davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) (11/30/88)
I am posting two pieces of email received by Nancy Gould. I am doing this on my own, and without her permission (Nancy has already made it public on the net that she received such email). Since I believe in the privacy rights of those who send email, no matter how disgusting it is, I have deleted any reference to user id's, or the senders' names. However, I have kept enough of the headers, including the machines from which the email was sent and transported through, and the message id's of the email, that I hope any of the respective system administrators will be able to identify the sender of the email and take whatever he or she feels is appropriate action. I have enclosed the two pieces of email inside of asterisks. ************************************************************************** >From [deleted]@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu Wed Nov 23 14:35:11 1988 Received: from W20-575-37.MIT.EDU by osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (5.59/2.0) id AA19155; Wed, 23 Nov 88 14:34:35 EST Date: Wed, 23 Nov 88 14:34:35 EST From: [deleted]@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu Message-Id: <8811231934.AA19155@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> Apparently-To: nmg Status: RO FUCK OFF, YOU JEWISH BITCH!! ************************************************************************** ************************************************************************** >From [deleted]@vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu Wed Nov 23 13:27:33 1988 Received: from unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu by osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (5.59/2.0) id AA16515; Wed, 23 Nov 88 13:27:29 EST Received: by unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (5.54/6.30) id AA28784; Wed, 23 Nov 88 13:28:19 EST Message-Id: <8811231828.AA28784@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 88 13:27 EST From: [deleted]@vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu Subject: Re; The Good, the Bad, and the Stupid (LONG) To: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.EDU X-Vms-To: IN%"nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu" Status: RO Eat shit, Nancy. [deleted] ************************************************************************** One more thing. While I no longer have it, I recieved a similar piece of email from machine vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu, although I no longer remember if it came from the same individual. -- David Makowsky (312) 979 - 6211 UUCP: att!ihlpa!davidm ARPANET/INTERNET: davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM BITNET, try: davidm%ihlpa@att.arpa or davidm%ihlpa@research.att.com Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. Sharing requires written permission!
rsvp@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (R. Scott V. Paterson) (11/30/88)
In article <10676@ihlpa.ATT.COM> davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) writes: >>From [deleted]@vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu Wed Nov 23 13:27:33 1988 >Received: from unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu by osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (5.59/2.0) > id AA16515; Wed, 23 Nov 88 13:27:29 EST >Received: by unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (5.54/6.30) > id AA28784; Wed, 23 Nov 88 13:28:19 EST >Message-Id: <8811231828.AA28784@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu> >Date: Wed, 23 Nov 88 13:27 EST >From: [deleted]@vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu >Subject: Re; The Good, the Bad, and the Stupid (LONG) >To: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.EDU >X-Vms-To: IN%"nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu" >Status: RO > >Eat shit, Nancy. > >[deleted] I agree that this is a complete abuse of the network and that the sender should have his/her net privileges revoked, but does this piece of mail really represent 'bigoted, racist' mail? I think this piece of mail merely shows that lack of any significant understanding of the exchange of ideas and constructive criticism. This person displays a lack of intelligence by resorting to simple profanity, but it does not seem that it is aimed at Nancy's gender, race, or religion...etc... It's a ridiculous attempt to disagree. Respectfully, -rsvp e a t this, news server :->
art@buengc.BU.EDU (A. R. Thompson) (12/01/88)
In article <10676@ihlpa.ATT.COM> davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) writes: > > I am posting two pieces of email received by Nancy Gould. >I am doing this on my own, and without her permission (Nancy has >already made it public on the net that she received such email). > Since I believe in the privacy rights of those who send >email, no matter how disgusting it is, I have deleted any reference >to user id's, or the senders' names. However, I have kept enough >of the headers, including the machines from which the email was >sent and transported through, and the message id's of the email, >that I hope any of the respective system administrators will be >able to identify the sender of the email and take whatever he or >she feels is appropriate action. It's truly unfortunate that you chose to delete the names of the senders of this disgusting and cowardly trash. They deserve to be publicly exposed. I don't see how their privacy rights in any way should be invoked to protect them from the scorn they so richly deserve. Further, by deleting the names of the senders and leaving their posting addresses you have inadvertently called into question the behavior of all who post from those machines. In the interests of fairness to the decent people at ohio-state.edu and pittsburgh.edu you should have released the names of those who would hide such bigotry behind the cover of ill conceived privacy rights so as not to tar these people with the same brush.
skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) (12/01/88)
In article <10676@ihlpa.ATT.COM> davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) cites an
instance of abusive email.
