TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:30:00 EDT    Volume 24 : Issue 378

Inside This Issue:                             Editor: Patrick A. Townson

    Opening Pandora's Inbox (Economist Newspaper Group)
    Linux or Windows: TCO Comparison (Laura DiDio)
    Microsoft Working to Fix Browser Flaw (Elizabeth Gillespie)
    Mediacom (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: Customs Computer Virus Strands Passengers (David Clayton)
    Re: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC (Fred Atkinson)
    Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief (Dan Lanciani)
    Re: Classic Six-Button Keysets - Cost During 1970s (Paul Coxwell)
    Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold (Mark Crispin)
    Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold (DevilsPGD)
    Last Sad Laugh: Porno Spam: new.site.p0rn0..ch|ldren$ (hongli@levitte.org)

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: Economist Newspaper Group <economist@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Opening Pandora's Inbox
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:34:22 -0500


 From The Economist Global Agenda

Microsoft has reached a settlement with one of the world's leading
spammers which includes a payment of $7m to the software
giant. Despite legal and technological challenges, spamming is still
a big problem. And a new form of the scourge could prove even more
costly to the unwary.  

FOR overweight lovers of pornography in need of a cheap loan or a
"boost", the offers of slimming pills, Viagra, smut and the like that
flood into e-mail inboxes around the world are a positive boon. For most
consumers and businesses, however, "spam" has grown over the past few
years from a mere nuisance into a costly and time-consuming threat. On
Tuesday August 9th, business fought back. Microsoft's case against Scott
Richter ended in victory for the software giant after the "spam king"
agreed to pay $7m to settle charges relating to a lawsuit filed in 2003 
against his internet firm, OptInRealBig.

Microsoft alleged that Mr Richter's firm had sent up to 38 billion
unsolicited commercial e-mails a year, offering anything from loans to
herbal remedies. Once described as the world's leading spammer, Mr.
Richter claims that his firm has since cleaned up its act and now only
sends offers to customers that want them. Microsoft was joined in the
action by Eliot Spitzer, who for once took the side of big business
(albeit in a battle with another, more unpopular business). The software
giant and New York's crusading attorney-general are not alone in wanting
to stamp out spam. Other big technology firms, internet service
providers, affected companies and governments have all taken action of
various kinds against spammers. There are even some suggestions that the
battle against unwanted e-mail is finally being won.

The volume of spam increased alarmingly over much of the past few
years.  In 1997, the world's e-mail users could expect on average one
unsolicited spam message a week. By the end of 2000, spam accounted
for some 10% of global e-mail traffic.  Steadily that proportion
increased to a high of an astounding 95% in July 2004, according to
MessageLabs, a message-security firm. Since then, the level has fallen
to just below 70%.

But though some may count this as a victory of sorts, spam still
accounts for a greater share of worldwide e-mail traffic than it did
when federal anti-spam regulation was introduced in America-where much
spam originates and is received-some 18 months ago. Despite Bill Gates's
declaration in 2004 that spam would soon be a thing of the past, it is
clearly a vast problem that is not going away.

And it is costly as well as inconvenient and annoying. Ferris
Research, a consulting firm, estimates that spam will cost American
businesses alone $17 billion this year in lost productivity and in
spending on anti-spam measures; sending spam, on the other hand, is
virtually costless. America Online (AOL) says that at any time between
a third and two-thirds of its server capacity is taken up by spam
(though the firm noted a decline in 2004). Some spam messages contain
computer viruses that wreak havoc with the recipients' hard
drives. Others contain scams that cost gullible readers in more
embarrassing ways.

Mr. Richter's case is only the latest in a series of prosecutions that
have led to fines and prison sentences for junk e-mailers in America
and elsewhere. Microsoft has joined forces with AOL, Yahoo! and
EarthLink to bring legal actions against spammers. In the past two
years, Microsoft has filed over 100 lawsuits in America, and either
initiated or supported legal action against spammers in 30 cases
abroad, of which it has won or favourably settled over half. And
sentences for spamming can be stiff. In April, Jeremy Jaynes,
considered among the world's top-ten spammers, got a nine-year prison
sentence in America for using false e-mail addresses and aliases to
send mass e-mails (though the sentence was suspended pending an
appeal).

