textfiles/magazines/CUD/cud0941.txt

Computer underground Digest    Fri  May 31, 1997   Volume 9 : Issue 41
                           ISSN  1004-042X

       Editor: Jim Thomas (cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu)
       News Editor: Gordon Meyer (gmeyer@sun.soci.niu.edu)
       Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
       Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
       Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
                          Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
                          Ian Dickinson
       Field Agent Extraordinaire:   David Smith
       Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest

CONTENTS, #9.41 (Fri, May 31, 1997)

File 1--Spam-fighter Spammed (Jim Youll saga) (fwd)
File 2--Story of E-Mail Bomb Suit
File 3--Text of E-Mail Bomb Suit Complaint
File 4--SF Internet Abuse Suit Filed
File 5--AGIS says "No More Spam"?
File 6--TEXANS SUE TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INTERNET "SPAM"
File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)

CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 May 97 16:06 CDT
From: Cu Digest <TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU>
Subject: File 1--Spam-fighter Spammed (Jim Youll saga) (fwd)

Source - TELECOM Digest  Fri, 16 May 97  --   Volume 17 : Issue 121

((MODERATORS' NOTE:  For those not familiar with Pat Townson's
TELECOM DIGEST, it's a an exceptional resource.  From the header
of TcD:
   "TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but
   not exclusively to telecommunications topics.  It is
   circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various
   telecom forums on a variety of public service systems and
   networks including Compuserve and America On Line. It is also
   gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated
   newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. Subscriptions are available to
   qualified organizations and individual readers. Write and tell
   us how you qualify:
                    * ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu * ======"  ))
                       ==================


From--jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll)
Subject--We Have Been Attacked. Reward Offered. Assistance Requested.
Date--Thu, 15 May 1997 17:59:22 -0400

My domain newmediagroup.com is under attack by someone who doesn't
like my MILITANT, PUBLIC ANTI-SPAM stance. To date their actions have
included sending apparently several thousand e-mail messages, forged
showing my name as the sender. In addition, this same party or someone
working with them conducted a denial-of-service attack on our system
last night, 5/14. Details will be posted to a website shortly,
including system logs clearly showing the terrorists' use of
third-party unsecured SMTP servers as relays (which you will also see
by looking at the headers of the messages that were sent).

Their attack has also included threats of harm against me.

PLEASE let people know this did not originate at newmediagroup.com. It
is a complete forgery. We are TRYING to investigate and at the moment
have a number of backbone carriers, and MCI security, involved. I am
doing all I can. PLEASE tell people to stop writing to complain. This
did not come from us. We don't spam. I am FIGHTING spam and that is
why I was targeted in this manner. When you see their mail-bomb
messages to me, you will understand.

I am seeking cooperation from the sites which were used as relays.
Sheila, apparently an adminstrator at freenet.carleton.ca (office@ is
their e-mail address, and if you have received junk that bounced off
their mailer, I STRONGLY suggest you contact them and demand the holes
be closed). Carleton Freenet has notified me (5/15/97, 1600 EDT by
e-mail) that they will not release their SMTP logs, which would show the
origin of the message injected into their mailer. A man reached at
nevwest.com said he had "one technician working on it" but really didn't
understand the specifics, and was not very excited about helping. This
is all very exciting for electronic terrorists, I am sure.

New Media Group (and I in particular!) do not send or generate
commercial e-mail. Ever.  We are a small Internet presence provider
working closely and on-site with clients in the Midwestern
US. Only. We do not seek, service, or advertise to anyone outside that
area, and we do not use e-mail for advertising.

Copies of all logs and the threatening messages which came here have
been forwarded to security officers at all ISPs we could identify, and
at the security offices of backbone providers involved in this. We're
trying, but it will be difficult to identify who did this. We're
trying.  I fully intend to press criminal and civil charges at the
very moment an indictment becomes feasible.

The reason we have been targeted is that I (personally, not this
company) have been leading a campaign AGAINST junk e-mail. Please help
me find out who did this. I am prepared to file criminal and civil
charges at the instant an indictment is feasible.

If you look at the headers, you will see that the messages did not
come from here. The incoming messages threatened more attacks unless I
stop my campaign to free people from unwanted junk e-mail. This is
terrorism, plain and simple and I call on the entire Internet
community to help track down the responsible parties. I will
appreciate any assistance you can provide.

