HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 10:15:37 -0800
From: henry@ads.com (Henry Mensch)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Email to Genie
Reply-To: henry@ads.com
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 900, Message 13 of 14

andy@homebase.vistachrome.com (Andy Finkenstadt) wrote:

> ....  In addition much of the mail that I answer in my duties on
> GEnie (see .signature) thanks us for making this low-cost service
> available for the one or two times they have to send mail per month.

You've not been paying attention to the others who point out that the
pricing is *way* out of proportion with other similar internet-based
services.

> GEnie offers a much more liberal electronic mail policy than either of
> CompuServe or Prodigy: $4.95 per month covers ALL the GEnie Mail you
> can eat, plus access to 100 other of the Basic services.  

Compuserve has a similar monthly-fee-for-many-services-and-email
scheme.


# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc.  / <henry@ads.com>
From: Joe.Bergstein@p501.f544.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bergstein)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Ringing My Own Phone (in Area 716)
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:43:18 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 904, Message 11 of 14

In a message on 06 Dec. '92, Malcolm Slaney commented about users
requesting ring back numbers and wrote:

> ... and operators are always glad to ring you back.

Not everywhere!  In many locations they aren't supposed to do this, or
will do this only with a charge on your bill of one dollar or more.
That's probably why so many readers want to know what the "freebie"
ring back numbers and codes are.
From: nolan@tssi.com (Michael Nolan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Email to Genie
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:09:48 GMT
Reply-To: nolan@tssi.com
Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc.
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 900, Message 12 of 14

news@cbnews.att.com writes:

> Don't like some Genie user? How about FTP mailing them the X11
> sources ...

> Gary W. Sanders (N8EMR)   gary.w.sanders@att.com		
> AT&T Bell Labs   614-860-5965 

I'm not an attorney, nor do I play one on the net, but since letter
bombing someone like this would likely require either forging the ftp
request or deliberately inserting a Reply-To: header, it would seem
that it might leave a 'smoking gun' which could be used in a CRIMINAL
prosecution.

One possible criminal charges would be 'Theft of Service' (from
GEnie), and I think this would fall under the Nebraska 'computer
crime' statutes.

I don't know if the Nebraska laws would have jurisdiction, but other
states have similar laws these days.  Since interstate telephone lines
would be involved, it could also get the FBI into the case.  Wire
fraud, perhaps?

Cliff Stoll may have had a lot of problems getting people interested
in his 75 cent theft; I don't know if someone ftpmailing the X11
sources would be so 'lucky'.

Further, if the actual sender could be verified, actions against that
person's site could be taken by the Backbone Cabal.


Mike Nolan   nolan@tssi.com, dbms@genie.geis.com
(Disclaimer -- I am the Database RoundTable SysOp on GEnie, and an assistant 
on the Unix RT, which provides a lot of support to GEnie's Internet users.)


[Moderator's Note: But what about a situation where there is no
forgery and is no attempt to hide the originator of the mail? In other
words, suppose I go to the ftp site, pull all those files, bring them
back to my site and prepare them as email to you. I then mail one or
more items of mail (as the size limitations of the network permit) to
you -- on GEnie, or CIS or wherever you get mail and have to pay for
it -- with a cover note saying, "Mike, I thought this was some very
interesting stuff and hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did ..." 

There has been no theft of service -- anyone can use an anonymous ftp
site and pull to their heart's content. There has further been no
theft of service since GEnie/CIS/whoever and the Internet have an
agreement for the exchange of email. As an Internet user, I get it
free without any requirement that I ask permission before availing
myself of the service; therefore by definition I can't 'steal' it. 
There has been no false representation as to the sender since I signed
my name correctly and let the email software correctly identify me as
it passed my 'correspondence' to you through the networks involved. 
How would this be stopped without banning all 'unsolicited' email,
which would be a catch-22 since then no one could write anyone without
that person writing them first, an 'illegal' activity?  :)  Or would
there be some standard of value against which the email was measured?  PAT]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:47:14 GMT
From: tim@ais.org (Tim Tyler)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: UMCC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 3 of 18

Exte extended the 15 DEC 92 deadline for committment from investors two
months, to a new deadline of 15 FEB 92.


Tim Tyler              Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735 
P.O. Box 443           C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Ypsilanti MI  48197    Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:31:54 GMT
From: pschleck@cwis.unomaha.edu (Paul W Schleck KD3FU)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Questions About Scanner Laws
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 910, Message 3 of 11

whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:

> Some minor corrections should be noted to the following:

> TELECOM Moderator noted:

>> It is illegal to listen to those frequencies, or in the event they
>> are tuned accidentally to acknowledge any transmission overheard.

> Agreed, and that has been the case for several years as a resuilt of
> the ECPA, not the new scanner law.