But spammers are an elusive bunch. Following the introduction of
America's anti-spam CAN-SPAM Act in January 2004, junk e-mailing fell
briefly but then shot up again (see chart). Some spammers, acting
illegally by sending messages via third-party "proxies", simply moved
abroad. Furthermore, the act gave spammers a let-out: its authors,
lobbied hard by legitimate marketing companies, agreed that spamming
could still be deemed legal as long as recipients were able to remove
themselves from mailing lists, and senders did not mislead them about
the origin of the mail. In Europe, too, new measures have been of
limited help. The European Union introduced tougher legislation
shortly before America. This required explicit consent from recipients
before spam could be sent but has proved largely ineffective as a
deterrent.

As a result, internet users have been taking matters into their own
hands using blocking technology, and deterrence methods which are
improving all the time. Around 90% of all spam is caught by filters
these days. But spam still clogs servers, to the chagrin of internet
service providers and IT departments. Internet users then often times
work on that which is left manually, using methods a few other
Internet users claim is 'illegal' or 'unethical'. 


Phishing for victims

The recent decline in the amount of spam may just reflect a
realisation on the part of spammers that they need to be more
selective now that filters will trap the most obvious unsolicited
offers. And a troubling development is the increased incidence of
"phishing", a form of fraudulent spamming that can be extremely costly
to victims. Phishers send out millions of e-mails in an attempt to
steal personal and financial-account details from unsuspecting
dupes. These e-mails purport to come from reputable businesses and
contain links to websites where recipients are asked to divulge bank
and credit-card details. The fraudsters can then use this information
to steal cash from their victims. One recent attempt mimicked eBay's
website. Another, similar fraud involves spam e-mails carrying hidden
software that sends details of the recipient's computer use to
criminals, often using key-logging software that notes passwords or
keyed-in bank details.

Despite the modest successes in the war on spam, it is here to
stay. The type of cross-border legal action that is necessary to rope
in spammers is notoriously hard to organise, and jurisdictions that
are willing to turn a blind eye to spammers will be impossible to
police. Technology may yet provide an answer beyond blocking
technology. Microsoft and other big technology firms are currently
tussling over the best standard for authentication technologies that
verify the origins of e-mails and will provide added protection in
the future. They have their work cut out. Old-style spamming may,
perhaps, be coming under control. But for the enterprising miscreant,
spamming-based computer crime is a growth industry.


Copyright 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.  Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, Economist Newspapers and Economist Group.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

------------------------------

From: Laura DiDio <newsfactor@telecom-digest.org>
Subject: Linux vs. Windows: TCO Comparison 
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:35:24 -0500


Laura DiDio, newsfactor.com

With no apologies to the partisans and protagonists on either side of
the Linux-versus-Windows debate: It's not an either-or, all-or-nothing
proposition.

There are technical and business advantages and disadvantages for both
operating-system environments. Neither server system will consume the
other. Both will coexist. The big question currently confronting
corporate users is whether harmonious heterogeneity is possible.

It had better be. If it is not forthcoming, everyone -- corporate end
users and vendors alike -- stands to lose.

Here's where things stand now: Microsoft's Windows commands 65 to 70
percent of the server operating system market, while the Linux share
stands at 15 to 20 percent. Currently, Linux server shipments
represent the fastest-growing segment of the market.

No Basis for Mass Switch

Yankee Group recently completed an extensive total cost of ownership
(TCO) comparison report in which it polled 500 North American
corporations on their use of Windows and Linux. The high-level
findings show that there is no universal clear-cut TCO basis to compel
the corporate masses to do a wholesale switch from Windows to Linux as
there is for a migration from Unix to Linux. And there is no
indication that users are replacing Windows with Linux.

The majority of wholesale defections to Linux continues to come at the
expense of midrange Unix installations, although many organizations
are installing Linux as an OS that is complementary to existing
Windows servers. Nearly two-thirds of Windows environments now have
Linux or some other open-source distribution present in their
environments. This trend will continue.

The report also indicates that businesses continue to expand the ways
they use Linux. More than 50 percent of corporations now use Linux as
multipurpose servers to perform several functions, including serving
Web pages, e-mail and applications.

But, contrary to what the headlines would have us believe, the biggest
threat to Microsoft's continued dominance, at present, is not
Linux. It is older versions of Windows. The biggest threat to Linux is
not Microsoft, but rather integration and interoperability issues
among the various Linux and open-source distributions and
applications. The lack of enterprise-level application support and
documentation for the aforementioned software packages also is an
issue.