See http://www.agentzero.com/junkmail for the information I posted in
my fight against junk e-mail.  I will shortly post there complete
system logs, messages with headers, and everything else that has been
sent to authorities.

I am offering a reward of $1,000 for information leading to the arrest
and conviction of the perpetrators of this crime.


[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I too have really had all I can handle
of this and I am soliciting the assistance of any attorney who wishes
to volunteer. Jay Ashworth has pointed out to me in recent correspondence
that Spamford and Company are systematically ripping off names and
email addresses from mailing lists including this one. Today alone I
personally received a dozen pieces of spam; one of which was even
alleged to come from this machine with forged headers, etc. This is
not going to stop anytime soon I fear, and at this point I want to
proceed with litigation. I want to see enforcement of the federal law
against sending unsolicited material to facsimile devices. I want to
stop the wholesale ripoff of names which appear in this Digest. I am
perfectly willing and desirous of being a plaintiff (or one of several
plantiffs as the case may be) in any legal action taken against Spamford
Wallace, AGIS and similar outfits.

The comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup is a total shambles in some places
where it became unmoderated -- quite by accident, I am sure -- filled
with spam like most other newsgroups. Please, admins, check to make
sure c.d.t. is **moderated** at your site. My bots are generally good
at recognizing forged approval lines which do not have my md5sum
signature, however the author of that script is making some changes
and improvements in it.

The point is, I have had it. Enough is enough, and I want to see those
idiots start getting **actually sued** and not just complained about.
Will any attorney willing to take this on -- especially one who has a
good rapport with the local US Attorney -- please contact me. I want
to see an actual violation of federal law, with names on it, presented
to a grand jury or a federal judge. Will anyone help?    PAT]

                       ==================

And from TELECOM Digest Sun, 18 May 97 -  Volume 17 : Issue 124

From--jim@newmediagroup.com (Jim Youll)
Subject--New Media Group Attack, Update, Clarification
Date--Sat, 17 May 1997 20:25:09 -0400


Hello.

For those of you who follow such things, it's been an interesting
couple of days here. I will have an update at the website
<http://www.agentzero.com/junkmail> sometime before Monday morning,
but no promises about exactly when.

Another bombing run apparently happened overnight, and we received
well over a thousand bounces this morning. The receiving system claims
they were sent at around 0900 (local time in UK/ 0400 EDT) from
ISPAM.NET.  Our ISP was quite upset, but understanding, and we have
rearranged things to shift more of the load off his systems and onto
ours.

I continue to seek assistance both in the form of information, and in
general support from the Internet community. A major crime was
committed and I believe those who perpetrated it must be punished. But
I cannot do this alone. We all need to stand together against such
terrorist intimidation tactics. And we have to do it now. As a united
group. The press have been covering these things VERY poorly. It is
time to educate journalists and let them know this isn't just a
"pranksters" making merry, as one local writer here described it.

A past message of mine has led to some confusion (including my own)
about the reward offered. I will clarify that now, and I apologize for
posting in the middle of the night after working all day to harden a
system against attacks (while simultaneously trying to stop the same
attacks). However ...

Effective May 16, 1997 at 0:00 EDT

I am offering a reward of US$2,500 for information leading directly to
the arrest and conviction of the individual or individuals responsible
for the inbound mailbomb attack on New Media Group servers, and for
the outbound transmission of thousands of fraudulent messages, bearing
my name as the sender, which began at approximately 9:20 EDT on May
14, 1997 and continued through at least 0400 EDT on May 17.

This reward is for real, the money is out of my pocket, and any payout
will be administered by the law firm which is representing me. There
may be additional terms and conditions related to the payment of this
reward. I will leave it to the attorneys to work out the fine print,
and when I have that, I will post it to the website on which I am
trying to keep current information:

Good day, and thank you for your support.

Oh yeah, support. I need all the support I can get right now. This is
not a one-guy fight. It's sort of lonely out here.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:48:34 -0500
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 2--Story of E-Mail Bomb Suit

((MODERATORS' NOTE: The following San Francisco Chronicle
story was found on the homepage of David S. Bloom, attorney
for a client who sued an alleged e-mail bomber. The text of
the complaint itself is in the next post)).

