HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU=0205925@mhs.attmail.com
Subject: Re: What gives?
Originator: daemon@eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 15:16:50 GMT

Date: 12/24/92  9:47 AM
Subj: RE>What gives?
 
 > It looks as though every time you try to send out E-mail, your
 > X400 mailer is sending out an "ambiguous names report" instead.
 
Close, but no cigar.
 
Our email connection to the world is via SoftSwitch X.400, a component of
SoftSwitch Central, and among its "features" is the fact that it
auto-registers inbound mail, that is to say that it adds the return
addresses of all inbound mail to its "names directory" or address
database.
 
Where this otherwise useful feature turns into malware is when it
interacts with certain ListServs that re-distribute the message with the
original author's address in the return address field.
 
If anyone at MasterCard sends mail to a ListServ that does this and anyone
else at MasterCard subscribes to that list, then when that message comes
back to us, the sender's address gets added AGAIN to the directory,
creating a duplicate address.  From then until we spot it or the next
weekday morning's maintenance, all mail to that user will bounce back with
a "duplicate address" error, because the X.400 mailer can't figure out
which of the "duplicate" IDs to distribute the message(s) to.
 
This would be trivially easy for SoftSwitch to fix, all they'd have to do
is patch auto-registration so that it won't auto-register anything that
says it's from the same ADMD & PRMD.  I advised them of this more than a
month ago, and we're still waiting for them to even say that they're GOING
to do something about it.  In addition to this being annoying, it's also
surprising; SoftSwitch has otherwise been pretty good about rapidly fixing
shortcomings in their products.  *sigh*
 
In the meantime, I think I can safely say that we at MasterCard who use it
are all embarrassed and quite sorry about any annoyance this causes the
Internet communities.
 
 (s) J. Brad Hicks, Senior PC Specialist, MasterCard International
 
P.S. I'm cc'ing this message to SoftSwitch's vice president of support, in
hopes that when he sees (a) that we're getting abused over this, and (b)
what we have to tell people in response, that maybe, just maybe, we'll get
an answer this time.  If you (or he) have any questions, you may call me
during normal working hours (CST) at +1 314 275 3645.
 
 
 J. Brad Hicks     Internet: mc!Brad_Hicks@mhs.attmail.com
 X.400: c=US admd=ATTMail prmd=MasterCard sn=Hicks gn=Brad
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:34:44 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <8260@news.duke.edu> jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:
>In article <1hb7v9INNm74@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu 
>	(Steve Pope) writes:
>>Not only can't you participate pseudonymously in WELL 
>>conferences (which is not really a disadvantage of the WELL
>>because nobody can, except the exceptions) but your real name is 
>>emitted to the free world by smtp.
>
>Well, this only happens if you try to send email to the free world.

He said "smtp".  You're describing what sendmail does when
it's acting as an originating mail transport agent.

Here's what the SMTP daemon on the WELL tells me about you:

------
|
| crk:pangea<ttyqb> telnet well.sf.ca.us 25
| Trying 192.132.30.2...
| Connected to well.sf.ca.us.
| Escape character is '^]'.
| 220 well.sf.ca.us Sendmail 5.65c/SMI-4.1/well-921206-1 ready at Mon, 28 Dec
| 1992
|  15:23:40 -0800
| vrfy jfw
| 250-John F. Whitehead <jfw@neuro.duke.edu>
| 250 John F. Whitehead <\jfw>
| quit
| 221 well.sf.ca.us closing connection
| Connection closed by foreign host.
| crk:pangea<ttyqb>
| 
------

John Whitehead has a copy of his mail forwarded to Duke
and keeps one on the WELL.

Anonymity is compromised whether or not you send mail.

--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 21 Dec 1992 21:49:48 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: zion.berkeley.edu

In article <8186@news.duke.edu> jfw@neuro.duke.edu (John F. Whitehead) writes:
>In article <1gtkqfINNa98@agate.berkeley.edu> 
>spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>> [...]

>First of all, our thread on "Well anonymity" is a misnomer.  There are
>no "anonymous" users on the Well, but there are some that have aliases. 

Okay, I'll go along with that -- there are no "anonymous" users
on the well, just a select few "pseudonymous" users.  It is
fairly common to blur this distinction.

>But in any case what you say isn't true.  

Bullshit.  fig@eff confirmed, at least in all salient details, my
original description of the situation.

> Anonymity is available 

You mean "pseudonymity is available"  -- don't complain about
my misnomer, then use it yourself!!