And it should also be strongly emphasized that the Communications Act
of 1934 (Ammended) already made illegal the use or dissemination of
information intercepted from most radio communications for criminal
purposes or other personal gain, and the ECPA does little or nothing
to add teeth to these provisions.  (Broadcast, and other specific
hobbyist-type services are exempted, of course).

Is everyone aware of a number of other frequencies covered under the
ECPA (mostly high UHF and microwave common-carriers) that most
manufacturers of scanners (including Realistic) still receive, and
this new legislation does nothing to address this fact?  Could this
new legislation reflect a concern over premature obsolescence of the
cellular physical plant due to increased pressure to implement
encryption, rather than any concerns for our personal privacy or more
effective enforcement of existing law?

I'd be interested in seeing how this legislation affects service
monitors and other calibration equipment for cellular phones, or the
reception of cellular frequencies for the purpose of tracking down
interference (explicitly permitted under the ECPA).

Digest readers might want to note that no one has ever been charged
with (or even successfuly prosecuted for) violations of the ECPA.
Even cases of extreme predatory monitory of cellular phone (such as
the monitoring of Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder) can be effectively
addressed with existing legislation, including the Communications Act
of 1934 and various federal wiretapping statutes.

But I'm sure Pat doesn't want to renew the whole ECPA argument all
over again :-).


Paul W. Schleck  pschleck@unomaha.edu


[Moderator's Note: No, I really don't feel like another spate of ECPA
pro and con ... it is a no-win situation, like Caller-ID messages. You
do raise a curious point though about service monitoring. Obviously
the monitors listen with the express purpose of benefitting from what
they hear, namely the improvement of the service or the correction of
problems which have developed. I wonder if they are exempt under those
limited circumstances from the 'do not act on or benefit from' rules
regarding overheard radio transmissions?  PAT]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 12:12:28 EST
From: dave@eram.esi.com.au (Dave Horsfall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Iridium Global Satelite Mobile Communications Network
Organization: Pacific ESI, Sydney, AUSTRALIA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 1 of 18

Last I heard, they wound the number back to 66 (from the original 77)
for cost reasons.  I guess this means they'll now have to call it
"Dysprosium" :-)


Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU)         VK2KFU @ VK2RWI.NSW.AUS.OC
dave@esi.COM.AU                ...munnari!esi.COM.AU!dave
From: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Dave Leibold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: NTT Science (or Science Fiction?) Venture
Date: 12 Dec 92 07:10:38 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 900, Message 3 of 14

The Dow Jones news service (by way of {The Globe and Mail}) reported
that a Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT) subsidiary, Advanced Film
Technology, will offer a $725 000 (USD) science kit that purports to
be an apparatus for "cold fusion" experiments. The kit comes complete
with vacuum chamber, sensing equipment, and a how-to guide on making
your very own cold fusion experiments.

NTT researcher Eiichi Yamaguchi claims to have successfully set up a
"cold fusion" reaction last month. Theoretically, a workable cold
fusion process will generate vast amounts of energy using cheap raw
materials.  


Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98 
INTERNET: Dave.Leibold@f730.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 17:00:14 EDT
From: Richard Budd <BUDD@CSPGAS11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Radio Stations in Prague
Organization: CSAV UTIA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 912, Message 5 of 15

I heard today about a survey that Prague has the greatest volume of FM
stations in Europe.  Depending on who I ask or what I read, there are
between 19 and 25 radio stations in town.  The selection on FM in the
evening is the best I ever have experienced outside of midtown
Manhattan.
 
This is a far cry from my first visit to Prague almost 16 years ago
when the radio in the hotel room was fixed on one station.  You would
hear either martial music or fifteen minute harangues in a language,
of course, I could not understand.
 
Today, in addition to the stations belonging to Voice of America,
British Broadcasting Corp, and Deutsche Welle, there appear to be a
plethora of small private local stations, most who play popular music
both by English-speaking performers as well as local Czech bands.  The
four I see most often advertised on posters and bumper stickers are
BON-TON Radio, Europa-2 Praha, Prague 101.5, and 98-KISS FM.  That's
right, 98-KISS FM.  No relation to its namesake in New York City
though I must believe the common names are not coincidence.  The
Prague version plays AOR type music from current bands with a bit of
60s pop thrown in.  When I get back from Christmas vacation in the
Tatras, I'll try to do an informal survey for the Digest.
 
There's also a classical station for those with PAT's tastes in music.
A lot of Mozart - this was Wolfgang Amadeus's home away from Vienna,
as well as Dvorak, Smetana, and other 19th Century Czech composers.
From: telecom (TELECOM Moderator)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Administrivia: Issue 904 Went Astray
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:27:29 GMT
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 905, Message 5 of 5

Thanks to the 235 of you who wrote me to say that Issue 904 arrived
without any contents. It left here with contents, but in the process
of going through sendmail there came back a message saying "/var: out
of space, no room to write file".  That particular invocation of
sendmail droned on through the night here, stumbling around and
causing that out of space message to show up over and over.