Energy and Enthusiasm

Pragmatism -- not misguided passion -- should decide whether Linux,
Windows, Unix or any combination of the three is the best solution for
an individual organization.

Don't get me wrong. I applaud the passion of the software developers
and I.T. administrators who pour their time, effort, energy and
enthusiasm into their work. But I abhor it when the passion
disintegrates into mudslinging and counterproductive internecine
warfare. That does not help the business or any of the corporation's
end users.

To put it simply, both Windows and Linux have much to recommend
them. Largely, server operating systems have been commoditized. A
corporation's TCO and ROI are less factors of the underlying Linux or
Windows operating systems than they are of the applications and
services that support the server platforms.

The most startling revelation coming out of the report was the fact
that more than 50 percent of the respondents said they had performed a
thorough TCO analysis. But when asked to calculate their specific
Linux and Windows capital expenditure and maintenance costs, 75
percent, on average, could not answer explicit questions about their
own environments.

Crucial, Basic TCO Information

Businesses lack basic, crucial TCO information, such as the cost of a
Linux or Windows server upgrade and what they are spending on network
management, third-party applications, tools, utilities, ongoing
maintenance, security, systems downtime, calls to the help desk and
hardware and software breaks and fixes.

The absence of such crucial financial information makes it difficult
for corporations to make informed purchasing decisions and heightens
risks when choosing technologies that are ill-suited to their business
needs.

It is clear that Linux servers, spurred by support from Dell,
Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat and others, are legitimate
contenders in the corporate enterprise. But Linux desktops have yet to
make a perceptible impact or gain traction in mainstream enterprise
accounts.

It also is clear that Microsoft recognizes the Linux challenge posed
by its old and new foes. The company has responded positively and
aggressively to meet the challenge. Ironically, Linux has had a
positive impact on Windows. Faced with its fiercest competitor in the
past decade, Microsoft responded with a series of aggressive moves.

Competition creates a win-win situation for everyone. Corporate
customers get better products, services and more competitive pricing
as Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and the various Linux distributors
compete for their business. Rival vendors improve the inherent
performance, reliability, security and scalability of their core
offerings.

Maximizing Network Potential

There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all operating system that is
right for every scenario in every environment. Depending on a
corporation's business needs, current and planned technology
infrastructure, and capital-expenditure budgets, either Windows, Linux
or some combination of the two might best suit the firm's technology
needs, budget and business goals.

But the brand name is less important than the overarching issues
associated with whether corporate I.T. managers, CTOs and CIOs can
answer specific questions about the cost and efficiency of their
existing network infrastructure and the reasons for the relative
strengths and weaknesses.

If you do not know what is on your network, if you cannot at least
estimate the hourly, monthly or yearly cost of downtime, if you do not
know how long it takes to recover from a security outage, if you
cannot answer questions about the extent of your company's license
compliance, then you cannot truly evaluate whether Linux, Windows or
Unix is right for your business.

Chances are, if you cannot answer most or all of those questions, it
does not matter what operating system you have because ignorance of
the core TCO tenets means that your business is not getting the most
out of its networks.

It is incumbent on individual organizations to determine which
operating system -- or combination thereof -- best suits their firm's
technology needs, budgets and business goals. With proper planning,
training and due diligence, Linux, Windows or Unix can provide the
best TCO and fastest ROI. Companies that fail to perform due diligence
are buying blind and will almost surely suffer the consequences.


Laura DiDio is a Research Fellow at Yankee Group, a Boston-based
consultancy. She has covered operating systems and related security
issues for 18 years as an analyst, reporter and editor.

Copyright 2005 NewsFactor Network, Inc.

NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This Internet discussion group is making it available without
profit to group members who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the
understanding of literary, educational, political, and economic
issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I
believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S.  Copyright Law. If you wish
to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner, in this instance, NewsFactor Network, Inc. 

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

------------------------------

From: Elizabeth M. Gillespie <ap@telecom-digest.org> 
Subject: Microsoft Working1< to Fix Browser Flaw
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:34:53 -0500


By ELIZABETH M. GILLESPIE, AP Business Writer

Microsoft Corp. was working Friday to come up with a fix for a flaw in
its Internet Explorer browser that could let hackers gain remote
access to computer systems through malicious Web sites.

