Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/hold me in your arms/Canter & Seigel/Canter & Siegel Report 3

Text File | 1994-06-26 | 52KB | 1,164 lines

Canter and Siegel Report, #3
Ed. Thomas Leavitt ([e-mail])

Well, turns out the Stanford NetNews filter requires you to basicallyl
respond within 24 hours or so, or the articles are unavailable... would've
been nice of 'em to mention it. But, turns out the process of retrieving
is simple enough, so in the future, it'll be easy as pie to do it as soon
as the articles arrive. So, basically, I lost a bunch of interesting
stuff...

Anyone that has a copy of the following: Pipelines official statement
on Canter and Siegel. Netcom's official statement on cancellation of the
cslaw account. Any other officialistic documents or interesting posts,
info (such as Crow T. Robot postings)... the latest draft of the
community press release on the Canter and Siegel debacle. The guess the
spam contest posting... the postings by the guy seeking to raise funds
to place ads in national papers (WSJ, NYT, etc).

Have I missed anything? Send it to me.

Onto this edition: a copy of the original post. A copy of Crow T. Robot's
post concerning Canter and Siegel's response to the Tenn. Bar inquiry...
a few funny .Sigs filling up my mailbox with irrelevant material that
confuses me till I notice who has posted it. A post in Portugese!
Fletch, the script to generate random addresses... would've had lots
more (two editions, instead of one, or three even) if I'd realize the
expiry date on the damn newsfilter was so short. Grumble.

This document is charity-ware! If you like it, do the world a good deed
and make up for Canter and Siegel's bad kharma!

Send me articles! Anonymity o.k., with proviso that it is up to me
whether to publish it on that basis.

Next issue: how to take the Canter and Siegel report underground if I'm
sued... PGP encryption of local files, anonymous remailers, and the
Stanford NetNews filter! Adaptable to any circumstance! Untraceable!

CONTENTS:
[as always, use the search function in your editor/pager... the WWW
version will by hyperlinked!]

CANDS INTERNATIONAL -- multi-lingual metadiscussion!
CANTER FALLOUT -- thoughts on a new paradigm for net advertising.
SIGS N STUFF -- the net has a sense of humor? :)
ORIGINAL POST -- the one that started it all!
TENN BAR DEFENSE -- scum dig themselves in deeper!
FLETCH -- confound spammers with bogus addresses!
RESPONSE ONE -- crisping Spam and Coleslaw
RESONSE TWO -- line by line... the truth emerges.

CANDS INTERNATIONAL
[Portugue's, as my Spanish teacher taught me... many years ago.]
From: [e-mail] (Carlos Antunes)
Subject: Sangue na Rede - A saga continua!
Organization: SoftSousa, Lda @ Lisbon - Portugal - European Union
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 23:44:13 GMT
Lines: 61

[e-mail] wrote:

  }}   Ah, pronto, entao tudo bem. Ja' agora, tambem te enganaste e recomecaste
  }}  um novo thread, nao ? Aposto que estas a usar usar o MAFOY newsreader.

So conheco o MAFU...

  }} : Eu nao estou seriamente interessado nas ferias de ninguem.


  }}   Jura?!?!

Nao.

  }}
  }}  E' giro. Eu nao posso ser policia da rede ( como tu pareces querer
  }}  concluir ) mas tu podes ser defensor dos pobres e oprimidos.
  }}

Estas enganado. Tu podes ser o policia e eu o defensor dos oprimidos... ai
e que reside a piada. Para mim, as "tensoes" sao o sal da vida. No entanto,
estou mais preocupado com 'Canter & Siegel' do que um ou dois posts sobre as
ferias de um inexperiente newbie.

  }}  Entao, senhor defensor, ja' pensou que as 'pessoas que estao a ter o
  }}  primeiro contacto com a rede' podem estar a discutir assuntos privados
  }}  em publico, sem o saberem ? Ja' lhe passou pela cabeca que o meu post
  }}  ( que mais uma vez peco desculpa era para ser email, mas o r the reply
  }}  e' mesmo ao pe' do f de followup ) teria como proposito advertir possiveis
  }}  novatos na rede ?
  }}

Ja, mas tambem sei que existem pelo menos tres formas de avisar as pessoas
de que a USENET nao se presta em principio para esse tipo de coisas. Sao elas,
com educacao, com falta de educacao e com frieza. Tu escolheste a terceira.
Nao foste nem bem nem mal educado, foste 'institucional'. Nao me parece que
essa seja a melhor forma de acolher pessoas que estao a imenso tempo fora do
pais e que sentiram uma enorme alegria em poderem fazer um post num grupo ate
onde se fala portugues.

  }}  Parece-me que a pedra no sapato do Carlos Antunes equivale a 'Internet
  }}  service provider'. E' que ha' cerca de um ano propus-me tentar a criacao
  }}  de um. O Carlos Antunes fez o mesmo uns meses mais tarde e a sua primeira
  }}  mensagem sobre mim dizia ' O Mario Valente e' um sonhador'. Assim. Sem
  }}  mais. Sem me conhecer. O que nao o impediu de vir umas semanas depois
  }}  propor uma alianca. Nos seus termos. O Carlos entrentanto parece ter
  }}  desistido ( como indica a sua ligacao ao PUUG ). Eu nao.

Oh, Mario, quem disse que e defeito ser-se sonhador? Acho muito bem que
continues a tentar ser um service provider. Qualquer pessoa o pode ser desde
que esteja disposta a investir tempo e dinheiro. De qualquer forma, eu so
te chamei sonhador porque vieste com historias de 'free internet access' para
particulares, isto com full access, se bem me recordo. Ou se calhar
meteste a mao num pedaco do PEDIP II e nao disseste nada a ninguem?

Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
--
Carlos Antunes @ SoftSousa
Voice: 351-1-3975303                         Nature has no
Fax  : [phone]                       purposes or goals!


