The Hacker's Encyclopedia 1998/hackers_encyclopedia.iso/zines/cud/cud911.txt

Text File | 2003-06-11 | 31.4 KB | 698 lines

Computer underground Digest    Sun  Feb 23, 1997   Volume 9 : Issue 11
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas ([e-mail])
       News Editor: Gordon Meyer ([e-mail])
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #9.11 (Sun, Feb 23, 1997)

File 1--SUPREMES: CIEC Brief Filed (CDA news)
File 2--Eleven CDA briefs filed: "Last Words," from The Netly News
File 3--info on abuse.net
File 4--(Fwd) conference - policing the internet, report
File 5--Sanford Wallace (the "Spam King") to Start Own Spam Service
File 6--Cyber Promotions, Evil, Evil, EVIL
File 7--Press release: Metaphor brief filed in CDA case
File 8--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 13 Dec, 1996)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:48:08 -0800
From: --Todd Lappin-- <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 1--SUPREMES: CIEC Brief Filed (CDA news)

THE CDA DISASTER NETWORK

February 21, 1997

It's a one-two punch...

Shortly after the ACLU filed a CDA brief with the Supreme Court, the
other major group of CDA opponents in this case -- the Citizens
Internet Empowerment Coalition [CIEC] -- also filed their brief.

The following Trial Bulletin gives a basic rundown of the CIEC brief,
as well as pointers to a Web site where you can read the document in
its entirety, and suggestions as to what you can do to get involved in
this milestone legal action.

Work the network!

--Todd Lappin-->

Section Editor

WIRED Magazine

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

         Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition Update No. 17

                         February 20, 1997

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

                     http://www.cdt.org/ciec/
                        [e-mail]

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

   CIEC UPDATES are intended for members of the Citizens Internet

   Empowerment Coalition. CIEC Updates are written and edited by the

   Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org). This

   document may be reposted as long as it remains in its entirety.

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

          ** 56,000 Netizens Vs. U.S. Department of Justice. **
                 * The Fight To Save Free Speech Online *


  Contents:


  o CIEC Plaintiffs File Supreme Court Briefs in CDA Appeal

  o How to Remove Yourself From This List

  o More Information on CIEC and the Center for Democracy and
Technology


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


CITIZENS INTERNET EMPOWERMENT COALITION FILES BRIEF WITH SUPREME COURT

IN CDA APPEAL

The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) today filed its
brief before the United States Supreme Court in the legal
challenge to the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a law imposing
broad content regulations on the Internet.

The full text of the brief, along with detailed background on the
case, can be found at http://www.cdt.org/ciec/.

The CIEC plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to agree with a lower
court ruling that the CDA violates the First Amendment by imposing
restrictive, TV-broadcast style content regulations on an
inherently democratic medium.

Among other things, the CIEC argues:

* The Internet is a unique communications medium that deserves
free speech protection at least as broad as that enjoyed by print
medium.

* Individual users and parents  -- not the government -- should
decide what material is appropriate for their children, and;

* Simple, inexpensive user empowerment technology is the only
effective and constitutional way of limiting the access of minors
to material on the Internet.

The Communications Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional by a
special panel of three federal judges in Philadelphia in June of
1996.

Plaintiffs in the CIEC include the American Library Association,
civil liberties groups, America Online, CompuServe, Prodigy,
Microsoft, Apple, the Recording Industry Association of America,
the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Newspaper
Association of America, WIRED Magazine, and over 56,000 individual
Internet users. The lead plaintiff in the case is the American
Library Association (a full list is attached below).

The CIEC law suit, also known as ALA v. DOJ, was consolidated with
a similar case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and
20 other plaintiffs, known as ACLU v. Reno. The cases will be
argued together before the Supreme Court on Wednesday March 19 at
10:00 am ET.  The Supreme Court's decision is expected in late
June or early July.

The Government filed its brief with the Supreme Court on January
20, 1997.