So, I resent the whole thing about an hour ago. Hopefully everyone has
it now. It was no trouble on the comp.dcom.telecom side of things, so
I did not re-issue it there.

For next: to the several of you who have suggested I should break up
MCI Mail's delivery into either single mailings or (as one person
suggested) several little mailings with a few names each, the answer
is NO!  I will not do that.  I am not going to impose further on
eecs.nwu.edu and the staff here. I am already one of the largest (if
not the largest) user(s) of mail and network resources at this site.
Either MCI Mail makes the changes needed or I drop that part of the
mailing list.


PAT
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 15:07:52 CST
From: sisklb@Texaco.COM (Linden B. Sisk)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 909, Message 3 of 12

Kevin C. Castner (kevinc@ups.com) wrote:

> My understanding is that it is illegal to scan the frequencies used by
> the cellular carriers (or at least against FCC reqs), as well as the
> frequencies used by cordless phones (49.7 MHz, but don't quote me on
> that).

It is NOT illegal to monitor the 49 MHz frequencies used by cordless
phones.  In fact, the Internal Revenue Service has publically
announced that it is their policy to do precisely that, in order to
secure information for use in tax fraud cases.  One should assume that
anything one says on a cordless phone is being monitored, by your
neighbors if not by anyone else.  There is NO security on a cordless
phone.


Linden B. (Lindy) Sisk        | Voice: +1-713-432-3294   Ham: AK5N
Research Electrical Engineer  | Fax:   +1-713-432-6908 Bix: lbsisk
Texaco, Inc.  P.O. Box 425    | MCIMail: lbsisk    CIS: 72047,2645
Bellaire, TX 77402-0425       |        Internet: sisklb@texaco.com
From: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: X.25 Switch Vendor Info Please
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:02:44 GMT
Reply-To: jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 911, Message 5 of 9

A foreign company would like to purchase a few small X.25 switches
from an US company. I am collecting information for them.

All I need is the names, locations, and possibly phone numbers of the
companies that you know of having such a product. Your help is greatly
appreciated.


Jason Chen   jchen@ctt.bellcore.com
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 22:55:42 EST
From: rpress@bizhost.wariat.org (Richard Pressl)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Rumor: Any Substance to It?
Organization: CMDA, Euclid, OH
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 1 of 11

Late today I heard of a rather disquieting occurance which I have
every reason to beleive is true, and which has ominious implications
for BBS Sysops who handle the new evaluation copy of Telix, contained
in the archives: TLX320-1 thru 4.ZIP.

A local Sysop was called by a person identifying himself as Jeff
Woods, the new owner of deltaComm, the company which bought the rights
to Telix. Woods informed the Sysop that the Telix files on his system
violated the distribution agreement because the stored archives did
not contain all the files, and the AV stamp distributed in the
original.  Woods further warned the Sysop that he, Woods, would bring
legal action against the BBS if the copies were not removed.

Since I was the person who uploaded the archives, minutes after
getting it from the deltaComm BBS, without changing anything, I am a
bit concerned. Apparently the BBS I uploaded the archives to scans the
incoming files, and appends their own AV stamp, overwriting the
deltaComm AV stamp.

After running a PC BBS for over six years, I have never come across
this kind of behavior by a Shareware author/firm, and wish to obtain
either a refutation of this from Jeff Woods, or acknowledgement of the
accuracy of it, so I may respond accordingly.

Thus I am writing this note to receive a response from anyone directly
related to this matter.


Thanks,

PS: Private email would be preferred

rpress@bizhost.wariat.org     Fido 1:157/562
Richard Pressl: Commercial Micro Data Analysts: UCC-OC, Cleveland
SysOp: Bizhost BBS: +1 216 731 4769   Searchlight/Waffle/HST-DS


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps if this message reaches Mr. Woods' attention
he will favor us all with a response. It might be interesting.   PAT]
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:16:47 GMT
From: sbarber@panix.com (Steve Barber)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Organization Warns Lawyers Against Using Cellular Phones
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 7 of 15

The {ABA Journal}, about a year and a half ago, had an article warning
lawyers about the risks of interception of wireless and cellular
telephone conversations.  It's not just adverse evidence that is the
problem (though that is a *BIG* problem).  There is also the issue of
attorney-client privilege.  This evaporates when an attorney knew or
reasonably should have known that third parties could overhear the
conversation.  Breach of attorney-client confidentiality can be an
ethical violation as well.  There is also the issue of potential legal
malpractice, since the attorney again reasonable should have known
that these conversations may be intercepted, though I know of no
incidents where an attorney has been held liable for this -- yet!