A patch was not immediately available, though security experts
played down the risk.

"If the user doesn't browse a malicious Web site, then the user isn't
even under attack," said Gerhard Eschelbeck, chief technology officer
at Qualys Inc., a security company based in Redwood Shores, Calif.

Stephen Toulouse, a program manager for the software maker's Security
Response Center, said the component that's the root of the problem
does not come standard in the Windows operating system.

In an update to a security advisory the company had issued the day
before, Microsoft said Friday that machines running Visual Studio 2002
without the Service Pack 1 update, or Office 2003 with Service Pack 3,
could be vulnerable.

Microsoft said it knew of no customers who had been attacked.

The company urged Internet users to be careful about opening up Web
links in e-mails and said it would release a security update once it
had completed its investigation.

Thursday's advisory came after a French security research team 
published a "proof-of-concept exploit" showing how hackers could take
advantage of the vulnerability.

Without referring to the exploit specifically, Microsoft said the flaw
"was not disclosed responsibly, potentially putting computer users at
risk."

The disclosure came just days after a series of computer worms,
programmed to take advantage of a flaw in Microsoft's Windows
operating system, caused delays in operations at big companies and
government offices.


    On the Net:
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/906267.mspx

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.


NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. For up to the minute Associated Press News Reports and
headlines, go to http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/AP.html


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So ... they claim 'no harm to the small
individual at a computer; just do not open any email attachments which
look suspicious.' Well, gee, that's good to know; what about the tons
of email spam each day which was sent under phalse pretenses using
a misleading subject line?  I expect a lot of users will get this
latest virus as well.  PAT] 

------------------------------

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Mediacom
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:06:36 -0400


Folks,

Since I've become a Mediacom customer, I've discovered that they
require seven users to make a request for a new newsgroup on their
mailserver.  Since I'm new in the area and don't know any other
Mediacom users as yet, that presents a problem.

I'm hoping there are a handful of other Mediacom subscribers on here.
If you are, please send me an email at fatkinson@mishmash.com.  I'd
like to get enough of us together so that if one or more of us are
interested in getting a new newsgroup added, we can find strength in
numbers to achieve that end.

Specifically, Kyler suggested I post my previous question on the
comp.dcom.voice-over-ip since that would be more appropriate for that
post anyway.  Can't do it because comp.dcom.voice-over-ip is not on
the Mediacom news server.  And Medicom won't do it without six other
users wanting it.

Hope to hear from those of you who are Mediacom customers.

Thanks,

Fred


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Does comp.dcom.voice-over-ip have a 
_mailing list_ as well as a newsgroup?  If so, then try to reach them
in email as well.   PAT]

------------------------------

From: David Clayton <dcstar@myrealbox.com>
Subject:  Re: Customs Computer Virus Strands Passengers
Date:  Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:03:33 +1000


On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:23:34 -0500, Lisa Orkwin Emmanuel wrote:

> By LISA ORKIN EMMANUEL, Associated Press Writer

> Travelers arriving in the United States from abroad were stuck in long
> lines at airports nationwide when a virus shut down an U.S. Customs and
> Border Protection computer system for several hours, officials said.

How long until some custom-written "virus" is written to erase (or
alter) the records of the sort of people that these systems are
supposed to identify?

With so many obvious holes and vulnerabilities in these systems that
governments are purporting to use to protect the people from terrorism
etc., one wonders if it truly is one big con-job given the "bad guys"
could infiltrate a lot of these systems if they truly desired to?


Regards, 

David Clayton, e-mail: dcstar@XYZ.myrealbox.com
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
(Remove the "XYZ." to reply)

Knowledge is a measure of how many answers you have,
intelligence is a measure of how many questions you have.

------------------------------

From: Fred Atkinson <fatkinson@mishmash.com>
Subject: Re: Local Exchange Not Local in Sylva, NC
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:57:56 -0400


> So Fred, why don't you consider making that VOIP number the _only_
> number on file for you with the company. Back them into a corner and
> _someone_ will get the bureaucatic nonsense eliminated there.  Give
> them no alternate numbers, no easy way to ignore the problem.   PAT]

Well, that same guy called me at home last night.  He apparently rang
and hung up before I could speak to him.  I used *69 to ring him back.
He told me that he had test dialed my number on an outside line and it
worked.  He said he was waiting for his supervisor to tell him what to
do about it.

