HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Organization: Wang Labs, Lowell MA, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 03:42:16 GMT
Keywords: question legal use email

c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos) writes:

> Which is what I sent; which is what 99% of the people who responded sent.

Good for you.  But you're wrong about the second part - the guy from
Gwinnett mentioned getting copies of the man page for mail, and several
people on this list have explicitly suggested mailing copies of
terminfo.src.  Talk about a waste of resources....

> Usenet has a way with abusers. Most, after seing their name trashed for 
> a while, don't repeat it; many others don't start. Some will continue.

You're missing the point.  Only newcomers will make this kind of mistake.

> In my 10 years on the net, few abusers are relative newcomers. B1FF, 
> Mutlu/Argic/Co., the Abacus guy, etc look seasoned to me. Anyone remember
> the 'what time is it?' flame wars in the mid-80's?

Yes, but this is NOT one of them.  Treat the flamelords any way you want,
but leave the poor newbies alone and they'll turn into good people.  Treating
the newcomers like seasoned assholes is exactly the wrong thing to do.

-- 
Tom Fitzgerald   Wang Labs       fitz@wang.com   "I went to the universe today;
1-508-967-5278   Lowell MA, USA                   It was closed...."
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: c.CRepin@ic.ac.UK (Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email
Organization: The Ohio State University Department of Computer and Information Science
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:57:33 GMT

While I totally disagree with the use of the Internet for commercial
advertising, I cannot understand why some people on the net seem to
have had such an over-reaction as to send <muchos-flames> back to
the originator of the email.(abacus et al.) This itself is an
abuse of networks, especially when sending back the full man pages,
ie: several megabytes. What a childish behaviour ! Someone somewhere is
paying for that ! 
I have also received the stuff from abacus@Gwinnett.com . But throughout
the years I have often received such email from a number of sources; I
just type d and read the next message. Cheapest way.

O.

-- 
Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Digital Comms. Section, Elec. Eng. Department
 Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BT, UK
       Internet/Bitnet: <ocl@ic.ac.uk> - Janet: <ocl@uk.ac.ic>
WARNING: Please send any reply to above addresses, NOT to FROM-field !!!

Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
From: gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Organization: The IBM PC User Group, UK.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:10:16 GMT

In article <1b7utuINNr8k@uwm.edu> jgd@csd4.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>Not at all.  The posting of this "noise" to a *US* network _is_ an
>internal American affair.  It may be rude, impolite, offensive, and
>a whole host of other adjectives.  But is *is* internal to us.

I beg your pardon?  "Usenet" (not the NSFNet backbone, not the CIX, not ...)
is a US-only network?  Why don't you go away for a refresher course and come
back when you've learned how the nets work...

G
-- 
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3275 news.admin.misc:95
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
From: cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Clare West)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:22:08 GMT
Organization: Dept of CompSci, U of Auckland
Keywords: question legal use email

In article <41fp=s-@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>                               Most other users can simply
>hit the "d" key or whatever their mailer uses to delete a message.

And send him an invoice for the cost as well I suppose. I know this
piece of junk mail only cost me 9 cents (+ 5 cents for the irate
reply) but if this sort of thing isn't nipped in the bud it will start
to cost me an appreciable part of my limited email budget. At least
junk mail through the post doesn't cost me personally any money.

-- 
Oh, why didn't I listen when they said "Never do a   |  cwes1@cs.aukuni.ac.nz 
 masters and try to have a life at the same time"?   |  clare west
                 BigSis to Chris, Eric and Kristiina
                    Official Welcomer of the RFA
From: anselmo@nic.near.net (Ed Anselmo)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: When should one use MX records?
Date: 9 Oct 1992 09:59:28 -0400
Organization: NEARnet, Cambridge, MA
	<Bvtt2y.94r@spock.dis.cccd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.near.net
In-reply-to: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu's message of 8 Oct 92 23:25:46 GMT

>>b: You may have trouble having a CNAME record that makes company.uk an
>>   alias for foo.company.uk.  I don't think the name server software
>>   (at least under SunOS) allows this.  However, you can have an
>>   additional A record that gives company.uk the same IP address as
>>   foo.company.uk.  If you order the A records appropriately, the
>>   primary name can be foo.company.uk, but mail will still get
>>   correctly delivered when addressed to company.uk.
>
>This is also the case for HPUX.  A CNAME to create company.uk would hang the
>resolver software.  I had to take the approach of creating an A record as
>described above.