> (as
>mentioned earlier "by special arrangement") to anyone who signs up on
>the Well.  It is given for good reason.  To protect yourself if you are
>a celebrity has been a valid reason in the past 

The only *consistent* way of deciding who is eligible to
have a pseudonymous account is to simply leave it up to
the discretion of subscriber.  Anything else is arbitrary.
Since it is not done this way, I am correct in saying that policy 
is inconsistent.  

>If you as a
>non-celebrity could come up with a good argument as to why you wanted to
>be anonymous, you could probably get an account that way.  It's just
>that celebrities are the main group that have wanted to protect their
>identities and have the most valid reasons.

I think it is pompous for you to try to assert what constitutes 
a "valid reason". 

Example: suppose a user asked for a pseudonymous account because they
are simply too shy to socialize on the computer under
their real name?

My guess -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the Well admins would
say "sorry" to such a request.

Steve
From: rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 2 Jan 93 18:43:28 GMT
Organization: Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253

phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie) writes:

[A virus could]
| >... also check
| >for some file or other sort of marker on the system that the user
| >would have placed to give the virus permission to spread.  Thus
| >keeping it from spreading to anyone who didn't want it around.

| Suppose you need to copy an executable from one system to anothe
| and the new system does not have the marker?

So put it on!  Sheesh.  Just like having to put MSDOS on the system
before you run that executable....

| Or the disk crashes across
| the marker?

Then the virus dies.  Are you really that concerned about the viruses welfare?

| How do you get the files back?

In general terms of viruses, the virus dies and thats that - no files are
affected.  If there is supposed to be a marker, when the marker is returned
files will be re-infected.

In the case of this compression tool example, the files will be expanded and
returned to full size without a virus present.  Once a marker is reinstalled,
if there are ANY files with the virus present, they will reinfect (and
recompress) all files on the system.


--
UUCP: ....!fullfeed.com!ruth!rat        |  Network XXIII - +1 608 222 9253
InterNet: rat@ruth.UUCP                 |  80Megs+ of Usenet/Fido programs!
Fidonet: David Douthitt 1:121/23        |  ... Files via Fidonet FREQ,
"...because appealing to the masses has |  anon uucp, first time login,
 never appealed to us."                 |  mail to fileserver@ruth.uucp
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: dman@netcom.com (Dallman Ross)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:29:25 GMT

Steve Pope (spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: I do not think the WELL's policies are off limits
: for discussion just because their subscribers are
: all happy.  If you lobotomized all 12-year-olds then
: the high schools would be full of kids who are
: happy.  Does that make lobotimization good policy?

Very virtuous, that you have elected yourself the savior of all
WELLperns.  It's a joke to think they are all placid on *any* issue that
could possibly be imagined, however; much less, lobotomized.

The "policy" conference on The WELL, where this type of issue would be
discussed, is one of the most rife (and interesting) places of
contention on the entire system.  People are not afraid to discuss
issues or complacent about them.  Again, I'm just not sure what you
think The WELL's management could do in this regard that would somehow
be "better."

--
 __D_a l_l m a_n  _ R o_s s _ |dman@netcom.com  /or/  |"You sound like a man|
 l  \\ l\\   /l  /\\  l\\   l |dross@well.sf.ca.us    |with a rubber nose." |
 l   >)l \\ /ll /  \\ l \\  l |vox/fax: 1.510.645.1883| -- One-Lung Bill    |
 l  // l  \X ll/--- \\l  \\ l |350 Perkins St., #108  |     Remmer (deceased)
_l//______________________\\l_|Oakland,_CA__94610-3422|_____________________|_
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7929 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3833 comp.security.misc:2354 alt.privacy:2736 alt.society.civil-liberty:7019
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.security.misc,alt.privacy,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: CERT and the Dept. of Justice on keystroke monitoring
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:08:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Dec22.150816.13247
Reply-To: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes:

>Earlier I said that property rights are not an issue wrt the CERT
>advisory, and that it was not related to companies.  This was based on
>my mistaken reading of the advisory - as it was based on the U.S. Dept
>of justice advice (order?) to all federal agencies, I though that the
>"all systems" on the advisory referred to "all federal systems".
>However, it appears I was mistaken - when I asked CERT about this the
>answer was that CERT expanded the scope of the advisory and thus it
>seems that CERT really means _all_ systems, no matter whether private,
>public, government-owned, etc.

But "goverment-owned" or even "public property" *still* involves property
rights. City Hall is public property, right down to the supplies in the
storeroom. That does *not* mean that the public can walk in and use the 
supplies.

"Public property" generally has some purpose or reason for existence. And
the administering agency has property rights, not all that different from
those a private person or company would have.

>A part of my argumentation was based on this misunderstanding of the
>advisory (for example the claim where I said that property rights are
>not involved).  I apologize for the resulting failure of
>communication.  However, my argumentation still applies for systems of
>federal agencies and many education sites.

