HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@ra.oc.com (Matthew Lyle)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: anyone know the mail suffix for America On-Line?
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:51:48 GMT
Organization: OpenConnect Systems, Dallas, TX

fergus@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (George Fergus) writes:
>Can someone point me to info on how to send mail to people at the various
>on-line services?  Suffixes like  @CompuServe.com  are fairly obvious, but
>I need to know the suffix for America On-Line.  The person I need to send
>a file to does not know their full internet/usenet address.


  <screen name minus spaces>@aol.com


-- 
Matthew Lyle                                           matt@oc.com
Technical Support Specialist                           matt@utdallas.bitnet
West/SW/SE Region (*Phew*)
OpenConnect System, Dallas, Texas                      (214) 454-5200
From: nauen@WRAIR-EMH1.ARMY.MIL
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Commercial E-mail Addresses
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:17:00 GMT

In <01GP8VUDBQV491VSRC@dcu.ie> 89500831@vax1.dcu.ie (Ronnie Albuquerque)
writes:

      I'm looking for a list of Commercial e-mail addresses.
      Does anyone out there know if such a list is archived anywhere?
      Failing that, how would Igo about getting such information?
      Please e-mail replies, as this posting is being gatewayed to the
      Usenet.

It's probably not what he's looking for, but one can get a list of
2049 .com subdomains by sending mail 

To:       service@nic.ddn.mil
Subject:  whois *com-dom

There are apparently more, but the search program can't handle more
than 2049.  I suspect a lot of them should really be in the .us domain.
In the same way, the 972 .edu subdomains could be found.

And then there's always the UUCP maps, which are probably available
somewhere in .ie.

Ric

Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: jmeritt@rod.mitre.org (Jim Meritt)
Subject: email forward script problem
Organization: Mitre Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:37:11 GMT


I've tried to get a script running here (that has worked elsewhere) to use
with my .forward.  The .forward works fine ("| scriptname) but the shell
seems unable to get the working directory ("cannot getwd") and dies.  I've
ided that the script thinks it is running as me (records whoami as me).
How can I fix this?

Please respond by email, since I don't read this group real often.

Thank you.


James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
-- 
James W. Meritt:  m23364@mwunix.mitre.org - or - jmeritt@rod.mitre.org
The opinions above are mine.  If anyone else wants to share them, fine.
They may say so if they wish. The facts "belong" to noone and simply are.
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3214 comp.mail:183
From: erik@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Erik VanRiper)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail
Subject: Re: Still trying to get to Fidonet
Keywords: Fidonet
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:51:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Source for Source Pub Access Unix

In article <1992Oct2.160411.13237@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> dickey@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Bill Dickey) writes:
>Well, I am finally able to post again...Thanks to those of you who
>sent me assistance on getting to Fidonet from internet, but I still
>seem to be having a problem.
>
>I am sending to the fidonet address sister.name@p17.n3400.z1.fidonet.org.  

You forget the "f" part.  If the address is "1:3400/xxx.17", you need to
address it to:

sister.name@p17.fxxx.n3400.z1.fidonet.org

where xxx is the node number part of the address.

>Everything seems to work fine, except that my sister is not receiving the
>mail.  And I get no indication of any problems on my end.  I also sent
>mail to the moderator of the METNET (where my sister is supposed to be),
>Bob Morris, at the same address, but....nothing...  Anyone have any great
>ideas?

Hope this helps....

/* Erik */

-- 
Like wow...  This be a .sig, eh? 
GEEKS Anonymous - Join today!
The Source for Source - Pub Access Unix.  (516) 968-7824 or (516) 666-5877
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,comp.mail
From: dickey@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Bill Dickey)
Subject: Still trying to get to Fidonet
Keywords: Fidonet
Organization: Honeywell Air Transport Systems Division
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:04:11 GMT

Well, I am finally able to post again...Thanks to those of you who
sent me assistance on getting to Fidonet from internet, but I still
seem to be having a problem.