Actually, that is the only number I can be reached at at home (save my
800 number, which I'm obviously not going to give them).  I circulated
a memo to those in authority making them aware of the situation.  I
didn't want them upset when they found out about it on the spur of a
moment.

On another note, I used to program Rolm PBX and voicemail systems.
Once you got the drift of what was going on, programming those things
was never difficult.  I was never Rolm certified.  I learned it on the
job from a couple of other certified folks.  When I asked about
becoming certified, they said they felt I was already at a level where
sending me to school for certification was kind of pointless.  Oh,
well.

Regards,

Fred

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 04:28:07 EDT
From: Dan Lanciani <ddl@danlan.com>
Subject: Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief


spamsucks@crazyhat.net (DevilsPGD) wrote:

>> jmcharry@comcast.net (John McHarry) wrote:

>> I had a rather large ACH transfer executed in the wrong direction a
>> while back. The company that screwed it up managed to straighten it
>> out, but the bank that was supposed to receive funds, and instead
>> disbursed them, didn't do squat.

> What was the bank's response when you asked them to reverse the
> unauthorized disbursal?

>> Apparently there is no security in that system beyond trusting
>> those who are admitted, which is pretty much all the big corporations.

> Proponents of the system claim that no further security is required
> because the paying bank is obligated to unwind the transaction upon
> the account owner's statement that the payment was unauthorized.  On
> the other hand, some people report significant problems getting their
> money back after unauthorized ACH debits.  They can't both be right;
> hence my question.  (I realize that unwinding the transaction would
> have solved only half of your particular problem, of course.)

> Just because the bank is obligated doesn't mean they'll make it easy
> or fun.  Ultimately you'll get your money back, but the hassle makes
> it sometimes not worth the pain.

That's an easy way to resolve the apparent conflict in stories, but I
would still like to hear the details on one or more specific incidents
from the actual participants.

Again, defenders of the system claim that all you have to do is affirm
to the bank that the transaction was unauthorized in order for it to
be reversed.  It isn't obvious how a bank can make an affirmation
_that_ painful.  I can see them requiring a particular form and maybe
a notary and/or having you swear before a witness or such.  But if
they require much beyond that then the proponents' assertion is
clearly false.  In particular, if by "ultimately" you mean after the
consumer has taken the bank to court and won and the bank has
exhausted all appeals then as a practical matter I would say that the
bank is not so obligated. :(

On the flip side, people have complained about losing significant sums
to ACH scams (such people may be making up these stories, of course)
and one would assume that it would have been worth at least some
hassle for them to get the bank to reverse the transaction.

Something just doesn't add up, so I'd still like to hear how the bank
responded in this case.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:12:51 +0100
From: Paul Coxwell <paulcoxwell@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Classic Six-Button Keysets - Cost During 1970s


> And something I've always wondered about is the use of multiple lines
> in countries outside of the US such as in Europe and in Asia. Often
> I'd see numbers advertised or on signage on the order of 123456/7
> meaning that you could reach that business by dialing either 123456 or
> 123457. Does this mean that these step-by-step/Strowger or other
> electromechanical exchanges did not have trunk hunt and that this is
> just a North American "invention." I can't think of any other reason
> for listing for the public both numbers if they were sequential other
> than the facility for automatic trunk hunt was not available.

Hunt groups were certainly used in the British PSTN when it was mostly
SxS.  All it took was suitable links on one bank of the final selector
(connector) for it to hunt across subscriber lines in much the same
way as any other type of selector would hunt for a free trunk.

It was quite common for a larger company to advertise its number as
something like "REGent 2101 (8 lines)" People could still call on
2102, 2103, etc., but of course the hunting on busy would progress
only forward from that line.

Businesses with just two or three lines did indeed advertise as, for
example, "REGent 2101/2/3."  Either they genuinely had consecutive but
separate lines, or maybe in some cases whoever was in charge of
advertising, letterheads, etc. didn't realize that the system would
hunt and that "REGent 2101 (3 lines)" or simply "REGent 2101" would
have been sufficient.  Naturally, the former option would have made
the company look more prestigious.

- Paul.