Nope. At the federal agencies, you do *not* have a right to access on
their system anymore than you have a right to access any *phsyical*
property they have. And at educational sites, the *students* may
have access rights but not the general public. Just like with the
classrooms and labs. 

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,comp.dcom.isdn
Subject: Re: ISDN rates
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:30:18 CST
Distribution: inet
Organization: Defence Science and Technology Organisation

> David "Network Man" Benson (dbenson@csugrad.cs.vt.edu) wrote:
> : I contacted my local phone company (C&P) about having an ISDN line
> : installed in my apartment (for the purpose of connecting to campus's
> : network). I was quoted a $300 installation charge, $58 per month, plus
> : $0.05 per minute. Are these rates fair (average)? 
> 
Are the US charges also distance dependent ?  And are they affected by 
inter-phone-company links ?

Telecom Australia quote prices of $A360 (~ $US252) to install a BRI, and 
$A76 per month (~ $US53) rent.  The cost of calls are time and distance
dependent. When Telecom set these prices it had a monopoly in Australia. They
*seem* to compare well with the prices you quote, but it depends on the call
price structure. 

Regards,

John Bennett                                   bennett@dstos3.dsto.gov.au
Head, I.T. Services Development                Phone : +61 8 259 5292
Corporate Information Systems                  FAX   : +61 8 259 5537
DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANISATION    Postal: Bld 73 Labs Area
AUSTRALIA                                              PO Box 1500 Salisbury 
                                                       South Australia  5108
                                                       AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:31:40 GMT

mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>In <889520164DN5.61R@tanda.isis.org> marc@tanda.isis.org (Marc Thibault) writes:
>A lot of 'real
>engineers' who don't understand what software engineering is about
>produce execrable software.  

Here, Here
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Beneficial Virus?
Date: 4 Jan 93 02:29:00 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

Well, if the virus only infected systems which carried a marker, that
is another story. I would have no problem with a program which spread
from machine to machine at the consent of the owners, *AS LONG AS*
that program did not forcibly enter my machine. If the virus requires
a specific door to be open, and a sysadm opens the door, that's fine. 

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
From: karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Date: 24 Dec 1992 00:05:49 GMT
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

In article <1ham10INNdi5@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an127@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Korac MacArthur) writes:

>If the big bad feds
>really want to get ahold of a user's id, what is the difference between
>letting them call the service provider (or show up with a warrant, which
>is more affable) instead of just looking it up like anyone can do to a
>non-anonymous account?

What's the point?  I thought we were talking about social
privacy, not protection from prosecution.


>Censorship and penny-ante, ass-covering policies do not appeal to me.

The WELL policies are there to help shape a productive environment
for the subscribers, not as a CYA measure.  Don't be too quick
to assume, merely because various bulletin board services are
requiering identification for the sysops' protection, that the
motivation is the same on the WELL.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@pangea.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: cooper@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen)
Subject: Re: Licencing of computer professionals
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:00:36 GMT

In article <9212211525@drktowr.chi.il.us>, magus@drktowr.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto) writes:

> At any rate, this breaks down into one basic argument:
> 
> Are "computer professionals" more like engineers or mathematicians?

Both, and more. Sometimes, when coding, I feel like an engineer, sometimes I
have to do difficult calculations on algorithms and feel like a mathematician,
but allways, when coding I feel like an artist, who is to deliver a binary
sculpture, and offer new insights in a problem. I think all good science
is Art, in that it needs creativity and expression of thoughts to be brought
to a good end. 

I just started teaching my girlfriend C, because she wanted to be able
to control our computer. I gave her the K&R bible, and while she didn't
understand all of it, she got on very quickly, with me helping her along.
The remarks she made during the sessions we had (and still have) were all
along the lines of "Gee, it's so logical, it's confusing"  and "Doing this
makes me feel so creative, like an artist." But she's getting the hang of it
now. I wonder if a lot of programmers feel like artists?

--Ralph
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
From: bdaniels@ssf-sys.DHL.COM (Ben Daniels)
Subject: Re: WELL anonymity policy
Organization: DHL Systems, Inc.
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:25:49 GMT

I never saw this policy as a problem because I trusted the people who
were implementing it. I thought Cliff and Tex were amazing. Just enough
organization to make it happen, and not too much to keep if from happening.

Ben

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email:  bdaniels@ssf-sys.DHL.COM
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Virus design
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 07:35:45 GMT

In article <ZmLawB1w165w@ruth.UUCP> rat@ruth.UUCP (David Douthitt) writes:

>Suppose someone wrote a virus that was BENEFICIAL?  One that spread just
>like others, but had a beneficial effect on the system.