The full text of that document, along with amicus briefs filed by
conservative "pro-family" groups and Members of Congress who
supported the CDA can be found online at http://www.cdt.org/ciec/

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

WHAT YOU CAN DO

It's not to late to become a part of this landmark case! Internet
users who support the free flow of information online and believe
that individual users and parents, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
are the best and most appropriate judges of what material is
appropriate for themselves and their children can JOIN THE
CITIZENS INTERNET EMPOWERMENT COALITION.  It's easy and it's
free.  Help us fight for the future of the Internet as a viable
means of free expression, education, and commerce.  Visit:

  http://www.cdt.org/ciec/join_ciec.html

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

BACKGROUND ON THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT

The Communications Decency Act, enacted in February 1996, made it
a crime punishable by up to $250,000 and 2 years in prison to
"display" or "make available" any "indecent" or "patently
offensive" material on a public forum online.

Because the Internet is a global medium with no centralized point
of control, and because every user of the Internet is a publisher
with the capacity to reach millions of people, broad government
content regulations pose a serious threat to the free flow of
information online and the First Amendment rights of all
Americans.

Judge Steward Dalzell, in his opinion declaring the
Communications Decency Act unconstitutional in June, noted that
the Internet is a unique communications medium that allows users
tremendous control over the Information they receive. Dalzell
stated:

"If the goal of our First Amendment jurisprudence is the
'individual dignity and choice' that arises from 'putting the
decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands
of each of us', then we should be especially vigilant in
preventing content-based regulation of a medium that every minute
allows individual citizens actually to make those decisions.  Any
content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign
the purpose, would burn the global village to roast the pig."

While supporters argue that the law is designed to protect
children from so-called "pornography" on the Internet, 2 separate
Federal Courts have agreed that they law goes far beyond that and
would ban otherwise constitutionally protected materials.  Under
the CDA, classic fiction such as the "Catcher in the Rye" or
"Ulysses", AIDS and Sex education materials, rap lyrics, the
"7-dirty words" and other material which, while offensive to
some, enjoy full First Amendment protection in print, would be
illegal if posted on a public forum on the Internet.

The outcome of this legal challenge will have far reaching
implications. At stake is nothing less than the future of the
First Amendment in the information age.

Please continue to visit the CIEC web page for the latest news
and information on the case (http://www.cdt.org/ciec)

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 15:56:05 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 2--Eleven CDA briefs filed: "Last Words," from The Netly News

Source -  [e-mail]

The Netly News Network
http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,671,00.html

Last Words
by Declan McCullagh ([e-mail])
February 21, 1997

     Attorneys for the groups challenging the Communications
Decency Act submitted their final briefs to the Supreme Court
yesterday. It was free speech advocates' last chance to shore up
their case before the nation's highest court hears oral arguments
on March 19.

     Nine other organizations, from Playboy to the National
Association of Broadcasters, filed separate briefs supporting the
American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library
Association lawsuits that last June won a preliminary injunction
barring enforcement of the law. The "amicus" briefs were
surprising -- not so much for what they asserted, but for the
unlikely coalition that authored them.

     Ann Beeson, attorney for the ACLU, told me yesterday that the
purpose of her group's brief was to "reframe what the case is
really about," and respond to arguments the Justice Department
made last month. In a 55-page brief, the government had argued
that the threat of accidentally viewing porn online deters
would-be netizens. It asserted the CDA was a "cyberzoning"
ordinance that would keep users from stumbling across sexually
explicit images. "We were able to (rebut) that very confidently
because of the strength of the lower court's opinion," Beeson
said, referring to the Philadelphia district court's 409 separate
factual findings.

     The briefs totaled more than 500 pages of dense arguments
against the CDA, peppered with references to obscure broadcasting
and obscenity cases. I sat down with pizza and mint tea last night
and waded through the heap of documents.  (And now, as the sun
rises on D.C., I'm still not finished.)

     I started with the ACLU. The group's 65-page filing blasted
the "government's eleventh-hour effort to salvage" the law. The
DoJ is wrong to contend users are scared away by indecent
material: "The government introduced no evidence at trial to
support this assertion." The ACLU and ALA briefs also assail the
"cyberzoning" concept, saying that previous Supreme Court zoning
cases have nothing to do with speech and instead regulate only the
physical location of adult movie theaters.