CANTER FALLOUT
[Canter debacle provokes widest referenced metadebate in net.history...
film at eleven!]
Newsgroups: rec.scuba
From: [e-mail] (Rich Gibson)
Subject: Re: SCUBA CLASSES
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 21:17:02 GMT
Lines: 28

Jesse L Wei ([e-mail]) wrote:
: [e-mail] wrote:

: : Well its that time of the year when most folks think of water.  We have
: : numerous classes starting up right now and all through the summer.  So
: : what are you waiting for give us a call.

: Now this looks pretty commercial to me!  Before everybody carps on me for
: criticizing commercial posts, remember that it isn't individual posts that
: we're afraid of, but the trend that is going to lead usenet into oblivion!
: Remember Canter and Siegel (the GREEN CARDS?)  Well, I haven't checked
: lately, but at my last reading ( c.a. a mo ago) they were planning to write
: a book on how to advertise and spam on usenet!

This post also hit a bit at my 'commercial-o-meter.'  It is not
horrible-it is in the right group, for example, but it does not contain
anything except 'come dive with us.'

If the post had contained a bit of information about Texas diving,
followed by a low key plug I think it would have been fine.  I do want
information from commercial services as well as private individuals, but
I agree with you that spam attacks are bad form.

Any comments?

--
Rich Gibson [e-mail]
[\] PADI DM Candidate


SIGS N STUFF
[a few of the more interesting Canter related side references filling
up my mailbox with extraneous material. :)]

"From: [e-mail]
 Organization: Canter & Siegel Internet Advertising Agency"

======== jeanne a. e. devoto ===========================================
 [e-mail]     |  You may not distribute this article under a
 [e-mail] |  compilation copyright without my permission.
========== Canter & Siegel: Spawn of Satan, or Simply Stupid? ==========

ORIGINAL POST
[Noticably high on the scare/hype meter. Mercifully short.]
[e-mail] wrote:
Green Card Lottery 1994 May Be The Last One!
THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED.

The Green Card Lottery is a completely legal program giving away a
certain annual allotment of Green Cards to persons born in certain
countries. The lottery program was scheduled to continue on a
permanent basis.  However, recently, Senator Alan J Simpson
introduced a bill into the U. S. Congress which could end any future
lotteries. THE 1994 LOTTERY IS SCHEDULED TO TAKE PLACE
SOON, BUT IT MAY BE THE VERY LAST ONE.

PERSONS BORN IN MOST COUNTRIES QUALIFY, MANY FOR
FIRST TIME.

The only countries NOT qualifying  are: Mexico; India; P.R. China;
Taiwan, Philippines, North Korea, Canada, United Kingdom (except
Northern Ireland), Jamaica, Domican Republic, El Salvador and
Vietnam.

Lottery registration will take place soon.  55,000 Green Cards will be
given to those who register correctly.  NO JOB IS REQUIRED.

THERE IS A STRICT JUNE DEADLINE. THE TIME TO START IS
NOW!!

For FREE information via Email, send request to
[e-mail]


--
*****************************************************************
Canter & Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
3333 E Camelback Road, Ste 250, Phoenix AZ  85018  USA
[e-mail]   telephone [phone]  Fax [phone]

TENN BAR DEFENSE
[lying, hypocritical, disingenous slime comes to mind as a description.
See the two responses posted by enraged net.people.]
Crow T. Robot wrote:

Well, here is a copy of the reply C&S sent to the Tennessee Bar.  PLEASE
send a letter to Lance Bracy if you disapprove of C&S actions.  They
acknowledge what they did was "against netiquette", they don't care.
They're single-handedly tried to commercialize the Internet, don't allow
them to gain any support in this endeavor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
May 23, 1994

Lance B. Bracy
Board of Professional Responsibility
Supreme Court of Tennessee
1101 Kermit Drive, Suite 730
Nashville, Tennessee 37217

Dear Mr. Bracy,

You have asked that we make a concise statement.  There are so many
exaggeratons, lies, and irrelevancies contained in these complaints that
it is difficult to keep our answers short.  We will try as best we can.

First of all, our posting was not placed on the total Internet.  It was
placed on a portion of the Internet called the Usenet.  The Usenet is an
amalgamation of 8,000 public discussion groups where anyone is invited to
participate and say anything they wish.

The Usenet, although large, is minuscle (sic)
compared to the entire Internet.  There are an estimated 30 to 35 million
users of the Internet.  Only about ten to twenty percent of those who use the
Internet access Usenet groups.  To the overwhelming majority of Internet
users who do not choose to participate in the Usenet, our posting had no
effect whatever.  It did not even approach going to ever nook and cranny of
the Internet as one writer states.

Advertising is permitted on the Usenet bulletin boards.
The ban on it was lifted by the National Science Foundation two years ago.
(See attachment 1.) At present, there are no regulations whatsoever on
what may go on the Usenet.

One contributor to the present complaint says
it is against convention to use the Usenet for commercial purposes.  That
is not true.  (Once again, see attachment 1.)  In fact, the President and
Vice President are both encouraging the promulgation and commercialization
of the Internet.

Calling our posting disruptive, intrusive, a waste of bandwidth (electronic
message sending and memory capacity) and a waste of people's time does not
constitute a breach of ethics.  Rather, it is a value judgment.
The writers  of the complaints would have the Bar Association believe that
there is universal agreement on this point.  That is yet another lie.  We
received some 20,000 requests for information pursuant to our posting.  (See
attachment 2. These are a few typical examples.  All 20,000 are available
upon the request of the Board.)  Obviously, these individuals did not fel
we were wasting their time.

What did occur, however, was that the more strident and lawless members
of the Usenet community employed electronic guerrilla tactics to stop us
from receiving our mail and responding to those individuals who sought the
information we had to offer.  Among the worst offenders in this regard
were a number of universities participating in these complaints.  There are
discussions taking place on the Usenet right now that focus on plans for
numerous illegal activities in retribution for our past posting and designed
to stop us from continuing.  (See attachment 3.)

Among the strategies being considered is a call to anyone in Tennessee who
can influence Lance Bracy to take action in this matter.  (See attachment 4.)

We find especially reprehensible the false criticism of the ethics of others
by those who are themselves unethical.