It is my guess that most women on the net who have gotten involved in any
substantial debate have received an almost identical piece of mail. The
ethnic aspersion may be left out, but there's usually some other adjective
in its place.
Some of the mail has been even more threatening.
Perhaps it is not something restricted to women; I don't know.
[For some reason, the "eat shit" letter doesn't bother me as much as the
other--I don't know why.]
--
=============================================================================
-Trish "We're forced to begin
in the midst of the hardest movement..."
skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu -A. Richdavidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) (12/01/88)
It seems that Nancy Gould has been struck again. I will post this
one also. I am going to keep the user id on this one since it is
obviously contrived. In someone elses posting, the user id in
another piece of email from the same person (I believe) was
exposed. Here it is:
**************************************************************************
>From aryan@youth.nazi Wed Nov 30 16:51:58 1988
Received: from M34-501-3.MIT.EDU by osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (5.59/2.0)
id AA03838; Wed, 30 Nov 88 16:50:44 EST
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 88 16:50:44 EST
From: aryan@youth.nazi
Message-Id: <8811302150.AA03838@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu>
Apparently-To: nmg
Status: R
Well, it seems like you did not get the message.
Here it goes again....
FUCK OFF, YOU JEWISH BITCH!!!
GO KILL YOURSELF, WILL YOU?
Thank you.
**************************************************************************
Does anyone know if the message id can be used to trace the origins
of the email?
--
David Makowsky (312) 979 - 6211
UUCP: att!ihlpa!davidm ARPANET/INTERNET: davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM
BITNET, try: davidm%ihlpa@att.arpa or davidm%ihlpa@research.att.com
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. Sharing requires written permission!gandalf@csli.STANFORD.EDU (Juergen Wagner) (12/01/88)
How about NOT cross-posting this to ten different newsgroups. I certainly do agree that the more than stupid person(s) sending the offensive pieces of mail should be dealt with (that goes beyond the right of free speech), but I don't see why you don't pick one (like news.admin or comp.mail.misc) to address that. --- -- Juergen Wagner gandalf@csli.stanford.edu wagner@arisia.xerox.com
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (12/01/88)
In article <10704@ihlpa.ATT.COM> davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) writes: >It seems that Nancy Gould has been struck again. I will post this >one also.... [obscene hate mail posted] This is rather interesting. For about a year on a BBS in Ann Arbor called m-net, I received similar hate mail. Coincidentally the mail I received had identical wording. Mine was from somebody who called himself Scott Renner. A few months back somebody named Scott Renner started posting articles to soc.women. Although these articles were from a different site, they appeared to express similar (if more subtly worded) sentiments regarding women, and I assumed it was the same Scott Renner. I was told it was a different person, but, of course, I have no evidence one way or the other. Supposing that some of the *actual* fascist Nazi youth were into computers and belonged to the *actual* national fascist computer network started by Louis Beam some years back. It would then be more than likely that they would have computer accounts all over the country, would be interested in learning how to send mail that couldn't be traced, and would share accounts and information with each other. Now it is quite possible that this is one lone nut, due to the identical wording and method of operation, but since there *are* organized fascist Nazi youth groups and at least one organized national fascist computer network, it is equally possible that it is part of a concerted attempt to discourage women and other minorities from participating in Usenet discussions. If the latter, it appears to be working very well, as participation by women has never reflected the actual percentage of women with access at large sites, and has not increased as would be expected with the influx of women into computing over the years. One woman posted to soc.women a while back that women who post should "expect" to be subjected to obscene hate mail. That alone might discourage professional women from posting, since it might conflict with their academic and career expectations. Some site administrators have insisted that since they are privately owned sites, they have an absolute right to transmit personal obscene attacks or anything else they wish. My objection to this is that while they own their own machines, they do not own the machines at other sites, such as large corporations, government installations, and universities that carry Usenet and UUCP mail, but are federally subsidized or otherwise subject to anti-discrimination laws. While it might be the right of a bigot to attack somebody on the basis of race, religion, sex, or other discriminatory factor on their own machine, I do not believe it is their right to subject large sites to possible loss of federal subsidies for sponsoring a discriminatory activity. If Usenet and UUCP mail are actually totally beyond