I am sending to the fidonet address sister.name@p17.n3400.z1.fidonet.org.  
Everything seems to work fine, except that my sister is not receiving the
mail.  And I get no indication of any problems on my end.  I also sent
mail to the moderator of the METNET (where my sister is supposed to be),
Bob Morris, at the same address, but....nothing...  Anyone have any great
ideas?

Thanks in advance.

Bill
dickey@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com
----------------------------------
I said it and I meant it, so don't
blame Honeywell....
----------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:21:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.231047.12562@netcom.com> rbp@netcom.com (Bob Pasker) writes:
>i too got said e-mail.  i forwarded the message to the postmaster
>accounts at all the machines through which the message had travelled,
>informing them that the message violated NSF usage, with a copy to 
>the sender.
>
>lets see if this helps... should have respsonses by monday.
>-- 
>--- bob pasker
>---- rbp@netcom.com

A user on my UUCP system (tweekco) received the same message.  I sent a
message asking for an explanation on the list, and the post to the list...
global-list@gwinnett.com and to todd@gwinnett (who is listed as the sysadmin
at gwinnett).  My user, nor I have received any message back yet.

gwinnett shows in the uucp maps as being in Georgia, while abacus mentions
an address of Florida.  global.gwinnett.com does not appear in the current
connects for gwinnett.com.

       tweek@netcom.com  tweek@tweekco.uucp  WWIVNet 5@5058  4@5056 
          I'd rather get my cable service from the phone company,
                than my phone service from the cable company.
From: surendar@wpi.edu (Surendar C.)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: How to process mails left in the mailq.
Date: 5 Oct 1992 19:45:59 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester MA 01609, USA.
Reply-To: surendar@cs.wpi.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: ivy.wpi.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

I've been working on a Sparc IPC running SUNOS 4.1.1 and some of my mails
get stuck in the mailq for days. We tried running sendmail -q as root and
that still doesn't seem to flush it. Can you please tell me what we can 
do to process these mails and why they get stuck in mailq??

Thanks
surendar
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3226 news.admin.misc:55
From: todd@Gwinnett.COM (Todd Reese)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:59:45 GMT
Organization: Gwinnett Computer Services, Atlanta(Duluth), GA

In article <1992Oct05.084013.24430@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>Talk about over-reaction.  I am quite certain that the number of
>annoyed replies and bad publicity they got will be more than enough
>to educate and punish them for sending this mail.
>

Brad, 


Over-reaction is an understatement.  Some people of the net went as far as
looking up my MX record and threaten me by direct email and also to the
sysadm's at my feed sites.  I am quite upset at the self-righteous attitude
of some of the people when a simple note to me would have been enough.

When I found out about it, I did stop everything. Then the HATE mail started
rolling in.  I have taken over the mail box for abacus@gwinnett.com and 
mail in there has reached over 5 Meg.  A large return for 1.5 Meg total
being sent out. About a dozen people of this mail responded by catting the
man pages back to mail. What a childish reaction!

They (Abacus) learned of their mistake within a short time.  People make
mistakes in real life every day. Are those people of the net faultless??

I do commend the people that in there email just said no thank you.  This
was civil and to the point.  

>Fact is that most people would have already known it would attain this
>negative result, so it really doesn't matter what sort of punishment
>is meted out.  Only people unaware of the punishment would do such
>a blind mailing, so deterrent is not possible.
>
>Myself, I am 100% in favour of electronic junk mail replacing the
>vast gobs of dead trees that land in my physical mailbox every day.
>Once we lay down the patterns so that proper headers are placed on
>the junk mail, then it's far better.  My computer can screen my junk
>mail before I see it, something that doesn't happen on paper.  For
>more details on this argument, please see comp.org.eff.talk where I
>posted before this thread began here.
>
>And calm down on this one.
>-- 
>Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366