   The San Francisco Chronicle

Lawsuit Charges Malicious `E-Mail Bombing'

   Stephen Schwartz, Chronicle Staff Writer

   A South Bay man has sued SRI International, Inc. and an
   employee of the firm, alleging that he was maliciously "e-mail
   bombed" by 25,000 one-word messages calling him an "idiot"
   that were sent from computers at the electronics facility.

   Paul Engel, who runs a stock- trading and investment firm,
   filed a lawsuit against SRI employee Terje Oseberg and SRI on
   December 24 in San Mateo County Superior Court.

   Engel claimed in the lawsuit that the messages sent on
   September 23 clogged his computer, interrupted his business
   and caused an income loss and other damages exceeding $25,000.

   SRI is closed for the holidays and its legal department, which
   is said to be handling Oseberg and the company's defense,
   could not be contacted for comment.

   Oseberg did not return calls.

   Engel's attorney, David Bloom, said Engel had received the
   messages in the aftermath of a "minor disagreement" between
   Engel and Oseberg.

   The dispute, over description of the Pentium computer chip,
   began when Engel and Oseberg exchanged comments on a stock
   bulletin board called the "Silicon Investor," said Bloom.

   The lawyer said Engel received the one-word messages from
   computer addresses at SRI to which Oseberg is believed to have
   access as an SRI employee.

   According to Bloom, the content of the message is not an
   issue.

   "This is not a defamation case," he said. "It (the message)
   could have said `beautiful,' or it could have said, `sorry.'
   It could have said anything."

   The suit alleges the messages were sent not to communicate at
   all, but to harass and punish the recipient over what began as
   a small dispute.

   "It would be like Siskel sending Ebert 25,000 e-mails because
   he didn't like his review of Star Trek," the attorney said.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 16:48:34 -0500
From: Jim Thomas <jthomas@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 3--Text of E-Mail Bomb Suit Complaint

((MODERATORS' NOTE: Here is the text of the Paul Engel's Mail
Bomb complaint.  Paul Engel's Attorney, David Bloom, told CuD
that he is confident that a settlement may be reached soon. The
attorney sounds as if he could be a good resource for others
wishing to take action against net abusers)).

  ==================

   David S. Bloom, Esq., SB # 151630
   444 Castro St., Suite 430
   Mountain View, CA 94041
   (415) 960-3103

   Attorney for Plaintiff
   PAUL ENGEL


   SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

   IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO


   PAUL ENGEL, an individual,

   Plaintiff,

   vs.

   SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
   a California corporation
   TERJE OSEBERG, an individual,
   and Does 1-50, inclusive,

   Defendants.
   _____________________________________/

   Case No. 399026

   Complaint for:

   1. Intentional Interference with Prospective business Advantage;
   2. Negligent Interference with Business Advantage;
   3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress;
   4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and
   5. Negligence Supervision

   FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
   (Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Advantage v. all
   Defendants)

