Computer underground Digest Fri May 31, 2020 Volume 9 : Issue 41 ISSN 1004-042X Editor: Jim Thomas ( News Editor: Gordon Meyer ( 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: CONTENTS, #9.41 (Fri, May 31, 2020) 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 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: * * ======" )) ================== (Jim Youll) Subject--We Have Been Attacked. Reward Offered. Assistance Requested. Date--Thu, 15 May 2020 17:59:22 -0400 My domain 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 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 (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 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 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 (Jim Youll) Subject--New Media Group Attack, Update, Clarification Date--Sat, 17 May 2020 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 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, 2020 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 2020 16:48:34 -0500 From: Jim Thomas 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 2020 16:48:34 -0500 From: Jim Thomas 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, 2020, plaintiff was registered at and used an internet website known as the "Silicon Investor," which is located at the uniform resource locator ("url"): "" Similarly, Defendant Oseberg also was registered at and used the Silicon Investor website. During the days up to and including September 23, 2020, 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, 2020, 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: "," "," and "" "" 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, 2020 __________/S/______________ DAVID SETH BLOOM Attorney for Plaintiff PAUL ENGEL ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 May 2020 11:05:34 -0800 From: "--Todd Lappin-->" Subject: File 4--SF Internet Abuse Suit Filed Source - 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 2020 17:54:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Grant Edwards Subject: File 5--AGIS says "No More Spam"? Source - [from 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 (, 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: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 May 2020 20:06:51 -0700 (PDT) From: 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, 2020: 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 2020 22:51:01 CST From: CuD Moderators 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: Or, to subscribe, send post with this in the "Subject:: line: SUBSCRIBE CU-DIGEST Send the message to: 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 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: +39-11-2019540 UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/CuD/CuD Web-accessible from: ( in /pub/Publications/CuD/ ( in /pub/eff/cud/ in /src/wuarchive/doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ in /doc/EFF/Publications/CuD/ EUROPE: in pub/doc/CuD/CuD/ (Finland) in pub/cud/ (United Kingdom) The most recent issues of CuD can be obtained from the Cu Digest WWW site at: URL: 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 ************************************