     Stressing Supreme Court precedents, the Association of
National Advertisers argues that parents, not government, should
decide what children may and may not see: "Today, would-be
regulators of speech routinely attempt to dress up censorship in
the cloak of protection of children." The group worries that the
court will back away from recent rulings providing greater
protection for commercial speech.

     The broadcasters, too, are uneasy -- and they have good
reason. Arguing against the CDA, netizens have painted cyberspace
as wildly different from the heavily regulated broadcast medium.
The Net isn't like radio or TV, the argument goes, since it
doesn't suffer from invasiveness or spectrum scarcity -- the two
justifications used for FCC regulation. In other words, the number
of "broadcasters" online is not limited the way TV stations are,
and web pages don't leap out at you as radio programs could.

     CBS, NBC and ABC detest this argument.  They've never agreed
that these reasons grant the FCC so much regulatory authority, and
they want the court to overrule -- or at least not reaffirm -- its
decision in the stifling 1969 Red Lion case. That case, anathema
to broadcasters, upheld the constitutionality of the "fairness
doctrine," which holds that broadcast media must present both
sides of controversial issues. As justification, the justices came
up with the concept of spectrum scarcity, which was used in later
Supreme Court decisions to restrict broadcasters' rights to air
"indecent" material.  Whether the court affirms or strikes down
the CDA, the broadcasters want to make sure the justices don't
endorse Red Lion; indeed, they'd like to see it rejected.

     Still more groups weighed in. Site Specific, a consulting
firm, declares that "the proper analogy for cyberspace is print."
The American Association of University Professors headed a group
that submitted arguments on a CD-ROM, a first-ever for the court.
The Chamber of Commerce, that mainstay of Main Street American
life, points out that 37 million Americans are wired at work --
and under the CDA, businesses may be liable for what their
employees say online. The number of e-mail messages is unthinkably
high: Firms originated 350 billion messages in 1996. "In view of
both the volume of messages on interactive computer services and
their often 'real time' nature, employers are incapable of"
checking employees' messages, the brief says. And what of
employees who are minors?  Companies that hire 16- and
17-year-olds would be in trouble.

     To the Feminists for Free Expression, the genderless Internet
is "key to achieving gender equality," which the CDA threatens.
"Feminist expression is inherently controversial," the group
argues, and the act would muzzle netizens who wanted to discuss
cases of sexual harassment.  Even newsworthy cases such as Paula
Jones v. Bill Clinton would be verboten: "Court opinions... could
be prohibited under the CDA. The allegations in the Jones suit,
for example, describe sexual activities and organs in terms that
might be considered patently offensive in some communities."

     The Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press describes
"endless examples of newsworthy topics that arguably fall within
the purview of the statute and that could subject journalists to
criminal sanction for doing their jobs." After all, nearly 800
newspapers have online editions, and profane language is
newsworthy. Consider a recent example: the now-public audiotapes
of President Nixon swearing at Democratic party contributors.

     The irascible folks at annoy.com joined the chorus. The CDA
overrides parents' wishes, they say: "Some parents affirmatively
wish their children to have access to... information about
avoiding sexually transmitted diseases." Besides, the federal
government has no business regulating indecency in the first
place; that wasn't the purpose of the Constitution's "commerce
clause."

     Playboy's brief reminds the court that the magazine has never
been found obscene, pornographic or harmful to minors by any court
--but the web site would be criminalized by the CDA. As
technologies converge, its brief says, Playboy is worried that the
Net will have weaker free speech protections than print enjoys.

     Together, the 11 briefs represent a broadside assault on the
CDA, one the law is unlikely to survive, legal experts say. In a
way, the government deserves some sympathy. The Justice Department
faces the unenviable task of justifying an intolerably
unconstitutional law passed for political gain and defended for
election-year cover.

     Perhaps Sen. Jim Exon was too late. If he had introduced the
bill years earlier, the Internet wouldn't have been defended by
such a dazzling constellation of groups. The Net has at last
become strong enough to repel this initial attack.