   Plaintiff, PAUL ENGEL, alleges, upon information and belief, the
   following:
   1. Defendant SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("SRI") is, and was at all
   relevant times, a California corporation, doing business in the State
   of California.
   2. Defendant, TERJE OSEBERG ("Oseberg") is, and was at all relevant
   times, an individual.
   3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each
   of the defendants herein was, at all times relevant to this action,
   the agent or employee of the remaining defendants and was acting
   within the course and scope of that relationship. Plaintiff is further
   informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the
   defendants herein gave consent to, ratified, and/or authorized the
   acts alleged herein by the remaining cross defendants.
   4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of
   cross-defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and
   therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff
   will pray leave of this Court to amend this Complaint to allege their
   true names and capacities when ascertained.
   5. Plaintiff is self-employed as a private investor. His business
   primarily involves the trading of stock and other investments using
   various services available on the internet. Plaintiff also uses e-mail
   to communicate with other stock traders, business contacts and
   friends. Plaintiff's receives internet services via an internet
   service provider ("ISP") known as "Earthlink."
   6. On numerous occasions prior to September 23, 1996, plaintiff was
   registered at and used an internet website known as the "Silicon
   Investor," which is located at the uniform resource locator ("url"):
   "http://www.techstocks.com." Similarly, Defendant Oseberg also was
   registered at and used the Silicon Investor website. During the days
   up to and including September 23, 1996, while using the website,
   plaintiff and Defendant Oseberg had a difference of opinion regarding
   a certain company and its product. During this dispute, the parties
   posted numerous comments on the website's bulletin board regarding
   this product. In at least one of his postings, Defendant Oseberg
   referred to plaintiff as an "idiot."
   7. On or about September 23, 1996, Defendant Oseberg, and Does 26-50,
   "e-mail bombed" the plaintiff by sending him approximately 25,000
   individual e-mail messages. The e-mails contained only the word
   "idiot." Because of the aforementioned "e-mail bombing", plaintiff's
   ability to use the internet and to conduct his daily business was
   severely limited until plaintiff removed the offending e-mails from
   his ISP's mail server. Moreover, plaintiff was unable to conduct both
   his business and personal day to day communications insofar as they
   involved the plaintiff's use of e-mail. Ultimately, the removal
   process took 2 3 days. However, because of the high volume of e-mails,
   plaintiff was unable to filter out potentially valuable messages from
   sources other than Defendant Oseberg.
   8. The subject e-mails were sent from three different e-mail addresses
   or headers: "oseberg@Folpen.sri.com," "terjeo@Folpen.sri.com," and
   "terje@Folpen.sri.com." "Folpen.sri.com" refers to the e-mail server
   owned, operated and controlled by Defendant SRI, and Does 1-25, which
   is Defendant Oseberg's employer.
   9. Defendant Oseberg, and Does 26-50, sent the subject e mails during
   the course and scope of his employment with Defendant SRI, and Does
   1-25.
   10. Defendants' actions were done intentionally and maliciously and
   with the specific intent to harass and inconvenient plaintiff and to
   prevent him from conducting his daily business operations.
   11. As the further proximate result of the aforementioned acts,
   plaintiff was prevented from conducting his day to day business and
   suffered damages in a sum not yet ascertained but in excess of the
   minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court.
   12. The above described actions taken by the defendants were done with
   malice and thus an award of punitive damages is justified.
   SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
   (Negligent Interference with Prospective Business Advantage v. all
   Defendants)

   13. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 11.
   14. Defendants, and each of them, should have known that the
   aforementioned e-mail bombing would cause severely interfere
   plaintiff's ability to conduct his daily business operations.
   15. As the proximate result of the aforementioned acts, plaintiff was
   prevented from conducting his day to day business and suffered damages
   in a sum not yet ascertained but in excess of the minimum
   jurisdictional limit of this Court.
   THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
   (Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress v. all Defendants)

   16. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 10.
   17. Defendants, and each of them, knew that the aforementioned e-mail
   bombing would cause plaintiff extreme emotional distress.
   18. As the proximate result of the aforementioned acts, plaintiff
   suffered mental anguish and emotional distress in excess of the
   jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
   19. The above described actions taken by the defendants were done with
   malice and thus an award of punitive damages is justified.
   FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
   (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress v. all Defendants)

   20. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 10.
   21. Defendants, and each of them, should have known that the
   aforementioned e-mail bombing would cause plaintiff extreme emotional
   distress.
   22. As a proximate cause of the conduct of the defendants, plaintiffs
   suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress and have
   been injured as follows.
   FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
   (Negligent Supervision v. Defendant SRI and Does 1-25)

   23. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 to 10.
   24. Defendants SRI, and Does 1-25, negligently supervised Defendant
   Terje Oseberg, and Does 26-50.
   25. As a proximate cause of the conduct of the defendants, plaintiffs
   suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress and have
   been injured as follows.
   26. As the further proximate result of the aforementioned acts,
   plaintiff was prevented from conducting his day to day business and
   suffered damages in a sum not yet ascertained.
   PRAYER FOR RELIEF
   WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of
   them, as follows:
   1. For general damages according to proof but in excess of the
   jurisdictional minimum of this Court;
   2. For loss of income according to proof;
   3. For punitive damages
   4. For costs of the suit herein incurred; and
   5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.


   Dated: December 24, 1996




   __________/S/______________
   DAVID SETH BLOOM
   Attorney for Plaintiff PAUL ENGEL

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 11:05:34 -0800
From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar@wired.com>
Subject: File 4--SF Internet Abuse Suit Filed

Source -  fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu

Curious use of the CDA here...