With respect to allegations that readers had to pay for our messages, in
some cases that may be true, but it does not violate Disciplinary Rules.
Whether or not Usenet readers pays for each message depends entirely on the
type of Internet access they use.  We, for example, pay a flat fee of $19
each month for unlimited usage.  For those paying on a per message basis,
they generally elect which Usenet groups they wish to receive and they must
accept all messages from those particular groups, much as one must pay for the
electricity that brings them television commercials as an unavoidable
consequence of watching a program.  They are not able to select and pay only
for the messages they wish to receive.

As long as advertising is permitted, and it is, the receipt of commercial
messages will be paid for by participants in the Usenet, just as people who
buy newspapers must pay for both the news and the ads that appear on the
same pages.  It simply comes with the territory.

Moreover, we should point out that there is a very large group of people who
do not pay for their Internet access at all, but instead receive it free
from the universities where they are either students or faculty members.
The writers of this complaint appear to fall within this category.
Regarding the calculation of expenses offered by one complainant, they are
baseless and preposterous.  We wonder, for example, how this particular
complainant would support the conclusion that Usenet users' time should be
billed at $59 per hour.

 In addition, we would like to point out that at any
given segment in time there are hundreds of thousands of messages being sent
across the Usenet.  Our single posting of 6,000 was a drop in a huge bucket.
One must really be familiar with the vastness of the Usenet to appreciate the
insignificance of our posting to the overall traffic load.  If the expense
for sending messages was in fact anywhere near what this individual
calculates, the cost of operating the Usenet would exceed the national debt.
It is true we paid only a small sum to place our postings.  This, however,
was all we were legally or ethically required to pay.   Indeed, even if we
wished to pay more, there is no one authorized to pay it to.  Once again, we
would remind the Bar that those who lodged this complaint paid nothing at
all.

We acknowledge that we posted to Usegroups that did not address the topic of
immigration.  We did so because we were attempting to reach individuals who
were foreign nationals.  The Usenet is completely international.  Every group
is read by people all over the world.  Since U.S. citizens and non-U.S.
residents do not tend to divide themselves up by subject, we saw
justification in this approach. The huge number of requests for
information we received would indicate we were right.  In posting off topic,
we readily admit that we knowingly breached an informal behavioral code
known as netiquette. While this may have been controversial, it was not
illegal nor did it violate any Disciplinary Rules.  We do not believe that
any bar association would wish to discipline a member for the fundamental
equivalent of having bad manners.  Moreover, what does and does not
constitute bad manners is, again, a value judgment.  Those who sought our
help had no problem with our behavior. We would also point out that
conventions on the Internet are changing and a war is presently going on
not only due to our acts but because old-guard Internet users, consisting
primarily of university students and faculty, do not wish to give up
control of the Internet to other segments of the public, whom they refer to
in disparaging terms as "newbies."  (See attachment 5.)

In judging our acts, we believe the bar must also consider the nature of the
venue in which we posted our ads.  Not only do Usenet groups span a wide
variety of topics, they also encompass a wide variety of behaviors.  Much of
it is neither serious nor admirable.

Consider, for example, the following sample list of typical Usegroups:
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk; alt.animation.warner-bros;
alt.fan.debbie.gibson;  alt.life.afterlife;  alt.llure.sucks.sucks.sucks;
alt.sex.sado.masochism; alt.tv.beavis and butthead;  comp.ibm.pq;
misc-news-east-europe;  fidonet; rec.roller coaster. We would be happy
to provide a list of all 8000 if you wish.  A recent New York Times
article discussing the difficulties of aberrant Usegroup behavior goes
into still more examples of the misuses of the Usenet, including
participation by pedophiles and other sexual deviants.  With respect to
profanity, the practice is rampant.  (See attachment 6 containing some
of the "flame" messages we received.)

Flaming is an honored and accepted practice by Internet old-timers.  Also
consider the various acts of fraud and criminal behavior communicated
openly on the Usegroups, much of it coming from our colleges and
universities.  All of this, profanity, sexual discussions, conspiracy,
restraint of trade, invasion of privacy, and defamation, are paid for in
large part by public funds.

In our opinion, the practices are totally unacceptable, offensive, and
speak eloquently to the issue of the freedom afforded to Usenet users as
well as the issue of what is and is not wasted resources.  In short,
these complainants do not,  by any means, have clean hands.

In summary, we were well within our rights to do what we did.  Our acts were
both legal and within the bounds of Bar ethics.  It is not a breach of
Disciplinary Rules to be controversial or act in a manner which might offend
the values of others.  In this country the first amendment guarantees all of
us the right to do just that.

Soon there will be many lawsuits addressing the various issues of
electronic crimes and vandalism perpetrated by various participants in
the Usenet.  At present, we ourselves are planning to file such suits
against the many wrongdoers who have already identified themselves
by name and institution or company by publicly posting assorted illegal
schemes.  This will be necessary in order that the Internet can serve the
commercial function our government now wishes it to serve.

Finally, we wish to stress that the people who complained here are not
clients.  In fact, in our fifteen years of membership in the Tennessee Bar,
not a single complaint by a client has ever been filed against us.  Moreover,
not a single occurrence of misconduct with respect to treatment of clients
has ever been proven against us anywhere at any time.  In addition, the
charges cited from the Florida Bar are not accurate.  No formal charges for
misappropriation of funds or perjury were ever filed against us in Florida.
Other charges were denied at the time of resignation and are herewith denied
again.

We respectfully submit that our actions cited in the present complaint do no,
even if true, constitute a breach of the Disciplinary Rules of the State Bar
of Tennessee.  We therefore ask that this complaint be dismissed.

Sincerely,

Laurence A. Canter
Martha S. Siegel

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


The attachments that are referred to in C&S's letter were not included in
the reply from the Bar.

WRITE YOUR LETTER TO THE TENNESSEE BAR TODAY!

[the editor seconds and thirds this response: dial 1-800-486-5714 and
express your opinion of the accuracy of this "defense". ARGH!]

