From editor@telecom-digest.org Thu Jan 15 16:31:06 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i0FLV6r09724; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:31:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:31:06 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200401152131.i0FLV6r09724@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #22 TELECOM Digest Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:31:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 22 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson More Than One-Third of Internet Users Now Have Broadband (Monty Solomon) Cingular, AT&T Wireless in Merger Talks - Sources (Monty Solomon) 'Meetups' for 900+ Senatorial Congressional Gubenatorial (Monty Solomon) Explore Mars With The Program That NASA Scientists Use (Monty Solomon) EPIC Alert 11.01 (Monty Solomon) Re: Habeas.com and Spam? (Jack Hamilton) Re: Habeas.com and Spam? (John Levine) Re: Habeas.com and Spam? (Phil Earnhardt) Re: Habeas.com and Spam? (Tom Betz) Re: Habeas.com and Spam? (Dave Garland) Re: My Email With Norvergence (Dave Temkin) Re: My Email With Norvergence (Phil Earnhardt) Re: My Email With Norvergence (John R. Covert) Re: My Email With Norvergence (Hank Karl) Re: Anti Spam Conference at MIT Coming Soon! (Mark Crispin) Last Laugh! Simple.Net -- The Fine Print (Gordon S. Hlavenka) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk is definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:31:54 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: More Than One-Third of Internet Users Now Have Broadband 146 million (69%) Adults in U.S. Are Now Online; 37% of Them Have Broadband Connections ROCHESTER, N.Y., Jan. 14 /PRNewswire/ -- The numbers of adults who are online at home, in the office, at school, library or other location continue to grow at a modest rate. Broadband use is growing much more rapidly. In research among 2,033 adults surveyed by telephone in November and December 2003, Harris Interactive(R) found that 69% of adults are now online, up from 67% in late 2002, 64% in late 2001, 63% in 2000 and 56% in 1999. When we first began to track Internet use in 1995, only 9% of adults reported they were online. Internet access increases at home and at work This growth in Internet penetration is a result of increased Internet access at both home and work. The proportion of adults who are now online at home has risen to 61%, up from 57% in 2002 and 52% in 2001. Those online at work have risen modestly to 31% from 28% in 2002 and 2001. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200401142048_PRN__NYW113 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:34:25 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Cingular, AT&T Wireless in Merger Talks - Sources By Jessica Hall PHILADELPHIA, Jan 14 (Reuters) - Cingular Wireless is in talks to acquire AT&T Wireless Services Inc. ( NYSE:AWE ), using the financial power of its two parent companies to create the United States' largest wireless telephone company, people familiar with the situation said on Wednesday. There is no formal offer on the table, but the negotiations between Cingular and AT&T Wireless, respectively the No. 2 and No. 3 U.S. carriers, have progressed significantly beyond the on-again-off-again talks over the past year, the sources said. T-Mobile and other carriers also have expressed interest in AT&T Wireless, but Cingular has been the most aggressive and vocal about its desire to forge a deal, the sources said. Suggesting a bidding war could be on the horizon, Japan's NTT DoCoMo Inc. ( TOKYO:9437 ) and Nextel Communications Inc. ( NASDAQ:NXTL ) have also approached AT&T Wireless, and Britain's Vodafone Group Plc (LSE:VOD) is expected to consider a similar deal, The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday evening, citing people familiar with the matter. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200401150550_RTR_N14253190 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 02:47:33 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: 'Meetups' for 900+ Senatorial, Congressional Gubenatorial Meetup.Com Opens 'Meetups' for 900+ Senatorial, Congressional, Gubenatorial Candidates in over 500 Races Nationwide NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 14, 2004--Meetup Inc. today announces it has enabled Meetups for the supporters of every declared Senatorial, Congressional and Gubernatorial candidate running for office in 2004. Meetups are monthly events that take place at local establishments (restaurants, bars, cafes, libraries, community centers) in just about every city and small town in the United States. http://finance.lycos.com/qc/news/story.aspx?story=200401142040_BWR__BW5680 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:03:39 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Explore Mars With the Program That NASA Scientists Use Explore Mars with the program that NASA scientists use to operate Spirit http://mars.telascience.org/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:02:16 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: EPIC Alert 11.01 ======================================================================= E P I C A l e