than locating a web site owner who has been
doing about the same thing. They both could be joe-jobs, they both
could be horrible misunderstandings, etc, but I think we all know most
of those objections are just red-herrings. They are what they appear
to be, affronts to the sensibilities of _most_ netizens. PAT]
------------------------------
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, Yahoo Groups, 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-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in
some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work
and that of the original author.
Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest
Post Office Box 50
Independence, KS 67301
Phone: 620-402-0134
Fax 1: 775-255-9970
Fax 2: 530-309-7234
Fax 3: 208-692-5145
Email: editor@telecom-digest.org
Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org
Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm-
unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and
published continuously since then. Our archives are available for
your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list
on the internet in any category!
URL information: http://telecom-digest.org
Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/
(or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives)
RSS Syndication of TELECOM Digest: http://telecom-digest.org/rss.html
For syndication examples see http://www.feedrollpro.com/syndicate.php?id=308
and also http://feeds.feedburner.com/TelecomDigest
*************************************************************************
* TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from *
* Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate *
* 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. *
* http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com *
* Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing *
* views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. *
*************************************************************************
ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased.
One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com
Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 fifty 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.
End of TELECOM Digest V24 #336
******************************
| |