FLETCH
[the now famous fletch script. Bound to confuse and make difficult
any spammers attempt to capitalize on their indescretion. Note that in
the WWW version, due to the way HTML treats greater than and smaller
than signs, the script will appear inaccurate. Downloading it though,
the original is preserved and can be edited out.]]
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.current-events.net-abuse
From: [e-mail]
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 17:02:45 UTC
Subject: "Fletch" -- a script to deter spamming (for real this time)
Lines: 287

Sigh.  The anon server thought the code was a .sig on the first time
through, and chopped it off!  Here it is for real.

#!/bin/sh
##
##   This is fletch, version 1.0 last modified on Friday 13 May 1994
##
##   This script compiles a database of first and last
##    names and uses them to generate semi-random US mailing addresses.
##
##   Feel free to distribute this script widely.
##
##   In order to get a higher degree of randomness in the output of
##    this program, you should try to cull names from mostly
##    local and regional newsgroups, with only 1 or two big 7 groups.
##
##   Also, you might wish to make modifications to the user definitions
##    below.  At least, check to make sure they are correctly set.
##
##
##  **********************  I M P O R T A N T   N O T E  *****************
##  **********************************************************************
##  **                                     **
##  **  This requires a zipcode database with entries in the format:    **
##  **                                     **
##  **             ^xxxxx:City, State                **
##  **        OR         ^xxxxx-xxxxx:City, State            **
##  **                                     **
##  **  At the moment, the only source I know of for this is:        **
##  **                                  **
##  **      ftp.std.com:/src/misc/zipcodes/tmp/zipcode.txt.[1-7]    **
##  **                                  **
##  ** The 'tmp' in the path implies it might not be there        **
##  **   for long, so someone ought to put the full zipcode file on    **
##  **   another server somewhere, to save everyone the trouble.    **
##  **                                     **
##  ** After downloading these files, type:                **
##  **          "cat zipcode.txt.* > $HOME/.fletch.zips"        **
##  **                                     **
##  ** You can name this file anything you wish-- just make sure that     **
##  ** the variable $ZIPFILE reflects this location. After you do this,    **
##  ** you no longer need the zipcode.txt.[1-7] files.  You might also    **
##  ** want to grep out lines that contain FPO, VI, PR, HI, or AK    **
##  ** as they do not represent areas with much net.traffic.        **
##  **                                    **
##  **********************************************************************
##
## Note that there is much that is pessimal in this code.  I haven't the
##    time to optimize and take out a lot of obvious problems.  However,
##    even in its current dainbramaged form, this program should prove
##    useful.   The slowness of the code is actually a feature. :-)
##
## The biggest remaining problems at the moment are:
##    1) distribution of the zipcode file, 2) handling ranges
##    in the zipcode file, 3) not enough variation, and 4) it gives up very
##    easily on 'odd' names, and yet much oddness gets though anyway.
##
## Problems with this program should be posted to the newsgroup
##    alt-current-events.net-abuse, with 'fletch' in the subject line.
##
## Syntax: fletch [-q]       (the -q flag reduces excess verbosity.)
##
##
#           *!*!*!*  USER DEFINITIONS *!*!*!*
#
# Set the following to the root level of your news spool.  This program
#  does not work for machines with only nntp feeds.
SPOOL=/usr/spool/news
#
# The default newsgroup to scan. The best results can be obtained
#  by scanning mostly regional groups with 1 or 2 big 7 groups.
DEFGROUP=alt.usenet.kooks
#
#
#  A temporary place to store files.  You can also store the zipcode
#   file here so that you only need one copy of it on the system.  YMMV.
TMPDIR=/usr/tmp
#
#
# This must point to the location of the zipcode file.  Directions for
#   finding and building a zipcode file are located at the top of the script.
# Keep your eyes on the net in case someone builds a better zipcode
#  file.  There are a few problems with the one described above.
ZIPFILE=$HOME/.fletch.zips
#
#
#  GNU -- g'use 'em if you gots 'em!
#
PERL=perl
AWK=awk
GREP=grep
SED=sed
SORT=sort
UNIQ=uniq
TOUCH=touch
ECHO=echo
#
#
BNFILE=$TMPDIR/fl.$USER.tmp1.$$
TMFILE=$TMPDIR/fl.$USER.tmp2.$$
FNFILE=$HOME/.fletch.fn
LNFILE=$HOME/.fletch.ln
#
#
#  More common items are multiply listed.  Add a few if you wish.
#
ROADS="Road Rd. Rd road Street St. street St Avenue Ave. Av. Av Boulevard Blvd. Lane Ln. Road Road Road Road Rd. Rd. Street St. St. St. St. Ave. Circle"
#
#
# Here we go...
#
# how do I echo without newline??
if [ `( $ECHO -n foo ; $ECHO bar ) | wc -l | $AWK '{print $1}'` = "1" ]
 then
  En="-n"
  Ec=""
 else
  En=""
  Ec="\\c"
fi

if [ $# -gt 0 ]
 then case $1 in
     -q*) quiet=true ;;
  esac
fi

if [ ! -f $ZIPFILE ]
  then
    $ECHO "I'm sorry, I can't find the zipcode file.  It's"
    $ECHO " supposed to be in $ZIPFILE.  Please read the comments"
    $ECHO " at the beginning of this script, and follow the directions"
    $ECHO " there."
    exit 1
fi

if [ -f $FNFILE -a -f $LNFILE ]
 then
    fncount=`< $FNFILE wc -l | awk '{print $1}'`
    lncount=`< $LNFILE wc -l | awk '{print $1}'`
      [ -z "$quiet" ] && $ECHO "I find $fncount first names, and $lncount last names."
  else
    mustscan=true
    fncount=0 ; lncount=0
    $ECHO
    $ECHO "For best results, use mostly your local and regional newsgroups"
    $ECHO "  plus 1 or 2 of the big 7 newsgroups.  Try to have at least a"
    $ECHO "  few hundred names in the database."
    $ECHO
fi

if [ -n "$mustscan" ]
  then doscan=true
  else
     if [ -z "$quiet" ]
      then
       $ECHO $En "Do you wish to scan for more names? [no] " $Ec
       read ans
       case $ans in
     y*) doscan=true;;
    esac
    fi
fi

if [ -n "$doscan" ]
 then
    $ECHO
    $ECHO $En "What group should I scan for names? [$DEFGROUP]  " $Ec
    read GROUPNAME
    [ -z "${GROUPNAME}" ] && GROUPNAME=$DEFGROUP
    GROUP=`$ECHO $GROUPNAME | sed 's/\./\//g'`

     if [ ! -d ${SPOOL}/$GROUP ]
     then
       $ECHO "I can't find $GROUPNAME.  Check \$SPOOL.  Bailing out."
       exit 1
    fi