the control of site administrators, it is possible that many large sites will not be able to continue afford the risk of subsidizing an activity they cannot control and that could subject them to possible loss of federal subsidies, contracts, or other penalties. Freedom of speech implies the corresponding freedom not to have to listen to things we don't want to hear. If I get hate mail through the post office, I can ask them not to deliver mail from that sender or address in the future, and if traced, the sender can be subject to federal penalties. I can turn off radio or tv shows I don't wish to be subjected to. I can refuse to buy books, records, or magazines I find offensive. I can have the phone company put a trap on my phone and trace harassing phone calls. But I have no way to protect myself from hate mail on Usenet, other than to simply not participate. When the ground rules are: You will be subject to discrimination, harassment, denigration, death threats, and intimidation, and your only alternative is not to use the system if you are female, Jewish, or a member of another minority group, the system itself is, by definition, discriminatory, as there is no possible way a person can participate on equal terms if they belong to a historically discriminated against group. Laughing it off as a joke, attempting to discredit anyone who complains, and other tired old tactics, have been tried too often to convince a court that something is not serious when it is. If it weren't serious, we wouldn't need laws. Too many women have been attacked this way for it to be seen as just a joke or "merely free speech." It is a discriminatory condition that creates a hostile environment, intimidates women, and prevents women from participating on equal terms. The problem is not whom to sue, but who doesn't want to run the risk of being sued. Most major sites probably won't want to subsidize any discriminatory activity they cannot control. For those who are concerned about the survival of Usenet, I've said this before and I'll say it again. If Usenet continues to be a discriminatory activity with severely limited female participation due to harassment and intimidation, it doesn't deserve to survive. Unless it can be open to everyone on equal terms, without regard to race, sex, religion, or other personal factors, it has failed in the purpose for which it was created, and other attempts must be made to create a more democratic system with more open and equal access for everyone. Bigots have the right to express their views, but they cannot walk into your university, corporation, or government facility and denigrate somebody on the basis of discriminatory factors because the *site* would be held responsible, not just the bigot. You are legally as responsible for your computers as you are for your physical premises. --Mark
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/01/88)
skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) writes:
Some of the mail has been even more threatening.
Perhaps it is not something restricted to women; I don't know.
By no means. I have received vulgar, threatening email from time to
time; but never with a pattern such as has developed here.
--Karljlc@wucfua.wustl.edu (Roving UIUC CS Grad Student) (12/02/88)
In article <1548@buengc.BU.EDU> art@buengc.bu.edu (A. R. Thompson) writes: >In article <10676@ihlpa.ATT.COM> davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) writes: >> >> I am posting two pieces of email received by Nancy Gould. >>I am doing this on my own, and without her permission (Nancy has >>already made it public on the net that she received such email). >> Since I believe in the privacy rights of those who send >>email, no matter how disgusting it is, I have deleted any reference >>to user id's, or the senders' names. [...] > >It's truly unfortunate that you chose to delete the names of the senders >of this disgusting and cowardly trash. They deserve to be publicly >exposed. I don't see how their privacy rights in any way should be >invoked to protect them from the scorn they so richly deserve. I'm not really sure that this would be legal, especially in this case (when the mail is being revealed by a third party). There are federal laws to protect privacy of e-mail. I suspect that revealing the names would be legal if Nancy Gould did it, but not from a third-party. Any legal experts out there know to what extent e-mail (which is treated, I believe, as unpublished) is protected? It would really be tragic if the persons who sent this offensive trash were entitled to damages from those it was sent to if their names were released... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | John L. Coolidge Internet:jlc@wucfua.wustl.edu UUCP:jlc@wucfua.uucp | | "My other account is in Illinois" I just read news here... | | With the exception of included material: All above opinions are mine. | | Licensing terms available. Copyright (c) 1988 John L. Coolidge. Copying | | allowed if and only if attributed. All other rights reserved. | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
skea@cad.jmrc.eecs.unsw.oz (Alan Skea) (12/02/88)