Virus researcher Fred Cohen has theorized about such viruses. Some of his
work has appeared in the proceedings of the DPMA's annual Virus and
Computer Security conferences.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost
From: betsys@cs.umb.edu (Elizabeth Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Virus design
Date: 26 Dec 92 17:09:52 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Boston

RE: beneficial viruses.

I've heard about them too and I am not happy about the idea. If
someone has an injection to prevent or detect viruses, I would rather
pick it up, *with source code* from a known distribution point.
   The main problem is that I don't see how I could tell a "friendly"
piece of foreign software, appearing uninvited on my system, from a
time-delayed hostile piece. 
   It's hard enough making sure that software we get from a supposedly
known safe distribution point is good! Internet software is becoming
too complex, and distributions are becoming too large, for us to
simply read all code before installing it on our machines. We have
fairly sophisticated virus checkers on the PC's and MAC's, but all we
have for Unix is a system that detects changes in system files.
   I can't even imagine what a program would look like that could
distinguish between a "good" virus with code to erase "bad" ones, and
a "bad" virus with code to erase "good" files....

--
System Administrator                  Internet: betsys@cs.umb.edu
MACS Dept, UMass/Boston               Phone   : 617-287-6448
100 Morrissey Blvd                    Staccato signals
Boston, MA 02125-3393                      of constant information....
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Now Carrying
From: william.daley@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (William Daley) 
Date: 1 Jan 93 19:42:00 GMT
Reply-To: william.daley@grapevine.lrk.ar.us (William Daley) 
Distribution: world
Organization: The GrapeVine BBS *** N. Little Rock, AR *** (501) 753-8121

Hi All

              Stonehenge BBS here in Willingboro NJ
              is proud to be carrying this conference.
              Sysops: Bill & Amy Jo Daley
---
 * STONEHENGE BBS Willingboro NJ (609)871-4853 V32/V32.bis
 * PostLink(tm) v1.04  STONEHENGE (#1138) : RelayNet(tm)
                                                                                                           
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:8229 alt.amateur-comp:436 soc.culture.usa:9410 alt.activism:19963
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive]  Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 1 Jan 93 20:43:00 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan1.085628.14430@netcom.com>, 
tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney) writes...
> 
>I ran in the primary against our incumbent (12 years) democratic
>representative.  I ran what I'm told was the first on-line campaign
>using Internet, AOL, and Compuserve.
> 
>2. re: conservative viewpoint would dominate
>   My experience says no.  Well, sort of no.  Well, it's like this...
>   I received gobs of email during my campaign.  Of course, some of it
>   was quite thoughtful, and some was flaming (from rare to well done).
>   A vast amount of the flames were from people who fell into the rough
>   camp of:  All taxes are theft; almost all government is wrong; etc.
>   I don't think I would classify those as 'conservative', but perhaps
>   the conservatives I've met just hadn't flamed that way in person.

Those kinds of flames are almost identical to the kinds that I see on a 
regular basis, from people who describe themselves as 'conservative,' 
although I tend to agree with your analysis.  Perhaps they are more 
libertarian than conservative.

> 
>p.s.
>No, I didn't win the primary 
this time.  I got 11%, though.

Congratulations on that, in an election there are winners and losers, but 
we all lose if nobody is willing to face up to the establishment.
+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell.Peabody College.Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Date: 29 Dec 92 11:24:52 MST
Keywords: copyright, notice
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Distribution: inet

In article <1992Dec29.175458.25739@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>From Websters:
>] pub.lish \'p*b-lish\ \-*-b*l\ vb [ME publishen, modif. of MF publier, fr. L 
>]    publicare, fr. ]publicus 1a: to make generally known 1b: to make public 
>]    announcement of obs  2: ADVERTISE 3a: to place before the public : 
>]    DISSEMINATE 3b: to produce or release for publication; specif : PRINT 3c: 
>]    to issue the work of (an author) 1: to put out an edition 2: to have one's 
>]    work accepted for publication {a ~ing scholar} - pub.lish.able aj
>
>Was 32V published?  Under 1a, 3b(produce), and 3c.1, it seems an argument
>could be made.

"Publication" is defined in the Copyright Act of 1976 as
	the distribution of copies or phonrecords of a work
	to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership,
	or by rental, lease, or lending.

So, at least for works after the effective date of the Act, the "Websters"
(which one, since there are a number of dictionary comapnies that use the
name Webster) doesn't have any authority.

As to what is publication before the Act, a definition might be found in
the prior (1909) copyright act, since it depended highly on publication,
or in the case law of the appropriate jurisdiction.  (That might not be
California, depending on the choice of law section of the license for
32V.)