    $ECHO "Now scanning $GROUPNAME for names...  (This may take a few minutes)"
    cd $SPOOL/$GROUP ; head -15 *         |
    $GREP '^From:'                |
        $AWK -F\(  '{print $2}'     > $BNFILE
    $TOUCH $FNFILE $LNFILE

    $ECHO Now composing a list of first names...
    (< $BNFILE $AWK '{if (NF==2) print $1}' ; cat $FNFILE ) |
       $SORT | $UNIQ  >  $TMFILE
    mv $TMFILE $FNFILE

    $ECHO Now composing a list of last names....
    (< $BNFILE $AWK '{if (NF==2) print $2}'    |
       $SED 's/)//g' ; cat $LNFILE ) |
       $SORT | $UNIQ  >  $TMFILE
    mv $TMFILE $LNFILE

    ofnc=$fncount ; olnc=$lncount
    fncount=`< $FNFILE wc -l | $AWK '{print $1}'`
    lncount=`< $LNFILE wc -l | $AWK '{print $1}'`
    diffF=`expr $fncount - $ofnc`
    diffL=`expr $lncount - $olnc`

    $ECHO "I've found $diffF new first names, and $diffL new last names."

fi      # scan for more names

    numrds=`$ECHO $ROADS | wc -w | $AWK '{print $1}'`
    numzips=`< $ZIPFILE wc -l | $AWK '{print $1}'`

    #blech
    set `$PERL -e "
        {srand ;
         print (int(rand($fncount)+1),\"\n\");
         print (int(rand($lncount)+1),\"\n\");
         print (int(rand($lncount)+1),\"\n\");
         print (int(rand(9999)+1),\"\n\");
         print (int(rand(10)+1),\"\n\");
         print (int(rand($numrds)+1),\"\n\");
         print (int(rand(20)+1),\"\n\");
         print (int(rand(99)+1),\"\n\");
         print (int(rand($numzips)+1),\"\n\");

      } " `

    fnnum=$1
    lnnum=$2
    snnum=$3
    stnum=$4
    srnum=$5
    rdnum=$6
    aqnum=$7
    apnum=$8
    zpnum=$9

    fn=`< $FNFILE tail +$fnnum | head -1`
    ln=`< $LNFILE tail +$lnnum | head -1`
    st=`< $LNFILE tail +$snnum | head -1`

    # short and low street numbers are more common...
    if [ $srnum -le 5 ]
     then stnum=`$ECHO $stnum | $SED 's/[4-9]//' | $SED 's/^0//'`
    fi
    if [ $srnum -le 1 ]
     then stnum=`$ECHO $stnum | $SED 's/[0-9]//' | $SED 's/^0//'`
    fi

    road=`$ECHO $ROADS | $AWK "{print \\$$rdnum}"`
    case $aqnum in
     1) apt="Apt. $apnum" ;;
     2) apt="#$apnum" ;;
     *) apt="" ;;
    esac

    zipln=`< $ZIPFILE tail +$zpnum | head -1`
    zip=`$ECHO $zipln | $AWK -F: '{print $1}' `
    cs=`$ECHO $zipln | $SED s/${zip}:// `

# Yow!  The following line is a very poor way of dealing with ranges. Would
#  someone please regenerate a zipcode file with the ranges expanded
#  and place it on a public ftp server?  Or better yet- write it to
#  use a geography server, so we don't need a zipcode file.

    zip=`$ECHO $zip | cut -c 1-5 `

# Finally..  the piece de resistance!

    $ECHO "  $fn $ln"
    $ECHO "  $stnum $st $road $apt "
    $ECHO "  $cs  $zip"

# Time to clean up our toys....

rm -f $TMFILE $BNFILE

# ... and go home.    Oh-- put it on Mr. Underhill's tab.

exit 0

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [e-mail].
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to [e-mail].

NET.RESPONSE
[geez, the people sound upset? I wonder why? Could it be that Canter and
Siegel's venal, slime-sucking, self-righteous, disingeneous, self-
serving and largely inaccurate resposne touched a nerve? :) ]
From: [e-mail] (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.net-abuse,news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy
Subject: Re: C&S Reply to Tennessee Bar (LONG)
Date: 10 Jun 1994 14:25:22 +0100
Organization: Mantis Consultants Ltd, Cambridge, UK
Lines: 56

In article {2t8u9k$[e-mail]},
Crow T. Robot {[e-mail]} wrote:
}Calling our posting disruptive, intrusive, a waste of bandwidth (electronic
}message sending and memory capacity) and a waste of people's time does not
}constitute a breach of ethics.  Rather, it is a value judgment.
[...]
}With respect to allegations that readers had to pay for our messages, in some
}cases that may be true, but it does not violate Disciplinary Rules.  Whether
}or not Usenet readers pays for each message depends entirely on the type of
}Internet access they use.  We, for example, pay a flat fee of $19 each month
}for unlimited usage.  For those paying on a per message basis, they generally
}elect which Usenet groups they wish to receive and they must accept all
}messages from those particular groups, much as one must pay for the
}electricity that brings them television commercials as an unavoidable
}consequence of watching a program.  They are not able to select and pay only
}for the messages they wish to receive.  As long as advertising is permitted,
}and it is, the receipt of commercial messages will be paid for by participants
}in the Usenet, just as people who buy newspapers must pay for both the news and
}the ads that appear on the same pages.