In article <10676@ihlpa.ATT.COM> davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) writes: ] I hope any of the respective system administrators will be ] able to identify the sender of the email and take whatever he or ] she feels is appropriate action. In article <11242@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> rsvp@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (R. Scott V. Paterson) writes: ] I agree that this is a complete abuse of the network and that the sender ] should have his/her net privileges revoked, but does this piece of mail ] really represent 'bigoted, racist' mail? I think this piece of mail ] merely shows that lack of any significant understanding of the exchange ] of ideas and constructive criticism. Why is it that you are so bent on exacting revenge? Getting someone in a position of power over the sender to police his/her actions is nothing short of facism. If the abuse had been posted to the net then the position would be different, but it wasn't - it was mailed. Is the postman responsible for ensuring that the contents of your mail does not offend you? Does the fact that the contents were abusive entitle the postman to deny future service to the sender? In the case of paper mail I think the answers are NO and I see no reason for email to be treated differently. The matter is for Nancy to take up, is she feels so inclined. In article <1548@buengc.BU.EDU> art@buengc.BU.EDU (A. R. Thompson) writes: ] It's truly unfortunate that you chose to delete the names of the senders ] of this disgusting and cowardly trash. They deserve to be publicly ] exposed. I don't see how their privacy rights in any way should be ] invoked to protect them from the scorn they so richly deserve. This is the way to operate! Peer group pressure is a powerful thing and I think it's use is the most appropriate thing in this case. I don't think that people not directly involved are entitled to do anything more. I find it ironic that such facist views are appearing in a Jewish newsgroup. Alan Skea.
aem@ibiza.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) (12/03/88)
In <10704@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, <davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM> wrote: >It seems that Nancy Gould has been struck again. I will post this >one also. I am going to keep the user id on this one since it is >obviously contrived. In someone elses posting, the user id in >another piece of email from the same person (I believe) was >exposed. Here it is: >[evil, nasty message sent to Nancy deleted] As I said to David, Nancy should be sending examples of this nastiness directly to the administrator of the appropriate system. This does not belong posted to the net at large, especially with such a wide and odd distribution, namely: Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,news.sysadmin,comp.mail.misc, rec.humor.d,news.misc,misc.misc,soc.culture.misc,soc.misc, comp.mail.uucp,news.admin rec.humor.d? What fevered imagination came up with that as an appropriate group? Even admiting this is a valid posting, which I don't believe. At most it should be published to news.sysadmin. No more. BTW, if the appropriate sysadmin is reading this, the user should be reported to University officials, and Nancy may want to consider legal recourse, if any, as well. aem a.e.mossberg - aem@mthvax.miami.edu - aem@mthvax.span (3.91) The preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country. - John Adams
oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (David Phillip Oster) (12/03/88)
I am Jewish. I think the two people who sparked this exchange of messages are criminal fools. But, if we begin censoring messages where will it stop? Once we allow any form of censorship, censorship spreads and spreads until nothing may be said. This net, which has the potential to be a great forum of ideas, where everyones voice may be heard, will be spoiled and silenced. Or worse, filled only with what is acceptable to the people in power. I would rather stand with criminal fools than with the censors, for in the end, the censors are the worse criminals.
art@buengc.BU.EDU (A. R. Thompson) (12/04/88)
In article <1052@umbio.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: >In <10704@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, <davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM> wrote: >>It seems that Nancy Gould has been struck again. I will post this >>one also. I am going to keep the user id on this one since it is >>obviously contrived. In someone elses posting, the user id in >>another piece of email from the same person (I believe) was >>exposed. Here it is: > >>[evil, nasty message sent to Nancy deleted] > >As I said to David, Nancy should be sending examples of this nastiness directly >to the administrator of the appropriate system. This does not belong posted >to the net at large, especially with such a wide and odd distribution, namely: I disagree, Nancy should post these things and let public opinion take care of those dolts. Peer pressure is much preferable to administrative censorship. > >BTW, if the appropriate sysadmin is reading this, the user should be reported >to University officials, and Nancy may want to consider legal recourse, if any, >as well. Disagree. Put it out here in public, with the names, and we will know who they are. Legal recourse for what? For telling her to perform a sex act on herself? Hardly actionable, offensive? Yes. Actionable? I rather doubt it. For calling her a Jew? Again tastelessly offensive, but not actionable. No, keep the thought control police out of the picture. It's much better to let these people hang themselves with their own words.