--T-->

Internet Abuse Suit Filed

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The leader of an alleged satanic cult has filed a
suit against an Internet provider, accusing the company of allowing an
unknown customer to post messages accusing him of child sex abuse.

The case is one of the first filed in California under the new federal
Communications Decency Act, the San Francisco Examiner reported Friday.

It was filed by Michael Aquino, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who
founded the Temple of Set in San Francisco.

Aquino, who says in court documents that he was investigated but never
charged in a mid-1980s Army investigation of alleged child sexual abuse
at a Presidio day care center, is suing the San Diego Internet provider,
ElectriCiti, on whose service the messages were posted.

ElectriCiti contends the Communications Decency Act protects it from
liability in such cases.

Aquino says he and his wife Lilith filed suit against ElectriCiti after
it refused to help him track down his alleged harasser. A declaration
attached to the suit says Aquino was "a victim of false allegations in
the Presidio day care case."

Aquino charges that ElectriCiti breached its duty to him and to other
customers by failing to cut off the anonymous user and allowing that
person to continue posting alleged libelous material and threats against
him and his wife.

The suit asks for $100,000 in emotional distress damages and $150,000 in
punitive damages.

In court papers, the Aquinos allege that a person using the Internet
name "Curio" posted more than 500 "defamatory messages" against them in
various news groups and Web pages. The messages began on Dec. 2, 1996,
and continue today, the suit says.

Curio has accused the couple "of having participated in heinous crimes,
sexual perversions and acts of moral turpitude," the lawsuit says.

The messages also accuse the couple of participating in the molestations
of dozens of children enrolled at the Presidio's child day care center
in 1985 and 1986, the lawsuit says.

Police and federal authorities searched Michael Aquino's home at the
time, but he was never charged. A day care teacher was later charged but
the case was dismissed.

The Aquinos have had bricks thrown through the windows of their home
"and have been the target of nastiness," ever since, said James Graeb,
the couple's attorney. "The Aquinos want to get a restraining order to
prevent further harassment. To do so they have to identify Curio," he
said.

After the messages appeared, the Aquinos filed a written complaint with
ElectriCiti, Graeb said. The company initially tried to help but backed
down after a user, suspected of being Curio, objected to being
identified, he said.

"Curio has stalked the Aquinos, made threats of physical violence
against them, harassed them and has libeled them," Graeb said.
"ElectriCiti has a duty to the Aquinos and the public, to act in a
responsible manner, to investigate written complaints and ensure the
safety of people."

ElectriCiti contends that under the Communications Decency Act, passed
by Congress in 1996, it is not responsible for content posted by a user.
The company also says it cannot monitor messages due to the sheer volume
of traffic on the Internet. The company also protects the privacy of
users and does not release their names, it says.

"When someone else is posting on the Internet, simply using the Internet
service provider as a means of putting the message out there, the
provider is much like the phone company and the message is like a phone
call," said Roger Myers, a San Francisco attorney who represents the
defendant and other media companies.

"You can't hold the phone company responsible for a phone call you don't
like," Myers said. "If these cases are allowed to go forward they will
have a dramatic chilling effect on the ability of service providers to
allow open access to the Internet."

A hearing is set June 12 on Myers' motion to dismiss the case.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 17:54:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@Glue.umd.edu>
Subject: File 5--AGIS says "No More Spam"?

Source -  fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu

[from http://www.agis.net...file this under the believe it when we don't
see more spam category...NANOG list members report AGIS outage sunday with
AGIS claiming routers pingflooded by someone inside the AGIS network,
however again it is difficult to believe]

AGIS, IEMMC Halt Bulk E-Mail

Dearborn, MI May 27th, 1997: Worldwide Internet access provider AGIS (Apex
Global Internet Services, Inc.) has challenged all members of the Internet
E-Mail Marketing Council (IEMMC) to stop originating all bulk e-mail
through the AGIS network. Under the terms of this agreement, Cyber
Promotions, Cybertize E-mail, Integrated Media Promotions, ISG, and
Quantum Communications agreed to cease sending unsolicited commercial
e-mail (UCE)  through the AGIS network until the IEMMC delivers a working
filtration system and acceptable use policies.