What someone should point out concisely to the bar association is the
following:

1. Canter and Siegel deliberately posted their advert in such a way
   that readers had to pay for several thousand separate copies of the
   same ad, rather than just one copy.
2. It is abuse of the Usenet system to use it in that way.  That's not
   a value judgement; it simply follows from looking at RFC1036 and
   the description of the "Newsgroups:" header.

With regard to the newspaper and TV analogies, if newspaper
subscribers suddenly found that the next day's New York Times had six
thousand identical Canter and Siegel ads, expanding the number of
pages and the cost without prior notice, I daresay they *would*
complain.

Similarly, if TV subscribers had to sit through a hundred showings of
the same advert in a single episode of their favourite TV show, you can
be damn sure they'd complain.

}from our colleges and universities.  All of this, profanity, sexual
}discussions, conspiracy, restraint of trade, invasion of privacy, and
}defamation, are paid for in large part by public funds.  In our opinion,
}the practices are totally unacceptable, offensive, and speak eloquently to
}the issue of the freedom afforded to Usenet users as well as the issue of
}what is and is not wasted resources.

So Usenet is profane, offensive and unacceptable.  Yet you're still
happy to advertise there.  Yeah, right.


mathew
--
http://www.mantis.co.uk/~mathew/
Looking for: POP server which understands Content-Length headers
             Bug-tracking systems for UNIX, DOS and Windows

RESPONSE TWO
Newsgroups: news.admin.misc,news.admin.policy,alt.current-events.net-abuse
From: [e-mail] (Chris Owen)
Subject: Re: C&S Reply to Tennessee Bar
Organization: Oxford University Computing Services, Oxford, U.K.
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 13:01:40 GMT
Lines: 373

 [It's been a long time since I've been angered to this degree by a posting.
Canter and Siegel are scum squared - and that's an insult to honest,
inoffensive scum. We should write a joint reply to this, get a few hundred
signatures on it, and send it to the Tennessee Bar. Perhaps we can do
something like the Argic petition drive?]

 Crow T. Robot wrote:

}Well, here is a copy of the reply C&S sent to the Tennessee Bar.  PLEASE
}send a letter to Lance Bracy if you disapprove of C&S actions.  They
}acknowledge what they did was "against netiquette", they don't care.
}They're single-handedly tried to commercialize the Internet, don't allow
}them to gain any support in this endeavor.
}
}-----------------------------------------------------------------
}May 23, 1994
}
}Lance B. Bracy
}Board of Professional Responsibility
}Supreme Court of Tennessee
}1101 Kermit Drive, Suite 730
}Nashville, Tennessee 37217
}
}Dear Mr. Bracy,
}
}You have asked that we make a concise statement.  There are so many
}exaggeratons, lies, and irrelevancies contained in these complaints that
}it is difficult to keep our answers short.  We will try as best we can.

 Really? How come this letter is full of exaggerations, lies and
irrelevancies?

}First of all, our posting was not placed on the total Internet.  It was
}placed on a portion of the Internet called the Usenet.  The Usenet is an
}amalgamation of 8,000 public discussion groups where anyone is invited to
}participate and say anything they wish.

 Lie #1. Haven't they heard of charters? Or even of law? It's rather ironic
that they're actually *encouraging* people to break the law here (but not
particularly surprising, given their previous disbarments). According to C&S,
"Serdar Argic" should not now be facing legal trouble over his pirating of
copyrighted material. And I thought these people were supposed to know the
law!

}The Usenet, although large, is minuscle (sic)
}compared to the entire Internet.  There are an estimated 30 to 35 million
}users of the Internet.  Only about ten to twenty percent of those who use the
}Internet access Usenet groups.  To the overwhelming majority of Internet
}users who do not choose to participate in the Usenet, our posting had no
}effect whatever.  It did not even approach going to ever nook and cranny of
}the Internet as one writer states.

 Lie #2 (or at least misrepresentation #2). It's only the conventional media
and ill-informed people that talk about Usenet and the Internet as being
synonymous. Note that C&S implicitly acknowledge that their posting went to
every nook and cranny of Usenet...

}Advertising is permitted on the Usenet bulletin boards.

 Lies #3 and #4. Usenet is *not* a "bulletin board" - it is a system of
co-operating machines distributing and storing public electronic messages.
C&S are suggesting that Usenet is a discrete entity with its own central
site (a la Compuserve or Demon). This is a blatant untruth. It's also untrue,
or at the least inaccurate, to state that "advertising is permitted". Small
personal ads of the buying and selling sort, yes. Mass flooding of Usenet,
definitely no.

}The ban on it was lifted by the National Science Foundation two years ago.
}(See attachment 1.) At present, there are no regulations whatsoever on
}what may go on the Usenet.

 Lie #5. Of course there are restrictions. If you post illegal material
such as kiddie porn or huge amounts of copyrighted stuff, you're as liable
to be prosecuted as anyone on a street market. And what about service
providers banning inappropriate use, such as spamming? If that's not
regulation, what is? It's not statutory regulation, admittedly, being
entirely voluntary at the moment, but it is a blatant lie to say that posters
are unregulated.

}One contributor to the present complaint says
}it is against convention to use the Usenet for commercial purposes.  That
}is not true.  (Once again, see attachment 1.)  In fact, the President and
}Vice President are both encouraging the promulgation and commercialization
}of the Internet.

 Lie #6. It _is_ against convention to use the Usenet for commercial purposes,
particularly in the intrusive way which C&S did. Nobody really objects to
(for instance) iD Software announcing the latest version of DOOM in the
alt.games.doom newsgroup - but if that was posted to soc.history,
rec.pets.cats and 7,997 other newsgroups they would not be very popular. And
have they never heard of charters?

}Calling our posting disruptive, intrusive, a waste of bandwidth (electronic
}message sending and memory capacity) and a waste of people's time does not
}constitute a breach of ethics.  Rather, it is a value judgment.