randolph%cognito@Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) (12/04/88)
I also oppose the monitoring and censorship of mail. Because of the structure of Usenet, because systems under our control carry the mail, we have the power to monitor and interfere with with private electronic correspondence. The attempt to purify our network of bigotry, however, can only end by making the net useless for the discussion of bigotry. Furthermore, having established the power structure necessary to control the contents of the network, that power structure will go on to seek greater control. We will end with a network that expresses only the ideas accepted by that power structure. I say that the practice of censorship, for that is what is proposed, is an abuse of power and I say to hell with it! If we are to control traffic on this network, let us control, at most, traffic volume without regard to contents (as the segregation of talk.* groups enables). ++Randolph Fritz sun!randolph || randolph@sun.com
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (12/04/88)
In article <27015@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> oster@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (David Phillip Oster) writes: > >I would rather stand with criminal fools than with the censors, for in the >end, the censors are the worse criminals. What happened was that rather than responding to the issues in a person's posting, somebody tried to censor that individual, intimidate them, silence them, and prevent them from posting, by sending them hatemail. The criminal act of the fool in this instance was an act of intended censorship. The possible remedies suggested included a warning, a temporary suspension on the second offense, and revocation of privileges if and only if further acts of attempted censorship took place. In this case, the censors *ARE* the criminal fools. Do you still wish to be counted with them? --Mark
tjw@cisunx.UUCP (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (12/06/88)
In article <1052@umbio.MIAMI.EDU> aem@Mthvax.Miami.Edu (a.e.mossberg) writes: >As I said to David, Nancy should be sending examples of this nastiness directly >to the administrator of the appropriate system. We (the staff at *.cis.pittsburgh.edu) are still waiting to receive copies of the "nasty" mail that Nancy received from one of our nodes. Once we have a username to investigate, we will be happy to persue the matter. If the mail was lost, please send it again. Anyone having this type of problem with mail from a *.cis.pittsburgh.edu site should contact "postmaster@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu" or "tjw..." or "cmf...". Terry -- (UUCP) {decwrl!allegra,bellcore,cadre,psuvax1}!pitt!cisunx!cisvms!tjw (BITNET) TJW@PITTVMS (Internet) tjw%vms.cis.pittsburgh.edu@vb.cc.cmu.edu (CC-Net) CISVMS::TJW
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (12/06/88)
In article <5917@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) writes: > In article <10676@ihlpa.ATT.COM> davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) cites an > instance of abusive email. > > It is my guess that most women on the net who have gotten involved in any > substantial debate have received an almost identical piece of mail. The > ethnic aspersion may be left out, but there's usually some other adjective > in its place. > > Some of the mail has been even more threatening. > > Perhaps it is not something restricted to women; I don't know. > > [For some reason, the "eat shit" letter doesn't bother me as much as the > other--I don't know why.] > > ============================================================================= > -Trish "We're forced to begin > in the midst of the hardest movement..." > skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu -A. Rich They both "bother" me in the extreme. Given reasonable motivation, and in the proper forum, I can hold my own with the most prodigeous profanity. I do not claim to be speaking as one of the "pure". (Impurity has nothing to do with offensiveness). Like a number of other male, white, Anglo-Saxons, I have been following this discussion with some interest, since the words "racist" and "bigot" have been bandied about in a sometimes casual - and sometimes hysterical - manner which (from my limited perspective) tends to dismiss the possibility that people of my gender and ethnicity have the ability to enjoy humor which makes either sexual or ethnic references, yet who may not thus necessarily be hidden racists or bigots. But dismissing that point, I wish to lodge my extreme objection to the notion that *anyone* should be subjected to the kind of treatment cited by Trish and others. There is *no* circumstance in which such behavior is warranted, and I challenge anyone to step forward to cite an exception. The main consideration, it seems to me, is that when someone sends out such garbage over the net, that this behavior generate the strong possibility of action which the originator would find very uncomfortable. Most of the people who behave this way are not noted for their strength of character. And