Having foo.bar.edu be a CNAME for host.foo.bar.edu is illegal, e.g.
from rfc 1034

    The domain system provides such a feature using the canonical name
    (CNAME) RR.  A CNAME RR identifies its owner name as an alias, and
    specifies the corresponding canonical name in the RDATA section of the
    RR.  If a CNAME RR is present at a node, no other data should be
    present; this ensures that the data for a canonical name and its aliases
    cannot be different.  This rule also insures that a cached CNAME can be
    used without checking with an authoritative server for other RR types.
    
So you can't have an NS record for foo.bar.edu along with a CNAME record
for foo.bar.edu which points at host.foo.bar.edu

The options are to make the cannonical name of the host be
foo.bar.edu, with host.foo.bar.edu being a CNAME for foo.bar.edu, or
the additional A records.
From: kit@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Internet --> BITNET ?
Keywords: BITNET, Internet
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:44:30 GMT
Organization: Mankato State University

Hello,
   How can I send mail to BITNET if I have access only to Internet?
Thank you for your reply.

Kakit
From: mjo@ef2007.efhd.ford.com (Mike O'Connor)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: When should one use MX records?
Date: 8 Oct 1992 17:40:56 -0400
Organization: Not an official spokesperson for Ford Motor Co.
Reply-To: "Mike O'Connor" <mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.efhd.ford.com

In article <BvtG9B.GBo@breeze.rsre.mod.uk>
heading%hermes.mod.uk@relay.mod.uk writes:

:I'm trying to get the hang of this... Can someone explain?
:If I want to receive Internet mail, I might attach a machine
:foo.company.uk to the network, and have this as my mail address
:directly. I'd like, though, to have company.uk as my email address.
:
:Should I:
:   a) call the machine company.uk instead
:   b) have company.uk as an alias for foo.company.uk
:   c) register company.uk as a name with MX records
:        pointing to foo, then foo-backup, foo-reserve etc

I'd do b) and c).  Some mailers, like what Sun and Apollo enable by
default, don't support MX records, so it's usually a good idea for an
alias to be set up.  This is kind of in the spirit of "Be liberal in
what you accept and conservative in what you send out".  So you'd have
a machine named foo.comp.uk.  It'd have an alias to comp.uk.  Then
you'd have MX records for comp.uk pointing to foo.comp.uk,
foo-backup.comp.uk, etc.  

:When a large organisation has a "high-level" email address
:(dec.com, mitre.org, mit.edu  [though these are just guesses])
:do they usually correspond to physical machines, or to virtual
:machines with MX records?

It varies greatly.

						...Mike


-- 
 Michael J. O'Connor           |  Internet:  mjo@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com
 Ford Motor Company, OPEO      |  UUCP:      ...!{backbone}!fmsrl7!mjo
 20000 Rotunda, Bldg. 1-3001   |  Phone:     +1 (313) 248-1260
 Dearborn, MI  48121           |  Fax:       +1 (313) 323-6277
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3350 news.admin.misc:148
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:53:29 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <lamp0rr@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>>Perhaps you ought to learn something about
>>international networking before you assume it's all run from the USA.
>
>First, of course, we'd have to care.  Just as an experiment sometime,
>print out the Brian Reed's postscript maps.  Notice where about 99.9% of
>all connections anchor one end or the other.  Note the country involved.  Then
>crawl back out on your leaf and be quiet.