 Lie #7. If C&S had blocked up someone's fax machine with 8,000 identical
copies of their advert, that surely would have been a breach of ethics. A
lawyer is supposed to behave with decorum and not bring his or her profession
into disrepute. C&S have done exactly the opposite. Isn't that a breach of
the Bar's ethical code?

}The writers  of the complaints would have the Bar Association believe that
}there is universal agreement on this point.  That is yet another lie.  We
}received some 20,000 requests for information pursuant to our posting.  (See
}attachment 2. These are a few typical examples.  All 20,000 are available
}upon the request of the Board.)  Obviously, these individuals did not fel
}we were wasting their time.

 Lie #8! C&S have picked out the requests for information that many sent in
order to jam up their system. I doubt very much if out of the 20,000 responses
1% were genuine. If C&S provided all 20,000 to the Board, I'm sure that the
number of flames would vastly outweigh the number of apparently genuine
responses. Of course, they're relying on the Board accepting their word
and not bothering to check up on their claim...

}What did occur, however, was that the more strident and lawless members
}of the Usenet community employed electronic guerrilla tactics to stop us
}from receiving our mail and responding to those individuals who sought the
}information we had to offer.  Among the worst offenders in this regard
}were a number of universities participating in these complaints.  There are
}discussions taking place on the Usenet right now that focus on plans for
}numerous illegal activities in retribution for our past posting and designed
}to stop us from continuing.  (See attachment 3.)

 Oh? I thought you said that Usenet was unregulated? If anyone can post
whatever they wish, then surely that means that anyone can cancel anything
they wish? You can't have it both ways...

}Among the strategies being considered is a call to anyone in Tennessee who
}can influence Lance Bracy to take action in this matter.  (See attachment 4.)
}We find especially reprehensible the false criticism of the ethics of others
}by those who are themselves unethical.

 They're not denying that _they're_ unethical, I notice... Isn't it somewhat
ridiculous to call the critics unethical for criticizing someone else's lack
of ethics?

}With respect to allegations that readers had to pay for our messages, in
}some cases that may be true, but it does not violate Disciplinary Rules.

 No, but it certainly does violate every principle of courtesy and may
possibly violate the laws against fax bombing, if it is decided that
spamming and mail bombing is the equivalent of fax bombing.

}Whether or not Usenet readers pays for each message depends entirely on the
}type of Internet access they use.  We, for example, pay a flat fee of $19
}each month for unlimited usage.  For those paying on a per message basis,
}they generally elect which Usenet groups they wish to receive and they must
}accept all messages from those particular groups, much as one must pay for the
}electricity that brings them television commercials as an unavoidable
}consequence of watching a program.  They are not able to select and pay only
}for the messages they wish to receive.

 But what C&S are trying to do is to replace the program with the commercials!

}As long as advertising is permitted, and it is, the receipt of commercial
}messages will be paid for by participants in the Usenet, just as people who
}buy newspapers must pay for both the news and the ads that appear on the
}same pages.  It simply comes with the territory.

 Lie #9. You do not pay for the ads in newspapers. The ads pay for themselves
and help to keep the newspaper price down. In paper media, the adverts are
paid for by the advertiser; on Usenet the adverts are paid for by the
consumer.

}Moreover, we should point out that there is a very large group of people who
}do not pay for their Internet access at all, but instead receive it free
}from the universities where they are either students or faculty members.
}The writers of this complaint appear to fall within this category.

 Lie/misrepresentation #10. Although _I_ may get my access free, the
University certainly does not - it is paid for by taxpayers who subsidise
the JANET system and university computers I use. C&S are trying to make out
that university Internet access is somehow free. It isn't. Someone always
has to pay.

}Regarding the calculation of expenses offered by one complainant, they are
}baseless and preposterous.  We wonder, for example, how this particular
}complainant would support the conclusion that Usenet users' time should be
}billed at $59 per hour.

 Perhaps C&S can explain why they charge $95 for an immigration form that
can be acquired for the price of a stamp and envelope?

} In addition, we would like to point out that at any
}given segment in time there are hundreds of thousands of messages being sent
}across the Usenet.  Our single posting of 6,000 was a drop in a huge bucket.

 ...with a completely disproportionate impact. On that day, C&S's posting
added a sudden disruptive burden to thousands of newsgroups and systems. (I
seem to remember their name appearing very high up the Top 25 Posters by KByte
list that week).

}One must really be familiar with the vastness of the Usenet to appreciate the
}insignificance of our posting to the overall traffic load.  If the expense
}for sending messages was in fact anywhere near what this individual
}calculates, the cost of operating the Usenet would exceed the national debt.
}It is true we paid only a small sum to place our postings.  This, however,
}was all we were legally or ethically required to pay.   Indeed, even if we
}wished to pay more, there is no one authorized to pay it to.  Once again, we
}would remind the Bar that those who lodged this complaint paid nothing at
}all.

 Lie #11. What about all those users of commercial services that complained?

}We acknowledge that we posted to Usegroups that did not address the topic of
}immigration.  We did so because we were attempting to reach individuals who
}were foreign nationals.  The Usenet is completely international.  Every group
}is read by people all over the world.  Since U.S. citizens and non-U.S.
}residents do not tend to divide themselves up by subject, we saw
}justification in this approach. The huge number of requests for
}information we received would indicate we were right.  In posting off topic,
}we readily admit that we knowingly breached an informal behavioral code
}known as netiquette. While this may have been controversial, it was not
}illegal nor did it violate any Disciplinary Rules.  We do not believe that
}any bar association would wish to discipline a member for the fundamental
}equivalent of having bad manners.  Moreover, what does and does not
}constitute bad manners is, again, a value judgment.  Those who sought our
}help had no problem with our behavior. We would also point out that
}conventions on the Internet are changing and a war is presently going on
}not only due to our acts but because old-guard Internet users, consisting
}primarily of university students and faculty, do not wish to give up
}control of the Internet to other segments of the public, whom they refer to
}in disparaging terms as "newbies."  (See attachment 5.)

 This is one of the most cynical things I have ever had the misfortune to
read.