Trish has the exact right idea: For example, what if copies of the offending letter were sent to the sysops at each of the sites in the mail path, for their information of what is going thru their site from the specific originator? Is this censorship? Absolutely not! What each sysops chooses to do as a result of seeing such tripe would be *absolutely* up to that him. And some sysops - I, for one - would react with some very specific mail to the originator expressing my unwillingness to tolerate such crude behavior in correspondence which, after all, relies upon my facilities in order to pass along to the rest of the world. Copy to his local sysops! And for most of these people, it would be sufficient to cause them to moderate their language and baser instincts if they realized that their bizarre beha- vior might be revealed to people upon whom they are quite dependent for access to the usenet community. A second complaint would almost certainly cause me to take more severe action. Would I cut off the site from which it is originating? You are bloody right, I would! Without hesitation. And with the requirement that before I put them back on the air again, the specific user would have to be barred from net usage. And signed in blood by the sysops of that site. Or go find another feed. Period. Why is that a problem? I am constantly amazed at the reaction of many people on the net that they are, in effect, "victims" - they can't control this, that, or the other. (One of the funniest ones I've encountered is the disclaimer that "if a site chooses not to maintain a current map on the net, well - what can anyone *do* about it?"). Well, I'll tell you what, folks. Every one of you has the ability to do some- thing about grossly objectionable behavior generated by someone downstream of you. And you need NO PUBLIC APPROVAL for what you agree is objectionable. If you don't like what is going thru, you have the RIGHT to place limits on what will be tolerated. Whether you have the *responsibility* to do so is matter for you to take up with your own value system. If you receive mail that you find offensive - post it to the sysops in the mail path, and post it to the net with the sender's name! PLEASE! Nobody has a constitutional right to do any damn thing they choose, an one I doubt that, here on the net, any of us enjoys the full rights granted us in the Constitution, since the net is voluntary, not in public ownership, and not primarily supported by public funds. (So for any who may wish to howl at the moon about your "rights", I strongly suggest you check your holecard.) You want to stop this garbage? Ok - STOP IT! The argument has been lodged that active enforcement of basic "rules of the road" on the net will ultimately lead to the loss of some sites from the net because of failure to comply with reasonable policy set up by their net feeds. If said local policy is *really* that far out of reason, then said sites will be able to find a feed that is more "reasonable". If they cannot, then it is *they* who are out of step, not vice versa. And their absence will not be noted. OVERTURE SYSTEMS CORP. Bud Hovell Operations Specialists Lake Oswego, Oregon :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : USENET: {attmail! | tektronix!tessi!bucket! | pacbell!safari!} whizz!bbh : : TELEX: 152258436 (Whizz/Bud Hovell) VOICE: 503-636-3000 : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Follow your bliss" - Joseph Campbe
mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) (12/07/88)
In article <377@chiton.cad.jmrc.eecs.unsw.oz> skea@cad.unsw.oz.au (Alan Skea) writes: >Why is it that you are so bent on exacting revenge? Getting someone >...... Is the >postman responsible for ensuring that the contents of your mail does not >offend you? Does the fact that the contents were abusive entitle the >postman to deny future service to the sender? In the case of paper mail >I think the answers are NO and I see no reason for email to be treated >differently. The matter is for Nancy to take up, is she feels so inclined. No, the postman (postperson?) is not responsible for insuring the contents of your mail doesn't not offend you. HOWEVER, legal action can be taken against anyone mailing profane, threatening, or abusive mail to you. Check with your local postmaster. I had to help a friend out with an abusive ex-husband who was pulling all kinds of nasty stuff. There are various laws which cover this sort of thing, depending on the nature of the material sent, and many are felonies. The problem is in catching and proving who the perpetrator is. I don't know about denying future service (you can still mail stuff from jail, and that ***hole did!) but there are other sanctions that can be brought. However, you are absolutely right, it is up to Nancy, and no one else, to take the matter up. --- Michael H. Warfield (The Mad Wizard) | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw (404) 270-2123 / 270-2098 | mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (12/08/88)