Do Brian Reed's maps list the international X.400 networks? BITNET/EARN?
Corporate SNA and DECnet networks? Corporate leased lines? National research
networks using non-DARPA protocols? _That_ is my point. Just because someone's
got an Internet address doesn't mean they're on the Internet - they might
be using a gateway.
From: nieland_t@kahuna.asc-yf.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: News group from cc:MAIL Products?
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:01:40 EST
Organization: USAF ASC/YF, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

Is there a newsgroup to talk about the cc:MAIL family of E-Mail products from 
Lotus?  Since cc:MAIL covers many platforms (and keeps growing) and lots of 
the issues are not platform specific I thought comp.mail would be the place to 
look. 

-- 
Ted Nieland				nieland_t@kahuna.asc-yf.wpafb.af.mil
(513) 476-4639				nieland@ted.hcst.com
Hassler Communications Systems Technology
From: hamish@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: WP Office <-> SMTP? (or MHS <-> SMTP)
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:45:43 +1300
Followup-To: comp.mail.misc
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <1992Oct06.152037.15112@sidus.ocunix.on.ca>, phill@sidus.ocunix.on.ca (Phil Linttell) writes:
> I'm looking for suggestions for gating WordPerfect Office (MS-DOS) mail to 
> Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP) mail under UNIX.  Specifically, the 
> host system is an Encore system running an 88open BCS/OCS implementation of
> UNIX.  WordPerfect Office does not appear to be scheduled to move to 88open
> in the near future (currently on SPARC and SCO; RS6000 and HP700 under 
> development).
> 
> A discussion with the WordPerfect gateway support department reveals that 
> a DOS WPO SMTP gateway is in beta and will be available 1Q93.  In the mean-

Your problems are over. Send some email to Quentin.Smart@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
and inquire about his WPO<->SMTP gateway he wrote. Its shareware, and I don't
know how much he charges for it, but it works, and I've seen it working. I've
even sent files through it from a VAX Vomit Making System running WPO, to a PC
charon gateway running SMTP.

> time, it occured to me that if I could find some information on an MHS to
> SMTP gateway for DOS, that I could use that in conjuction with the WordPerfect
> office MHS gateway.  I've already investigated an X.400 path to the Encore,
> but am looking for a lower cost solution.
> 
> So, does anyone have any suggestions on linking WPO to SMTP, I'd love to
> hear them.  I'll post a summary of responses.
> 
> TC, Phil
> -- 
> Phil Linttell,              5310 Canotek Road, Unit 16
> SCO Product Manager         Ottawa, Ontario, K1J 9N5  CANADA
> Sidus Systems, Inc.         t. 613-749-1777  f. 613-749-3850
> phill@sidus.ocunix.on.ca    "This is as real as your so-called life gets." - Q.
-- 
==============================================================================
|  Hamish Marson   <h.marson@waikato.ac.nz>                             OS/2 |
|  Programmer (n/5), School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences           | 
|  University of Waikato,                                                    |
|  Hamilton, New Zealand.                                                    |
|Disclaimer:  Anything said in this message is the personal opinion of the   |
|             finger hitting the keyboard & doesn't represent my employers   |
|             opinion in any way. (ie we probably don't agree)               |
==============================================================================
  Q. If Nuclear Tests are so safe, why don't the French do them under Paris?
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3281 news.admin.misc:100
From: frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca (Steve Frampton)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:26:34 GMT
Reply-To: frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca
Organization: Vicuna Systems, Kingston, ON (613) 547-5066
Content-Type: text

Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond <ocl@ic.ac.uk> writes:

> While I totally disagree with the use of the Internet for commercial
> advertising, I cannot understand why some people on the net seem to
> have had such an over-reaction as to send <muchos-flames> back to
> the originator of the email.(abacus et al.) This itself is an
> abuse of networks, especially when sending back the full man pages,
> ie: several megabytes. What a childish behaviour ! Someone somewhere is
> paying for that ! 

Exactly!  That's what is so odious about junk e-mail ... people are
paying to receive it!  This means the people receiving them are subsidizing
100% of the stinker's advertising costs!