-- 
Todd Reese                  | todd@Gwinnett.COM
Gwinnett Computer Services  | {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!todd
Atlanta(Duluth), GA         | 
(404) 623 - 6374            |
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: medin@cincsac.arc.nasa.gov (Milo S. Medin)
Subject: Re: Milnet/Internet gateway
Organization: NASA Science Internet Project Office
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:56:01 GMT

In article <YzWERT.92Oct1000023@yorktown.itd.nrl.navy.mil>, wert@yorktown.itd.nrl.navy.mil (Jerry Van Wert) writes:
|> 
|> 
|>     A former colleague of mine is working at a site that has
|> email access to Milnet, but thanks to typically shortsighted
|> military bureaucratic paranoia, has no access to the Internet at
|> large. Apparently, though, he can be reached from other
|> domains. Are there any sites that will do Milnet-to-Internet mail
|> relays? Thanks.
|> 
|> 
|> Jerry Van Wert
|> wert@itd.nrl.navy.mil

Jerry, there are two IP level interconnects between the rest of the Internet
and MILNET, both at the FIX's where all us Federal backbones exchange 
information.  One of these is located here at Ames, and we host a Milnet
router attached to the DDN.

While there has been some talk about implementing specific restrictions
on interconnectivity between the MILNET and in particular it's sucessor the
DISN, no such filtering is being done by the MILNET at this point in time.

However, it's possible the site in question may have such filtering enabled,
so you should ask your friend to verify where the access control is being
done.  My bet is that something is misconfigured somewhere, and the lack
of connectivity is an accident, and not by design.  You might want to
verify that his access is access controlled by intention.

						Thanks,
						   Milo
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:20:48 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <7496@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>What, pray tell, can they do? Remember that the junk email came from the
>US...are they going to extradite the perpetrators? Is it even a crime under US
>law?

Ah, they were in the U.S.?  That makes it simple!

If they can't be extradited legally, we'll just kidnap them.  After
all, that's what the U.S. does.  If the U.S. thinks that kidnapping
is a reasonable approach to extradition problems, then who are we
to argue?

(It boggles my mind why Mexico hasn't made the obvious retalliation
of kidnapping members of the U.S. supreme court).

- Paul Colley
University:  colley@qucis.queensu.ca
Home:        pacolley@ember.uucp   watmath!ember!pacolley  +1 613 545 3807
<Ring> [...] "Sorry, I'm all booked up." "Who was that?" "The library." - B.C.

Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3266 news.admin.misc:90
From: hoey@zogwarg.etl.army.mil (Dan Hoey)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:54:34 GMT
Followup-To: news.admin.misc
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>Talk about over-reaction.  I am quite certain that the number of
>annoyed replies and bad publicity they got will be more than enough
>to educate and punish them for sending this mail.

Glad to hear it.  It's wonderful if they get bad publicity over these
shenanigans.  Maybe the rumors will get around so widely that the next
pinhead doesn't even try to send out junk email.

But what is the over-reaction?  If this sort of thing didn't cause
floods of email and postings no one would stop it.

todd@Gwinnett.COM (Todd Reese) writes:

]Over-reaction is an understatement.  Some people of the net went as far as
]looking up my MX record and threaten me by direct email and also to the
]sysadm's at my feed sites.

Good to hear they got your attention.  Unfortunately, you just don't
get it.

]I am quite upset at the self-righteous attitude of some of the people
]when a simple note to me would have been enough.

Don't be upset, just understand them.  There are a lot of annoyed
people out there, who are just being sure that the incident doesn't go
unnoticed.  They feel they have a right not to be put on mailing lists
in response to their postings, and they want to be sure it gets
stopped now and prevented in the future.

]When I found out about it, I did stop everything. Then the HATE mail started
]rolling in.  I have taken over the mail box for abacus@gwinnett.com and 
]mail in there has reached over 5 Meg.  A large return for 1.5 Meg total
]being sent out. About a dozen people of this mail responded by catting the
]man pages back to mail. What a childish reaction!

Trying to measure overreaction in terms of volume of junk mail sent
versus volume of angry letters plus email bombs is the stupidest
argument I've heard today, and that's something.  How about measuring
number of annoyed people versus number of satisfied people.