In article <377@chiton.cad.jmrc.eecs.unsw.oz> skea@cad.unsw.oz.au (Alan Skea) writes: >Why is it that you are so bent on exacting revenge? Getting someone >in a position of power over the sender to police his/her actions is >nothing short of facism. If that is so, then the U.S., and every other country on earth, including Israel, is run by fascists. Everymcountry has people in power policing the actions of others -- that's how come we have civilized societies. Anything else ends up in anarchy. >offend you? Does the fact that the contents were abusive entitle the >postman to deny future service to the sender? In the case of paper mail >I think the answers are NO and I see no reason for email to be treated >differently. True if it were commercial e-mail -- paying for it entitles you to certain rights. On a co-operative e-mail network like USENET, access and participation are privileges which may depend on compliance with the cooperative spirit of the net. >This is the way to operate! Peer group pressure is a powerful thing and >I think it's use is the most appropriate thing in this case. I don't think >that people not directly involved are entitled to do anything more. Unless the people directly involved want them to -- and Nancy has inicated that these letters were made public with her approval. >I find it ironic that such facist views are appearing in a Jewish newsgroup. While I don't agree that these views are fascist, who ever said that Jews are exempt from the weaknesses of the rest of humanity? THAT is a fascist idea in reverse! -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (12/09/88)
In article <558@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: >A second complaint would almost certainly cause me to take more severe action. >Would I cut off the site from which it is originating? You are bloody right, I >would! Don't forget that it is trivial to fake the user name on mail messages (SysV /bin/mail uses LOGNAME from the environment), and it only requires knowledge of the uucp login and password to fake the machine name (if you have root access to a different machine, or a PC running uupc). And, of course, anyone with root access on any machine in the path could intercept and modify the message (no one would actually do that...). Anyway, it would be wise to treat net email like an unsigned paper document. Les Mikesell
bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) (12/11/88)
In article <7112@chinet.chi.il.us>, les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > In article <558@whizz.uucp> bbh@whizz.uucp (Bud Hovell) writes: > > >A second complaint would almost certainly cause me to take more severe action. > >Would I cut off the site from which it is originating? You are bloody right, I > >would! > > Don't forget that it is trivial to fake the user name on mail messages > (SysV /bin/mail uses LOGNAME from the environment), and it only requires > knowledge of the uucp login and password to fake the machine name (if > you have root access to a different machine, or a PC running uupc). And, I think that the fact that this *might* be a possibility does not warrant the assumption that it is therefore necessarily so and that one could therefore assume that the pursuit will be unsuccessful. I cite, for example, the recent postings that originated from "JJ" at portal. last I heard, they identified who he was, and he is now history. > of course, anyone with root access on any machine in the path could > intercept and modify the message (no one would actually do that...). Yeah, could happen. But it limits both motive and opportunity to a tiny level when the person must be *on* the path *and* have root access *and* also want to send hate mail to someone specific who just *happens* to be getting a piece of mail from someone else at the opportune moment. As you suggest, this one is kind of a non-starter at a practical level. > Anyway, it would be wise to treat net email like an unsigned paper document. Note that I indicated that after a second incident, I would take action. If I first notified the sysad at the allegedly offending site, then I would expect them to take more than a casual interest in the proceeding. If they are being locally sloppy in password control, then I would expect that to change ON THE SPOT! If there is sloppy control of who is allowed to log in and what casual users are privileged to do on that system, then the named site isn't a victim - they are cutting their own throats! Which is ok, as long as no one else gets bloodied along with them. If they are running so loosely that they can neither identify the problem down to a small group of possible people (and go have an eyeball-to-eyeball talk with those few), nor take suitable measures to prevent a recurrance, do you doubt for minute that I would cut them off? In a heartbeat! OVERTURE SYSTEMS CORP. Bud Hovell Operations Specialists Lake Oswego, Oregon :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : USENET: {attmail! | tektronix!tessi!bucket! | pacbell!safari!} whizz!bbh : : TELEX: 152258436 (Whizz/Bud Hovell) VOICE: 503-636-3000 : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Follow your bliss" - Joseph Campbell