  ----------------------
Courtesy of: The Netly News Network
             Washington Correspondent
             http://netlynews.com/

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

Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 21:59:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Avi Bass <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 3--info on abuse.net

>Subject--Welcome to abuse.net (ffhggtc)

>Welcome to the abuse.net message forwarding system.  Although this
>service is provided without charge to the Internet community (with the
>exceptions detailed below) you have to register once before you can
>use it.  Registration is very easy, but please read the instructions
>before you try to do it.  We regret that we have to make all of our
>users go through the registration process, but it's the only way we
>know to discourage miscreants from sending spam through the abuse.net
>forwarder.  (It took about three days for them to discover the
>previous version that didn't have registration.)
>
>HOW DOES ABUSE.NET WORK ?
>
>Once you've registered, when you send a message to <domain>@abuse.net,
>the system here automatically re-mails your message to the best
>reporting address(es) we know for that domain.  For many domains it's
>postmaster@<domain>, for some it's abuse@<domain>, for some it's
>something else.  Some particularly unpleasant domains ignore all their
>mail; when we're aware of that we use the address for their
>next-level-up provider.
>
>When we don't know anything about the domain, by default we mail to
>postmaster at that domain and all suffixes of that domain, so if you
>sent mail to [e-mail], we'd re-mail that to [e-mail]
>and [e-mail].
>
>Not being omniscient, we don't know about every domain on the net.
>Our current list is on the web site at http://www.abuse.net.  If you
>know of a reporting address not on our list, please tell us about it
>at [e-mail].
>
>HOW DO I REGISTER ?
>
>Please read the terms of service below.  If you accept them, reply to
>this message and put "I accept" in the FIRST line of your response to
>indicate your assent.  Please be sure the subject line of the response
>contains the subject line of this message, including the code in
>parentheses, since that's the way we know who you are.  Once your
>acceptance is received, you're registered permanently, unless we
>change the terms of service in which case you'll have to re-register.
>If you don't accept the terms, don't reply and you'll never hear from
>us again.
>
>TIPS FOR REPORTING ABUSIVE USENET OR E-MAIL MESSAGES
>
>* Send a copy of the entire abusive message, including all of the
>header lines, particularly the "Received:" lines.  (Many mail programs
>including Pine and Eudora don't show or send all the headers unless
>you specifically tell them to.)  If the message is very long, you can
>cut off the message in the middle, so long as you're sure you're
>sending all the headers.
>
>* Be polite and to the point.
>
>* Don't make any threats unless you intend to carry them out.
>
>HOW PRIVATE IS ABUSE.NET ?
>
>Not particularly.  At the moment, we only keep copies of messages to
>which we send responses (the first message from each user, and the
>registration response), but we reserve the right to keep copies of any
>messages we need to.  Like all mail systems, we log the "to" and
>"from" addresses of all messages.
>
>Once your message is sent off to the administrator of the domain
>you're complaining about, it's up to him, her, or it, what to do with
>it.
>
>ABUSE.NET TERMS OF SERVICE
>
>1. You agree to use abuse.net only A) to report abusive behavior by
>Internet users, or B) to communicate with abuse.net management with
>questions, comments, or suggestions about the operation of abuse.net.
>
>2. You agree not to use abuse.net for any other purpose.  In
>particular, you agree not to send any commercial solicitations, chain
>letters, or other mail sent to multiple recipients ("spam"), nor to
>send messages intended to harass or annoy any person ("mail bombing").
>If you send any messages in violation of this section, you agree to
>pay I.E.C.C., the operator of abuse.net, a processing fee of $100 per
>message plus any attorneys' fees and collection costs.  You agree that
>this processing fee is reasonable in view of the work involved and
>resources expended in the handling of such messages.
>
>3.  You agree that although abuse.net attempts to deliver all validly
>addressed messages to an appropriate administrator, it makes no
>promises about whether, when, or to whom your messages will be
>delivered.  You agree that abuse.net may keep copies of any messages
>received from you.
>
>4.  You agree that these terms are binding on you from the time you
>send a message accepting them.  You agree that if you subsequently
>decide not to accept these terms, you will send no more messages to
>abuse.net.
>
>Regards,
>John Levine, abuse-meister

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

Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 19:56:08 +0000
From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 4--(Fwd) conference - policing the internet, report

Felipe Rodriguez, managing director of an Internet provider in the
Netherlands, wrote the following report concerning a conference
entitled "Policing the Internet"

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------

[e-mail] ()
Date--17 Feb 1997 10:26:23 GMT

Conference report - Policing the Internet

The conference was organized by the Association of London Government.
The aim of the conference was to define a European approach to
combating pornography and violence on the Internet. I was invited by a
friend, Prof. A. Dirkzwager, who was attending the conference for the
Dutch digital citizens movement, and thought I would also be interested
in attending.