Sending email bombs is indeed an inexcusable form of network
terrorism.  Sending notes to feed sites is called raising a stink, and
if it raised a big enough stink that people actually fear being
disconnected from the net for this sort of idiocy, then that is the
desired result.

]They (Abacus) learned of their mistake within a short time.  People make
]mistakes in real life every day. Are those people of the net faultless??

Take the hate mail to heart.  Let Abacus know about it.  If you and
they think it's overreaction then you and they just don't get it.
People write to the net to fulfill their need for communication.  They
don't expect junk mail in return.  The presence of it threatens the
usefulness of Usenet as a whole, and must be vigorously suppressed.

``People make mistakes in real life.''  Someone at Abacus made a big
mistake in real life.  Not with impunity.

Dan Hoey
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: kdenning@portal.hq.videocart.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Organization: VideOcart Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:55:47 GMT

In article <7496@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.142707.14633@infodev.cam.ac.uk> crj10@phx.cam.ac.uk (Clive Jones) writes:
>>I believe the UK powers-that-be might do something about this incident soon...
>
>What, pray tell, can they do? Remember that the junk email came from the
>US...are they going to extradite the perpetrators? Is it even a crime under US
>law?

Sending unsolicited mail is almost certainly not a crime under US law, and
therefore, the UK is likely just out of luck.  As for the NSF connected
sites, it can be argued that there is no reasonable way to know whether a
site is on an AUP-required network or not -- therefore, it is unreasonable
to demand that one know first.  Not all people can run "traceroute", and
even if you can that proves nothing.

Certainly, the people at Abacus are not terribly wonderful in this regard.
But the flaming and threats are way, way out of line.  IMHO of course.

I would far prefer to get junk email than junk paper mail.  I can easily
trash the former; the latter kills trees and clutters up my front porch.

--
Karl Denninger 		Inet:  kdenning@hq.videocart.com
VideOcart Inc.		Voice: (312) 987-5022
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3234 news.admin.misc:63
From: Karl_Kleinpaste@cs.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:02:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvnrC6.Ap9.2
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon Univ, Nectar Project

todd@gwinnett.com writes:
   People make mistakes in real life every day.  Are those people of
   the net faultless??

An obscure data point.

I recently created an anonymous contact system running on my machine.
It supports postings to only 7 newsgroups, all within the alt.*
hierarchy, and none of which have any computer-related technical
content whatever.  Eight anonymus+###@godiva.nectar.cs.cmu.edu
addresses were recipients of the mail.

It would appear that abacus@gwinnett.com simply trolled the Usenet
blindly for addresses to which to send.

There were better moves available.

My own mail was short and to the point: "Turn it off, and you've made
many enemies."  (Local Zephyrstorm at the time came up with a dozen or
two people here who had received this crud.  _No_one_ wanted it.)

--karl
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
From: mike@meiko.com (Mike Stok)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Organization: Meiko Scientific Corp.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:59:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.193327.24293@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com> c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.132642.12355@Gwinnett.COM> todd@Gwinnett.COM (Todd Reese) writes:
>>The bombing run was much more distructive than orginal mail.  Five Meg.
>>more distructive.
>
>As it should be. Any retaliation should achieve several goals:
>
>a. make sure the incident (mistake :-)) does not happen again from the 
>   original site
>
>b. make sure that others are discouraged again from trying the same
>   thing

This just leads to people trying for maximum impact during a malicious
incident, seeing if they can wreak more havoc than the guys who
retaliate.  A quiet note is the best response, more often than not the
people who send the mail aren't aware of what is and isn't considered
reasonable (especially sales people in a .com organisation like ours
who don't use the net often).  

A quiet considered response is much more likely to get sysadms to
explain things to their users so that it doesn't happen again (maybe
evem point then at comp.newprod), and will not gratify the malicious
minority.