------------------------------

From: Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Subject:  Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold
Date:  Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:56:34 -0700
Organization:  Networks & Distributed Computing


Pat writes:

> here: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3675.html sub-titled '.sex
> considered dangerous', it is an interesting sermon-length document
> which explains why the author has such hatred and bias against a TLD
> known as '.sex'

Pat apparently does not know the author of RFC 3675.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, I do not know the author of that 
work. All I could find on my copy was a copyright notice from Internet
Society. But one thing I noticed early on in my reading of that
missive was that most of what he said about '.sex' or '.xxx' regards 
the way people could abuse those domain names could and has been done
in equal measure with '.com', '.org', '.edu', and '.net'. That little
factor -- that the author failed to include the rather well known TLDs
in his discussion of how the system can be abused did nothing to
impress me about the quality of his workmanship. It was almost as if
the author had some other secret agenda he failed to mention. Nor was
there any mention of those new arrivals '.biz', 'info', '.museum' and
'.aero' and how _they_ could be (and have been, in their short lives)
greatly abused. Apparently he feels it is okay to segregate dubious
'business' ventures, museums and airplane enthusiasts along with
dubious 'information' providers into their own domains, rather than 
have them mainstreamed with others in .com, but he resents the idea
that .sex or .xxx should thus be segregated. It really makes one
wonder what his agenda is really all about. I don't really care _what_
the person's name is; I prefer to deal with ideas (which, in case you 
did not know it, have _consequences_) rather than possibly know who
the person is and maybe have some prejudicial and unfair thoughts. So 
anyway,  Mark, I have now read RFC-3675. Where does our conversation
go from here?  PAT]
   
------------------------------

From: DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>
Subject: Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 02:09:22 -0600
Organization: Disorganized


In message <telecom24.377.13@telecom-digest.org> TELECOM Digest
Editor noted in response to DevilsPGD <spamsucks@crazyhat.net>:

> In message <telecom24.376.10@telecom-digest.org> TELECOM Digest
> Editor noted in response to John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>:

>> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But they do that now, with filtering
>> programs. Filtering, never a perfect solution, now can filter out
>> the sexual topic of women's breasts, but the problem is it cannot
>> seem to understand why 'breast cancer' is not the same thing as 'I
>> love to look at and fantasize on those breasts'.  But to the filter
>> writers, what is there that you cannot understand about '.xxx'?  If
>> I write a filter and I say that a dot followed by three x's goes no
>> further into my computer, then other things like the context in which
>> 'breasts' or 'sex' or whatever is to be taken becomes a moot point
>> doesn't it?  If the real problem that '.xxx' makes writing and main-
>> taining filtering programs too easy?  If local communities or govern-
>> ments decide what is to go into '.xxx' it would seem to me that all
>> the fuss over effective and ineffective filtering would go away.  PAT]

> Sure *IF* the whole world decided what goes into .xxx, everybody
> agreed AND everybody played nice.

> BUT ... Even ignoring the fact that defining what belongs in .xxx is
> impossible (what's obscene?  What's pornographic?  In the middle east, a
> women without a head covering is probably pornographic.  In the US,
> Janet Jackson's nipple was obviously a problem.  In Europe, a photo of a
> topless 17 year old isn't obscene) there is another issue: 

> You can't even get Russian web hosts to terminate child porn which is
> illegal virtually everywhere, so what do you think the odds are they'll
> give a damn about a nipple?

> At the end of the day the only workable solution is to create an
> restrictive/exclusive .kids or .family (or whatever gTLD would be
>appropriate) and set restrictions on that TLD which are enforced by
> the registry/registrars responsible and don't require cooperation of
> *everybody*

> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So tell me what makes .kids or .family
> any different than .sex except for the direction it goes?  And what
> do you propose to do with the people who say 'what right have you got
> to tell me what is appropriate for my family/kids?  You would not want
> to settle for enforcement standards on that (family/kids) any more
> than you would want to try and enforce it for .sex so what is the
> difference?  We also presently have 'K12' or 'K-12' do we not?  I 
> wonder how they ever got _that one_ through, given the guys on the net
> always dragging their red-herrings out?  PAT]

The difference with a .kids-type gTLD is that it's rules can be enforced
without trying to retroactively apply new rules to existing domains.

It's substantially more difficult to attempt to enforce new rules
retroactively.  Imagine the lawsuits from each and every pornographic
site which has invested significant time and money branding existing
domain names -- It will be tied up in court for the rest of our natural
lives.