Regarding the introduction of illegally made cellular telephone
recordings as evidence in a criminal case, there is no blanket ban on
this.  Exclusion of such evidence is premised upon deterrence of
illegal police conduct.  Therefore, if the police did not themselves
make or indirectly encourage the recording, the deterrence rationale
does not apply, and there would be no exclusion of the evidence.
Illegally-made evidence is introduced all the time, for example,
cocaine in a drug bust.  If a law enforcement officer were to receive
an unsolicited tape of a cellular telephone conversation in the mail,
there would be no exclusion, assuming the tape met other evidentiary
standards (like relevance).

Heh.  Can you tell I've been studying for my criminal procedure final?


Steve Barber   sbarber@panix.com
Date: 16 Dec 1992 10:38 MST  
From: stapleton@bpavms.bpa.arizona.edu (Dr. Ross Alan Stapleton)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Fly-by-Phone
Organization: University of Arizona MIS Department
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 907, Message 5 of 11

The following crazy idea came up the other day, and I figured this
forum would best know the answers as to whether or not it would be
technically feasible: Would it be possible to control a large model
airplane via cellular telephone, i.e., put a cellular telephone on a
plane along with a gray scale camera and some sort of processing to do
data crunching, and then fly it from a terminal attached to anywhere
Ma Bell (or her offspring) might reach?  My first reaction was that
the bandwidth would be too low, given that videophones even running
over ISDN are no prize, but then again you could crank down the
contrast, perform data compression, use linear predictive coding,
etc., to try to mash down the necessary bits.  Obviously it could be
done if you were willing to fly sloooooow enough ;-) but what sorts of
communications performance could you reasonably hope to achieve?  And
how good is scene compression?


Ross   stapleton@mis.arizona.edu
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:40:09 GMT
From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Other Bitnet Servers
Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 18 of 18

rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes:

>> If both these options are too much trouble, then I have to question
>> whether they really want to communicate with us.

>> [Moderator's Note: In the above example, 'user@system.bitnet' works
>> just fine from here at Northwestern.  PAT]

In article <telecom12.903.15@eecs.nwu.edu> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> I have certainly had no trouble for years addressing mail to
> user@system.bitnet. Perhaps you might want to check your local
> system's mailer and transport agent and find out why only you seem to
> have this difficulty.

Addresses ending in .UUCP and .BITNET are not SUPPOSED to work from
the Internet. The reason is simple: They are not legal domain names.

On the other hand, it is trivial to "fix" either /etc/sendmail.cf or
the Domain Name Server so that all mail to addresses ending in .BITNET
is sent to CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU and all mail to whatever.UUCP is sent to
UUNET.UU.NET, and smart system managers do this as a courtesy to their
users. It is, however, politically impossible to have this done at the
root of the domain name server tree so that is can be available to
everyone.


Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer	Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM
CMC Network Products / Rockwell Int'l	Telephone: +1-805-968-4262	
Santa Barbara, CA 93117-3083		TeleFAX:   +1-805-968-8256
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992  17:46:42 EST
From: Roger Fajman <RAF@CU.NIH.GOV>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Inter-NPA Local Dialing
Organization: TELECOM Digest
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 908, Message 11 of 18

> I'm in the process of writing a modem dialer, and I have the following
> question: is there any place in the US where an inter-areacode local
> call must be dialed as a 10-digit call, and where 1 + ten digits won't
> work?

On many PBXs long distance calls are prefixed with a digit other than
1.  On ours here it's 8.  I encountered one last week that used 5.


Roger Fajman                     Telephone:  +1 301 402 1246
National Institutes of Health    BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA          Internet:   RAF@CU.NIH.GOV
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 06:22:10 EST
From: Craig Evans <CRAIG@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Cellular Tinkering?
Organization: Harvard University - Offc for Info Tech
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 12, Issue 903, Message 3 of 15

Barry Lustig replied:

> I just called Nokia down in Clearwater, FL (813-536-5553).  They
> said that there is no possibility of adding a car adapter kit to the
> Model 101.  The six contacts on the bottom of the phone are for the
> desktop charger and for the cigarette lighter charger.

Of course!  Call the manufacturer!! %-) Well, I did too.  They
mentioned they have just released the Nokia 121 which will have a car
adapter at some point.  (This explains why I got such a deal on the
101.)  A customer service rep checked with some techs and told me that
the other four contacts (there are only two contacts in the desktop
charger) are for techs to use when doing diagnostics.  As she didn't
sound confident I am not yet convinced.

If I find out anything different I'll post it.

Thanks for your help,


Craig