Mike

--
The "usual disclaimers" apply.    |
Mike Stok                         |
mike@meiko.com                    |
Meiko tel: (617) 890 7676         |
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,comp.sys.next.misc
From: emurphy@cs.uno.edu (Edward Murphy)
Subject: (?) using procmail to process faxes... have a problem
Organization: University of New Orleans
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:00:00 GMT



though i have the sinking feeling that this is a much asked question, alas  
i have a need.

my situation:

i am using the procmail/formail system to implement a "fax processing  
system" on our NeXT net. it basically goes like this. faxes come into  
system A where a student worker logs in twice a day, opens the faxes (to  
determine who they're for) and then forwards them to an account we have  
setup running procmail; the subject field is set to be the the username of  
the person for whom the fax is meant. the procmail account receives the  
fax, examines the subject field and presently does 2 things: forwards the  
fax to the user and logs the fact that it sent the fax to him/her.  
alright... everything is fine so far.

my problem:
in addition to 
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers,comp.sys.next.misc
From: emurphy@cs.uno.edu (Edward Murphy)
Subject: (? part 2) using procmail to process faxes.. having a problem
Organization: University of New Orleans
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:07:15 GMT


(my apologies... fate intervened and as i was moving my mouse across the  
screen i accidently hit the button... while it happened to be directly  
over the post button. :))

my problem:
in addition to having the fact that the fax was sent to the person logged,  
we'd also like to have the Read Receipt logged when that person reads his  
mail (i.e. looks at the fax). however, when the message is initially sent  
out (from system a: see previoud message), the receipt field is set the  
student worker's account and thus the read receipt is sent to him, not the  
procmail account.

i've been perusing the manuals and looking at the raw messages of  
different variations of receipt/no receipt mail, but have not yet been  
able to determine exactly which field implies the "read receipt" return  
address (whew!).

this is my problem... perhaps there are more out there wiser than i?

ed murphy
graduate slave from mars
emurphy@cs.uno.edu

 
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: wrl@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Bill Lewandowski)
Subject: Return Mail Headers
Followup-To: comp.mail.headers
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:17:55 GMT

Hi,

We receive mail from people with addreses like:

John.Q.Smith@test.com

Question:

How can I do this with sendmail 5.65a ????

I assume that there is a file somewhere that the
user name is converted to this outgoing. On receipt,
I also assume that the 'aliases' file must point the mail at the correct
user account.

Thanks,


==========================================================
Bill Lewandowski            Loral Western Development Labs
     (408) 473-4362         wrl@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
FAX: (408) 473-4440         wdl1!wrl
Newsgroups: comp.mail.headers
From: sih@next03epsl.wam.umd.edu ()
Subject: Changing header information
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:29:05 GMT

Is there anyway to change the header information from what it
actually will be or is?  I would like to know the same for postings
to the newsgroups.  I have seen people change the information at the top
and out of curiosity I would like to know how to do this.

Shahed
From: uucpmap@rutgers.rutgers.edu (UUCP Mapping Project)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.maps
Subject: UUCP map for u.usa.nh.2
Date: 27 Sep 92 22:50:48 GMT
Expires: 11 Nov 92 22:50:48 GMT
Supersedes: <Aug.15.18.49.09.1992.18910@rutgers.rutgers.edu>

:	This is a shell archive.
:	Remove everything above this line and
:	run the following text with /bin/sh to create:
:	u.usa.nh.2
: This archive created: Sun Sep 27 18:50:46 1992
echo shar: extracting u.usa.nh.2
cat << 'SHAR_EOF' > u.usa.nh.2
file {u.usa.nh.2}
#	start of u.usa.nh.2: Sat Sep 26 12:47:56 EDT 1992
#	maintained by nemap@harvard.edu
#	Please send all updates/new-entries
#	to: uucpmap@rutgers.{uucp,edu}
#
#	this file has been merged back into u.usa.nh.1

#	end of u.usa.nh.2: Sat Sep 26 12:48:02 EDT 1992
SHAR_EOF
:	End of shell archive
exit 0