Again, if you or the US gov't or even a US court tells me to remove
sexually explicit material my site, I'll likely not bother responding at
all, and if I do, my response will be roughly the size of "no" -- I'm
not in the US and I care very little for US law other then when I'm in
the US.

Even if ICANN somehow agreed to pull gTLD domains with porn and was able
to deal with the legal side of things, it wouldn't help since I can get
a ccTLD domain which ICANN has no influence over and would again require
global cooperation.

The difference with a .kids domain is that one of the terms of sale for
a .kids domain would be a no-porn rule, and since that would be in the
form of a contract rather then relying on criminal law, the registrar
could revoke the domain if there were violations.  The registrar only
needs to answer to the legal system where it's located, and so
jurisdictional restrictions don't apply.

All that being said, we do still have some content issues.  There are a
few potential solutions, one is to require RSACi ratings which would
assist parents in setting appropriate limits.  Another option is to set
a moderately conservative bar of entry and parents who don't agree still
don't need to give their children access to the internet at all (in
other words, it's no different then today) -- The goal would be to give
children access to only .kids and nothing else.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Where did you get this idea that there
is going to be an en-masse removal of sites from one domain to another?
I do not recall ever saying that ... those web sites who are willing
to and gracious enough to take up residence in .xxx will be permitted
to do so, just as sites took up residence in .info, .biz, .aero, and
 .museum ... and those of us Moderators and others who do not give a
shit about dubious information, biz-iness ventures, museums or
aeroplanes would be free to filter it out. But we won't be permitted
to filter out .xxx which I suspect will be the rudest, crudest and 
lewdest of all because (name the red herring of your choice) is likely
to happen as a result. Oh, we will able to filter .xxx -like material
in a sort of half-assed way using the tools we are given, but that is
all, not .xxx domains in their entirety. 

And someone should explain to the conservative fundamentalist
Christians who feel somehow that starting '.xxx' would give an unwarrented
air of respectability to porn peddlers that it is the nature of the
internet among other things: One cannot find cockroaches or other
vermin in a dark area without a good working flashlight, which a
domain identifying tag would give them. If we shine a somewhat more
perfect light on them, you will be able to see and better block
them. That is the intent, right? PAT]  

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 08:39:47 +0000
From: hongli@levitte.org
Subject: Last Sad Laugh! new.site.p0rn0..ch|ldren$ 4601527



[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For those among us who are still in
denial about the extent to which child pornography has become a big
part of email and web sites, below is a piece of email I receive
every few days from someone in Russia. What you see is just the
way it arrives here each time. Much of the text below is apparently
Cryllic or similar and unprintable on American screens, but the
intent is quite plain.    PAT]

    ==============================================

Hello dear friend ! Ptownson 

NEW (HILDREN P()RN@ AROUSE FOR YOU 

New#site#2005#years#CH!LDREN#P0RN0#...
DISCOUNT 5 DAY 25% click here and VELCOME in site ch!l dear friend !

çäðàñòâóéòå åñëè çàõ&icrc;òèòå óâèäèòü íàø ñàéò ò&icrc; âàì íàäà çäåëàòü 3 ýòàïà
1) çàéäèòå íà ñàéò  http://hondaclub.by
2) çàéäèòå íà forum
3) &icrc;ñòàâòå âàø åìàë è íàïèøèòå íàì ( ò&icrc;åñòü åìàéë àäìèíà)
íà ñàì&icrc;ì ñàéòå http://hondaclub.by
è âàì ïðèøëþò &icrc;ñòàëüíóþ èíô&icrc;ðìàöèþ
==========================================

CHILDREN$ P()RN0
new.s*candal0us.material*ch|ldren$.

CHILDREN$ P()RN0

ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu
21H0rny.super.site._ch|ldren$.f0r.adult.abs0luty.new

------------------------------


TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecomm-
unications 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

              ************************

   In addition, gifts from Mike Sandman, Chicago's Telecom Expert
   have enabled me to replace some obsolete computer equipment and
   enter the 21st century sort of on schedule. His mail order 
   telephone parts/supplies service based in the Chicago area has
   been widely recognized by Digest readers as a reliable and very
   inexpensive source of telecom-related equipment. Please request
   a free catalog today at http://www.sandman.com 
   ---------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as
yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help
is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of 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 #378
******************************