The speakers of the conference included five radical feminist
activists, three police officers, representatives from the European
parliament, British Telecom and the British Internet Watch foundation;
an organization that is supposed to start regulating providers.

Here is a short report of some of the content at the conference, the
report is by no means complete but gives an indication of the
color and tone of this conference.

The agenda of the radical feminist speakers at the conference was a
protest against pornography in general. These respected women activists
argued for a complete ban on pornography inside and outside the
Internet, referring to the damage that pornography causes to women. An
endless amount of examples of pornography, child-pornography and other
adult content was made, usually making no distinction between them.
Most called for tough controls on the Internet, to prevent the
distribution of adult material, even if this material would be legal in
the non-digital society. It was said that Internet technology will lead
to an escalation of violations of womens rights, and that free-speech
absolutism is setting the standard on the Net. The argument of
censorship on the Net was countered by speaker Nel van Dijk, member of
the European parliament. She gave a pro-speech and anti-censorship
lecture, defending democratic values and civil liberties and noting
that England lacked a constitution and legal guarantees that protect
freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

Martin Jauch, superintendent of the metropolitan police, clubs and
vice, gave the most revealing lecture of the conference. He explained
how British providers where threatened by his unit, in order to censor
their newsfeed. The providers where assembled and where told that if
they would not comply with the demands of Jauchs unit, their offices
would be raided, and essential equipment would be confiscated as
evidence. This is the British interpretation of industry
self-regulation, if the providers do not comply with the demands of the
police, theyll be prosecuted.These methods resulted in a removal of a
number of adult newsgroups, like alt.sex.anal, on the servers of
British providers. It did not matter that most of the articles in these
groups would not be considered a violation of British law, the groups
had to be completely removed.

Martin Jauch went on to stress the importance of rating and labeling
systems, and the need for filtering information that would be
considered offensive to some. An important justification against all
forms of pornography in Martins speech seemed to be that this material
is being used to desensitize children before theyre being abused by
child-abusers. And that women where often used against their will to
produce pornography. An argument that was repeatedly stressed at the
conference was that kids use the Internet, and that they may be
confronted with al this harmful content.  Martin made it very clear
that  any information on the Internet that was illegal under British
Law would not be allowed by him on the Net and must be banned by
self-regulation of providers. Martin did not say what would be done
about information thats illegal in Britain, but not in other countries,
like Holland and Sweden. If providers do not comply with the demands of
Martins unit, they may be liable for prosecution, and his unit will
bust their offices and take away their equipment. Under these threats
providers have not much choice, other than comply with everything that
theyre told. This is what is supposedly called selfregulation in
England and Germany. At the start of his speech Martin said he was no
expert about the Internet, and that in his opinion this did not matter;
hed force the internet providers to comply with his demands and British
law.

Karlhein Moewes of the Munich police designed his speech to have a high
impact. Without speaking much he showed slide after slide of
child-pornography. His speech was obviously designed to arouse a
feeling of disgust. After about 20 minutes of pictures of abused
children and other violence he was requested by the conference chair to
refrain from showing any further slides.  Anyone that does not know
anything about the Internet would believe it was full of these kind of
pictures, and would not hesitate to immediately call for tough
repression on the Net.

Glyn Ford, member of the european parliament, gave a lecture about
the current developments in the european parliament. Currently a
draft report is being made about policing the Net, this report will
be finished in a few months and then most certainly implemented
as european law. Policy will mostly be based upon a previously
published paper, Illegal and harmful content on the Internet.
Glyn Ford can be emailed for information about how to receive the
latest draft-policy report, his email address is
[e-mail].