r t ======================================================================= Volume 11.01 January 14, 2003 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.01.html ====================================================================== Table of Contents ====================================================================== [1] US-VISIT Launched; U.S. Pushes for Passenger Info [2] Defense Department Report Blasts Total Information Awareness [3] Judge Sides With EPIC on FOIA Quick Review, But Rules for DOJ [4] FOIA Document Covers Palladium Privacy, Unique Identifier Issues [5] Officials Question DC Police Handling of Political Demonstrations [6] News in Brief [7] EPIC Bookstore: The Naked Crowd [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_11.01.html ------------------------------ From: Jack Hamilton Subject: Re: Habeas.com and Spam? Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:32:27 -0800 Organization: Copyright (c) 2004 by Jack Hamilton. Reply-To: jfh@acm.org joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > Recently I've started getting a lot of spam (well, not a lot, but > perhaps a half-dozen messages a day) signed by "Habeas.com." Habeas' > website advertises that it is "sender warranted email," and that one > of the main uses of the website is deliver spam-free e-mail. Does > anyone know if they are for real? Should I report the spam to them? > Should I just block anything that has Habeas headers in it? (So far, > I've never received any legitimate e-mail with Habeas headers.) The company is for real, and one of their employees has been active on one of the mail admins' mailing lists. Their business principle: Sell poetry to be included in outgoing mail headers. The poetry is copyrighted, and malefactors who fake their poetry can be pursued under the copyright laws -- apparently an easier thing to do than pursuing an anti-spam action. For details, see: They claim to have had some legal victories. You should report the spam to them, and maybe they'll do something. There's nothing in their methodology that prevents spam from being sent, or headers from being forged. Jack Hamilton jfh@acm.org If men are to wait for liberty until they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed wait for ever. - Lord MacCaulay ------------------------------ Date: 15 Jan 2004 06:27:09 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Habeas.com and Spam? Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > Recently I've started getting a lot of spam (well, not a lot, but > perhaps a half-dozen messages a day) signed by "Habeas.com." Habeas' > website advertises that it is "sender warranted email," and that one > of the main uses of the website is deliver spam-free e-mail. Yes, Habeas is real, and someone has been sending out buckets of spam for bogus drugs with equally bogus Habeas marks. They are, to put it mildly, not happy about it. In the short run they're adding every address sending forged Habeas spam to their DNSBL, which is not a bad one to use to block spam. In the longer run they're trying to figure out who's behind the spam, which will be tricky since it's all sent through hijacked PCs and points back to a web site in China. They've sued people before for misusing their mark and if they can figure out who to sue, they will most certainly sue this one. Regards, John Levine johnl@iecc.com Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Sewer Commissioner "A book is a sneeze." - E.B. White, on the writing of Charlotte's Web ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: Habeas.com and Spam? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:26:55 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:53:25 GMT, joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > Recently I've started getting a lot of spam (well, not a lot, but > perhaps a half-dozen messages a day) signed by "Habeas.com." Habeas' > website advertises that it is "sender warranted email," and that one > of the main uses of the website is deliver spam-free e-mail. Does > anyone know if they are for real? Should I report the spam to them? There is a link on their home page to report abuses. Apparently, Habeas has already been alerted about those spam messages. Habeas.com has a press release on their website about the abuses. That release and follow-up has been recently discussed in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email under the thread: "habeas.com notices..." You can subscribe to the newsgroup or put that string into www.deja.com to use the deja/google archive to see the discussion. Short summary: a spammer has hijacked a number of computers and is sending out Habeas watermark e-mails from these machines. Habeas has been unable to stop these e-mails yet; they have instead created a list of the IP addresses where such messages are coming from. There has been discussion of the value of the watermark if spammers are willing to forge it -- that someone must also use this blacklist to get Habeas filtering. I recommend anyone interested in the topic read the discussion there. > Should I just block anything that has Habeas headers in it? (So far, > I've never received any legitimate e-mail with Habeas headers.) According