I'd bet [for the most part] the people who reacted most strongly were 
probably UUCP sites who pay substantial amounts of money for UUNET or
long-distance costs and *don't* like weasels sending out advertising
that ends up costing the *recipient*.

> I have also received the stuff from abacus@Gwinnett.com . But throughout
> the years I have often received such email from a number of sources; I
> just type d and read the next message. Cheapest way.

According to this thread, large amounts of disturbing traffic (man pages,
etc...) were sent out in retaliation.  This is *no* better than the
junk mail -- but IMHO a flood of "to-the-point" nasty notes directed at 
the perpetrator will (a) educate them, and (b) hopefully prevent future
generations of weasels from doing something similiar.

Oh -- and no, I never received the note from Abacus (and they can thank
their lucky stars for that!  :-) ), and no, I never sent them hate-mail.
But after reading this thread for several days I saw no one mention the 
(very obvious) subsidization issue.

+-----------------------------------------------+
| Steve Frampton - frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca | 
+-----------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3331 news.admin.misc:133
From: ag129@cus.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:55:53 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <r+kpc!+@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>(I write:)
>>corporate business over research segments of the Internet, because they
                          ---------------------------------  (my emphasis)

>There he goes with that "we" crap again.  What is it with a few of you
>Brits that you think you're involved in internal American affairs?

So the posting of commercial advertising over British, Dutch, Italian,
Swedish and Australian academic networks (and probably everyone else's
as well) is an "internal American affair"?
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc
From: hamjavar@carina.unm.edu (Farid Hamjavar)
Subject: thankx
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 07:25:49 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque



Hello :

Thankx to the following who responded to my question in regard to
pine.vs.elm :

From: ph10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Philip Hazel)
From: Barbara Vaughan <bvaughan@lotka.princeton.edu>
From: "Dean.Roth" <Dean.Roth@mixcom.mixcom.com>
From: "T. Scott Thompson" <thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu>
boucher%asimov@revcan.rct.ca
From: dboyes@is.rice.edu (David E Boyes)
From: gatech!david.wheaton.edu!bob@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Bob)



Farid Hamjavar
...the simplest form is the highest form.
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3277 news.admin.misc:97
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: 7 Oct 92 13:00:28 GMT
Organization: Gwinnett Computer Services, Atlanta(Duluth), GA

In article <1992Oct06.203204.2272@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.132329.12271@Gwinnett.COM> todd@Gwinnett.COM (Todd Reese) writes:
>>I don't think that I or anybody up the ladder of connection sites should
>>have been climbed on for Abacus' error. A simple note to me to alert of the 
>>problem would have been a better first step.  BTW,  I stopped the problem 
>>as soon as I found out about it.  There were many email's left to go out, 
>>not any more.
>
>While I did report that people over-reacted, I did not excuse a blind
>E-mailing of this type, which seemed to have no direction.  Your message
>indicates it wasn't you who did it.   How did it get done?  Who actually
>thought that mailing to random E-mail collected from the net was a good
>idea?  Does the person still work there?

They(Abacus) were quite agressive to broadcast across the net before learning
about the net itself.  I explained to them the net and how to use it, of
course, this did not sink in.  They purchased acounts both on this machine
and a domain to their dos box in Florida.  The account here was for them
to scan the USENET newsgroups to see what is in there.  They set up an
alias for smail and scaned in the address from the news spool.  The rest
is history.  Best I could tell, only 2500 messages went out, I caught about
13000 still in the que.  All this was done from Abacus in Florida.  Anything
that they do now from my machine will have to go through me first.