 "We posted to every newsgroup in creation on the off-chance that somebody
might be interested. We know we were being rude and in breach of netiquette
but so what? It's not illegal, is it? It's just a bunch of jerk students who
are making this fuss. They just want to control the Internet."

 Machiavelli would have been proud. Excuse me.

 [leaves the room, screams in rage. Ah, that's better...]

 Fact #1: There are now considerably more people accessing Usenet via
commercial suppliers than there are via instutitions.
 Fact #2: Nobody "controls the Internet". Considering "the vastness of
Usenet", how can they?
 Fact #3: The Internet is not the same as Usenet. (Deliberate obfuscation
on C&S's part, I'm afraid)
 Fact #4: Just who do they think "the old guard" are? I remember seeing
some statistics which suggested that the largest group of users are those
who've been on the net for just six months.

}In judging our acts, we believe the bar must also consider the nature of the
}venue in which we posted our ads.  Not only do Usenet groups span a wide
}variety of topics, they also encompass a wide variety of behaviors.  Much of
}it is neither serious nor admirable.

 Ah... alt.sex.* is coming up, I take it?

}Consider, for example, the following sample list of typical Usegroups:
}alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk; alt.animation.warner-bros;
}alt.fan.debbie.gibson;  alt.life.afterlife;  alt.llure.sucks.sucks.sucks;
}alt.sex.sado.masochism;

 Yup...

}alt.tv.beavis and butthead;  comp.ibm.pq;  misc-news-east-europe;  fidonet;
}rec.roller coaster. We would be happy to provide a list of all 8000 if you
}wish.  A recent New York Times article discussing the difficulties of
}aberrant Usegroup behavior goes into still more examples of the misuses
}of the Usenet, including participation by pedophiles and other sexual
}deviants.  With respect to profanity, the practice is rampant.  (See
}attachment 6 containing some of the "flame" messages we received.)

 Oh, so not all of the 20,000 messages were requests for information? That's
not what you said earlier!

}Flaming is an honored and accepted practice by Internet old-timers.  Also
}consider the various acts of fraud and criminal behavior communicated
}openly on the Usegroups, much of it coming from our colleges and
}universities.  All of this, profanity, sexual discussions, conspiracy,
}restraint of trade, invasion of privacy, and defamation, are paid for in
}large part by public funds.

 Wrong. Why haven't they mentioned all the scientific newsgroups, which
are an extremely valuable resource for scientists? Or worthy newsgroups
such as rec.arts.poems, the comp.* groups, alt.abuse.recovery, and so on?
What's more, the majority of sites distributing netnews are in _private_
hands...

}In our opinion, the practices are totally unacceptable, offensive, and
}speak eloquently to the issue of the freedom afforded to Usenet users as
}well as the issue of what is and is not wasted resources.  In short,
}these complainants do not,  by any means, have clean hands.

 Oh, this is rich. C&S, disbarred for professional dishonesty, are delivering
a lecture on morality. God help us.

}In summary, we were well within our rights to do what we did.  Our acts were
}both legal and within the bounds of Bar ethics.  It is not a breach of
}Disciplinary Rules to be controversial or act in a manner which might offend
}the values of others.  In this country the first amendment guarantees all of
}us the right to do just that.

 So why are you whining about newsgroups you don't like - the ones that are
"totally unacceptable, offensive and ... wasted resources"?

}Soon there will be many lawsuits addressing the various issues of
}electronic crimes and vandalism perpetrated by various participants in
}the Usenet.  At present, we ourselves are planning to file such suits
}against the many wrongdoers who have already identified themselves
}by name and institution or company by publicly posting assorted illegal
}schemes.  This will be necessary in order that the Internet can serve the
}commercial function our government now wishes it to serve.

 But again, since the net is not regulated, how can they complain about
others doing unethical but allowed things? And the US Government has not
said anything about making Usenet (NOT the Internet!) an advertising
forum, has it?

}Finally, we wish to stress that the people who complained here are not
}clients.  In fact, in our fifteen years of membership in the Tennessee Bar,
}not a single complaint by a client has ever been filed against us.  Moreover,
}not a single occurrence of misconduct with respect to treatment of clients
}has ever been proven against us anywhere at any time.  In addition, the
}charges cited from the Florida Bar are not accurate.  No formal charges for
}misappropriation of funds or perjury were ever filed against us in Florida.
}Other charges were denied at the time of resignation and are herewith denied
}again.

 Really? I don't find that very convincing. The fact that their colleagues
and superiors saw fit to disbar them is rather significant, I think, and
would hardly have happened if there was no evidence to support the charges
against C&S. Disbarment does not happen lightly. On the whole, I prefer to
believe the charges. Considering C&S's unethical and anti-social behaviour
on Usenet, it's rather more likely that the charges of abuses of
responsibility are true.

}We respectfully submit that our actions cited in the present complaint do no,
}even if true, constitute a breach of the Disciplinary Rules of the State Bar
}of Tennessee.  We therefore ask that this complaint be dismissed.

 What do we have to say to that? A traditional Middlesbrough football chant
comes to mind: BULLSHIT-AH!

}Sincerely,
}
}Laurence A. Canter
}Martha S. Siegel
}
}-----------------------------------------------------------------
}
}
}The attachments that are referred to in C&S's letter were not included in
}the reply from the Bar.

 Can you get hold of these, Crow?

}WRITE YOUR LETTER TO THE TENNESSEE BAR TODAY!

 It's on its way.

 Grr. In times like this, it's best to turn to the Almighty:

 "Almighty God, please drop a meteor on the heads of Cancer and Slimeball.
The sooner the better, please. Smite thine enemies with thy thunderbolt
from heaven, and all that jazz. Amen."

 Scumbags. The sooner they get sent to the Infernal Regions the better.
(Although no doubt they'll soon re-appear trying to sell "Oxygenated
Hellfire").

--
   |    Chris Owen, Trinity College, Oxford | [e-mail]    |
   |--------------------------------------------------------------------|
   | Canter and Siegel's criminal Armenian grandparents have committed  |
   | genocide on 2.5 million Green Cards in order to MAKE.MONEY.FAST... |