AGIS, founded in 1994 and one of the original "big six" Internet
companies, has been at the center of a recent controversy for providing
Internet connections to corporations that send unsolicited commercial
e-mail to Internet users. The Company said that members of the IEMMC
agreed to suspend bulk e-mail services on Sunday, May 25th , 1997.

"IEMMC's acceptance of the AGIS request attests to our commitment to
promoting the ethical use of bulk e-mail in this emerging global
industry," said Walt Rines, IEMMC President. "IEMMC members have ceased to
send commercial e-mail until the solution is officially implemented." The
IEMMC recently announced its first termination of a bulk e-mail abuser's
account. On May 16th at 9:00 EST, an offender using a dial-up America
On-Line account and hijacking UUNet International relays was found to be
unloading a large quantity of unsolicited e-mail to Internet users. IEMMC
then notified Quantum Communications, an IEMMC founding member, which
quickly terminated the user's account.

"It has been AGIS' concern that if we were to disconnect bulk e-mailers
from our network that they would continue to abuse the Internet from
somewhere else. Instead, by gaining their cooperation and founding an
organization that serves as a watchdog for e-mail abuse, there exists a
system of checks and balances which can serve as a long term solution,"
said Cary Joshi, AGIS Director of Corporate Development.  "However, until
the system is firmly in place, we believe it is necessary to put a stop to
all bulk e-mail emanating from customers on our network. The IEMMC has
agreed to cooperate in this effort."

Sanford Wallace, President of Cyber Promotions, said, "We welcome the
challenge of implementing a set of rules and regulations, as well as the
technological solutions necessary to make the bulk e-mail industry
acceptable to Internet users. With the technological assistance of a
company of AGIS' caliber, it has become possible to keep bulk e-mail away
from those who are strongly opposed to it."

AGIS (www.agis.net), founded in 1994, provides Internet access to millions
of users via its extensive customer base of Regional Bell Operating
Companies, content providers, large corporations, and Internet service
providers. A technology leader and innovator, AGIS is the first Internet
access provider to deploy ATM technology to operate a national backbone
network, the first to offer commercial 155 Mbps connections to the 'Net,
the first to reduce points of failure in a network by using switching
technologies, the first to design a wholesale business model (so as not to
compete with customers by selling retail access), and the first to provide
multiple distribution centers for content replication (CooLocation (tm))
AGIS offers Internet connectivity from 56 Kbps to 155 Kbps.

AGIS is headquartered at 3601 Pelham Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48124
Phone: 800/380-AGIS; Fax: 313-563-6119; E-mail: info@agis.net

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 20:06:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: jonl@well.com
Subject:  File 6--TEXANS SUE TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INTERNET "SPAM"

 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 TEXANS SUE TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INTERNET "SPAM" CLAIMING
 ELECTRONIC TRESPASS AND NUISANCE

 	Austin, Texas, May 28, 1997:  Several Internet leaders in Austin,
 Texas filed a lawsuit yesterday afternoon against a company and an
 individual believed to be responsible for the mass distribution of
 junk mail over the Internet, also called "spam."  The suit claims that
 C.N. Enterprises and Craig Nowak of San Diego, California, sent
 thousands of electronic messages selling information on "Free Cash
 Grants" for $19.95.  The ad's content was not only misleading, the
 lawsuit claims, but the company's e-mail used a false return address,
 causing the electronic mail boxes of several Austin residents to
 overflow with returned copies of the junk mail.

 	According to the lawsuit, by using a false return address, those who
 send junk mail over the Internet can avoid the anger that results from
 this controversial practice.  They can also avoid dealing with the
 thousands of "bounce" messages that result from sending e-mail to
 invalid or outdated addresses.  "In effect," the lawsuit alleges,
 "C.N. Enterprises deliberately dumped tons of its electronic garbage
 and pollution" into the Austin residents' mailboxes.  The lawsuit
 claims that the use of false return addresses on junk e-mail, and the
 resulting fallout on those who own the addresses used, is illegal
 under the traditional common law causes of action of nuisance,
 trespass and conversion.