-- 
Todd Reese                  | todd@Gwinnett.COM
Gwinnett Computer Services  | {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!todd
Atlanta(Duluth), GA         | 
(404) 623 - 6374            |
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
From: dhd@exnet.co.uk (Damon)
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Organization: ExNet Systems Ltd Public Access News, London, UK
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:03:55 GMT

In article <gamp2nr@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>>I'm not happy with the ethics that are implied by making this sort of
>>inspection routine at large numbers of sites, to say nothing of the
>>cost in lost time and productivity.  Is this really what people want?
>
>No, it is simply that a number of people feel compelled to try and tell
>others what to do.  It is the same compulsion that on a governmental level
>results in stupid laws.  Fortunately there is no practical enforcement 
>mechanism on the net whereby someone can play "boss".

Well John, much as I hotly dispute the bit about `usually with a .uk in
the name' about people complaining...  (We could conduct a scientific
study!  NEW, the NET WHINGE(R) SURVEY...  B^>), the bit about people on
a (futile) power thing is true.  Many of the whiners turn out to be
academics who don't actually pay anything for the service (we pay out
of our taxes!) but think the commerical people *owe* them a living.

I pay by the byte too, usually several times over for some of the news
traffic, because I like to give my neighbours backup routes for
robustness, but I take that as part of the package.  If it gets
excessive I may pull the plug or hike my rates to compensate.  I think
the risk is low.  No higher than us getting another Labour government
which puts the top marginal rate of tax up to 98% again (and my rate up
to 50% from 25%)  B^>

I write it off to serendipity.

Damon
-- 
Damon Hart-Davis | Tel/Fax: +44 81 755 0077 |1.28|| Cheap Sun eqpt available.
Internet: dhd@exnet.co.uk | Also: Damon@ed.ac.uk || Mail/news feeds available.
--------------------------+----------------------++---------------------------
Public access UNIX (Suns), news and mail for #5 per month.  FIRST MONTH FREE.
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3333 news.admin.misc:134
From: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Subject: Re: Still trying to get to Fidonet
Organization: Brandeis University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:54:12 GMT

conwell@fc.hp.com (Conwell Dickey) writes:
>Bill Dickey (dickey@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com) wrote:
>: 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.  

Fidonet addresses are of the form:
  Full.Name@[pPOINT.]fNODE.nNET.zZONE.fidonet.org
Where the original address was Full Name at ZONE:NET/NODE.POINT
If the recipient is not on a point, simply omit the point part from
the address, and use fxxx.nxxx.zx.fidonet.org.  The address you're
showing above has a point, but not a node.  That shouldn't work.  If
you mean to send to 1:3400/17, then use an f instead of the p.  If you
mean to send to point 17 at some node on net 1:3400, then you forgot
the node number (the f part).

Good luck, and read the Internetworking Mail Guide.

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
  --  WBRS (BRiS)  --  WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu  WBRS@brandeis.bitnet
 FidoNet: Ofer Inbar on 1:101/310  --  Ofer.Inbar@f310.n101.z1.fidonet.org
 The Boston Computer Society IBM PC User Group TBBS, (617) 332-5584
Xref: sparky comp.mail.misc:3272 news.admin.misc:93
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc,news.admin.misc
Subject: Re: Question about unsolicited Internet Email.
Keywords: question legal use email
Date: 7 Oct 92 08:02:53 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

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.

First thing, Todd, I think it was a bad mistake to interject yourself/your
company in this.  By acting as censor and editor, you remove any hope
of ever being protected as a common carrier against illegal traffic 
passing through your site.  Unless you want to filter everything, you
have to let it all go through.  You should have handled any complaint
against your client out of band and NOT messed with the mail flow
unless it physically affected your system.

>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

Surely you don't think it had either effect, do you?  You don't REALLY
think malicious mailbombing does anything except make people mad, do you?
Since the mailer's original actions are perfectly legal while malicious 
retalliation can constitute any number of criminal offences here in
the US, someone victimized by this mailbombing who chooses to be
agressive could cause a lot of people a lot of problems.

The proper way to handle junk mail is simply to delete it.  What's so 
hard about that?

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine (TM) |
Marietta, Ga                         |Interested in high tech and computers? 
jgd@dixie.com                        |Write me about PE Magazine
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: comp.mail.misc