Overall the conference seemed to stress the importance of policing the
Internet, although most speakers where not very experienced Net users.
It seems clear that the British want to implement a policy of industry
selfregulation and content labelling and filtering. To ensure the
effectiveness of this policy the British want to implement these
policies in a European context. It seems that this goal is being
heavily promoted in the european parliament, and a substantial
British lobby is going on to pursue the british agenda regarding
the Internet.

Some of the attendees courageously tried to defend the argument of
free-speech, but where agressively countered by the chair of the
conference with the words; but you cannot mean that you want to allow
child pornography and smut on the Net ?!

The chair of the conference, Sue Cameron, optimistically concluded that
there was an obvious consensus that something had to be done about the
smut on the Internet. I may have missed this process of consensus;
three of the speakers were absolutely not prepared to endorse
censorship of the Net, and none of the attendees I spoke to was
prepared to endorse this so called consensus. In a private conversation
with Ms. Cameron after the conference she admitted to hardly ever
having used the Net.

--
 Felipe Rodriquez  -  XS4ALL Internet      - finger [e-mail] for
                   -  Managing Director    - pub pgp-key 1024/A07C02F9

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

Date: 21 Feb 1997 00:46:31 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Lisa or Jeff)
Subject: File 5--Sanford Wallace (the "Spam King") to Start Own Spam Service

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The next two posts come from TELECOM Digest,
V 17, #48.  TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted
mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is
circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various
telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and
networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also
gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup
'comp.dcom.telecom'.
Subscriptions are available to qualified organizations and individual
readers. Write and tell us how you qualify:
                 * [e-mail] *
 ======

The {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported (2/19/97, Business Page 1) that
Sanford Wallace, notorious for his unsuccessful court actions against
Compuserve and AOL, will open his own service for mass mailings.

Most online services and ISPs prohibit bulk e-mailings and will terminate
such customers.

Wallace is president of Cyber Promotions.  He charges $50 for a 3 line
ad packed with other ads, to $2,500 for a one-time 40 line exclusive
e-mail addresses Wallace has amassed.  [I can't believe paying
customers respond to these things, at least enough to pay the cost.]

Some critics say unsolicited e-mail should be deemed illegal under the
federal regulations that prohibit unsolicited faxes.  [Sounds good to
me!]  Private Citizen, a 2,000 member junk-mail fighting organization
in Naperville, Ill, has set up a WWW page (http://www.ctct.com) where
those who wish to be removed from Cyber Promotions' mailing list can
leave their email addresses.  Wallace said he was cooperating with
them.

IMHO, such guys like Wallace ought to be thrown in jail for
trespassing.  Unlike a letter mailed to my house or business, which
costs me nothing, email DOES cost me.  I pay for my online time, and
time spent filtering through junk email and Usenet posts costs me.  If
my ISP has to increase his system size to accomodate the increased
junk traffic, those costs get passed on to me. It is well known that
junk email clogs the Internet because (1) a lot of messages are
undeliverable from old addresses and generate returns, and (2) the
spammers use forged headers, so the returned mail (and complaints from
recipients) get bounced back.  So, what starts out as a single message
can mushroom, and we Internet users are paying for it.

Wallace has also shown incredible arrogance and disrespect to people.
He has filed lawsuits (and lost) demanding he be allowed to invade
private space.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 10:32:57 EST
From: Danny Burstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: File 6--Cyber Promotions, Evil, Evil, EVIL


Per an Associated Press story 20-Feb-1997:

New Network Makes Bulk E-Mail Easy

By JENNIFER BROWN Associated Press Writer

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- It's about to get much easier for advertisers
to send junk e-mail on the Internet.

Cyber Promotions Inc. will launch the first bulk e-mail friendly
Internet provider in the nation on March 17. It will allow computer
users to send millions of commercial ads -- also known as spam -- for
a single monthly fee.

(The article continues with a discussion of how spammers are frowned
upon by most ISPs and how they get their accounts canceled left and
right as soon as they start their little pursuits.)

"What people are doing is jumping around from one (Internet
provider) toanother, and they don't have a secure home. We're
going to give them a home," said Cyber Promotion founder Sanford
Wallace.

(snip)

Wallace, known as the "Spam King," said Cyber Promotions is an
extension of the Inter