 	The lead plaintiff is Tracy LaQuey Parker, a leading Internet
 author, who owns the Internet domain name used by C.N. Enterprises
 without her permission.  Said Ms. Parker, "As a long-time Internet
 advocate, I am saddened that the goodwill spirit of the Internet is
 being spoiled by irresponsible individuals who forge their identity in
 order to make a quick buck.  There are plenty of examples of
 legitimate commercial uses of the Internet.  This isn't one of them."

 	Joining Ms. Parker in the lawsuit are her husband Patrick Parker and
 Peter Rauch, both Ms. Parker's business partners.  Also joining the
 suit are Zilker Internet Park, Ms. Parker's Internet service provider,
 which had to deal with the flood of messages stemming from the "spam,"
 and two active Texas Internet groups, the Texas Internet Service
 Providers Association (TISPA), a group of commercial Internet service
 providers, and EFF-Austin, a local Internet civil liberties
 organization.

 	John Quarterman, an owner of Zilker Internet Park, stated, "'Spam'
 is a large and rapidly growing problem which has cost Zilker Internet
 Park and many other ISPs and Internet users much time and money.  We
 have put many technical blocks in place to limit it.  With this
 lawsuit, we are taking the next step to help stop this abuse of the
 Internet."

 	TISPA and EFF-Austin joined the lawsuit in an effort to broaden the
 legal precedent beyond Ms. Parker's single Internet domain name,
 according to Gene Crick, TISPA's president.  "Increasingly, 'spammers'
 are using false return addresses to avoid taking full responsibility
 for the harm caused by their unsolicited commercial e-mail," Crick
 said.  "These forgeries dump huge volumes of unwanted junk mail onto
 Internet companies and their customers.  TISPA would like to see the
 court grant a broad and clear injunction prohibiting this practice."

 	The lawsuit was filed on behalf of LaQuey and the others by Pete
 Kennedy and Roger Williams of George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P. of
 Austin.  Among its other Internet related cases, the law firm has
 been
 involved in lawsuits against the United States Secret Service and
 Simon Leis, the Hamilton County (Ohio) Sheriff, over the seizure of
 private e-mail.

 #   #   #

 For more information, contact:

 Plaintiffs:
 Tracy LaQuey Parker and Patrick Parker, 512-454-7748
 John Quarterman, Zilker Internet Park, 512-451-7620
 Gene Crick, Texas Internet Service Providers Association (TISPA),
 512-303-1021
 Jon Lebkowsky, EFF-Austin, 512-444-5175

 Law Firm:
 Peter Kennedy or Roger Williams
 George, Donaldson & Ford, L.L.P., 512-495-1400

 Media Contact:
 Peggy Hubble or Sondra Williams, MEM/Hubble Communications,
 512-480-8961

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 May 1997 22:51:01 CST
From: CuD Moderators <cudigest@sun.soci.niu.edu>
Subject: File 7--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 7 May, 1997)

Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
available at no cost electronically.

CuD is available as a Usenet newsgroup: comp.society.cu-digest

Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line:

     SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST
Send the message to:   cu-digest-request@weber.ucsd.edu

DO NOT SEND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THE MODERATORS.

The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6436), fax (815-753-6302)
or U.S. mail at:  Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
60115, USA.

To UNSUB, send a one-line message:   UNSUB CU-DIGEST
Send it to  CU-DIGEST-REQUEST@WEBER.UCSD.EDU
(NOTE: The address you unsub must correspond to your From: line)

Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
on RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 (and via Ripco on  internet);
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from
1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome.

         In ITALY: ZERO! BBS: +39-11-6507540

  UNITED STATES: ftp.etext.org (206.252.8.100) in /pub/CuD/CuD
    Web-accessible from: http://www.etext.org/CuD/CuD/
                  ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/Publications/CuD/
                  aql.gatech.edu (128.61.10.53) in /pub/eff/cud/
                  world.std.com in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
                  wuarchive.wustl.edu in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/
  EUROPE:         nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland)
                  ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom)


The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the
Cu Digest WWW site at:
  URL: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/

COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views.  CuD material may  be reprinted for non-profit as long
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
they should be contacted for reprint permission.  It is assumed that
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
specified.  Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
relating to computer culture and communication.  Articles are
preferred to short responses.  Please avoid quoting previous posts
unless absolutely necessary.

DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
            the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
            responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
            violate copyright protections.

------------------------------

End of Computer Underground Digest #9.42
************************************