to the postings in the discussion, that's exactly the strategy that some e-mail admins are taking. Last year, there apparently was a spammer, Topica, who had a Habeas license and was sending out spam with it. Apparently, Topica's Habeas license was pulled at some point. One can see press releases on the habeas.com website announcing when Topica signed up, but there are no announcements about pulling their service. It's also unclear if Topica was sued by Habeas for damaging the credibility of their service. All agree: Habeas must vigirously pursue their copyright if their service is going to gather trust in the industry. They must locate and litigate against this new spammer. And, IMHO, they must litigate against companies who buy a Habeas license and then use it to send out spam. > -Joel Hoffman > (joel@exc.com) --phil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Some time ago, that Topica outfit made an offer to me to purchase the telecom mailing list; they offered me a dollar for each name on the list; they said they would take it over but keep me as the moderator/editor. I did not know as much about them as I do now, but I am surely glad I did not accept their offer. They said they could help with distribution problems. Its sort of scary to think about now. At the time, when I investigated the list of discussion groups Topica was sponsoring, it seemed like a good oppor- tunity for the Digest. Pardon me for thinking. And that was even back before the onset of my brain desease. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tom Betz Subject: Re: Habeas.com and Spam? Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:48:03 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Anything joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote in news:telecom23.21.8@telecom- digest.org: > Recently I've started getting a lot of spam (well, not a lot, but > perhaps a half-dozen messages a day) signed by "Habeas.com." Habeas' > website advertises that it is "sender warranted email," and that one > of the main uses of the website is deliver spam-free e-mail. Does > anyone know if they are for real? Should I report the spam to them? > Should I just block anything that has Habeas headers in it? (So far, > I've never received any legitimate e-mail with Habeas headers.) You can Habeas' statement on the matter here: and more discussion of this event here: It's not really Habeas-warranted. It looks to be either a) an attack on Habeas' reputation or b) a "joe-job" on notorious spammer Alan Ralsky, who operates the advertised domains -- the current NANAE and SPAM-L consensus is that it's a disgruntled partner of Ralsky trying to bring Habeas' legal team down on him. |I always wanted to be someone,| Tom Betz, Generalist | |but now I think I should have | Want to send me email? | |been a wee bit more specific. | | ------------------------------ From: Dave Garland Subject: Re: Habeas.com and Spam? Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:59:21 -0600 Organization: Wizard Information It was a dark and stormy night when joel@exc.com (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote: > Recently I've started getting a lot of spam (well, not a lot, but > perhaps a half-dozen messages a day) signed by "Habeas.com." Habeas' > website advertises that it is "sender warranted email," and that one > of the main uses of the website is deliver spam-free e-mail. Does > anyone know if they are for real? Yes, they are for real. The way their system works is a copyrighted/ trademarked message (a haiku!) is embedded in the mail headers. Mailers using this are supposed to be *verified* opt-in or pre-existing business relationship. http://www.habeas.com/servicesComplianceStds.html So far, they have won at least one lawsuit against a spammer who was using their mark without complying. They also appear to maintain an online blacklist of violators who don't straighten up, which can be used by ISP mail systems for spamblocking. How well the system works (and whether or not they can successfully nail offshore spammers) is another question. ------------------------------ From: dave@ordinaryworld.com (Dave Temkin) Subject: Re: My Email With Norvergence Date: 15 Jan 2004 06:34:03 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com You are incorrect in saying that they're mutually inclusive (compression & IP). I can send compressed voice over: ATM MPLS Frame Relay and even POTS (though the reasons for that would be beyond me). My guess is that they're doing VoATM, from the talks that they deliver a DSL-like service (which is based on ATM) Robert Johnson wrote in message news:: > (pat can you remove my email address) > I emailed Norvergence to see exactly what their product offering was > about, they denied it was a VoIP offering, yes say it uses > compression ... hmm, how about that, two mutually incompatable > statements, then again, I think TELECOM Digest Readers ought to see > for themselves. > From: Timothy Mack > Subject: RE: Questions about your Service > Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:09:00 -0500 > Mr. Johnson, > The Norvergence cost savings solution is not a VoIP > solution. As our website states, it is a patented hardware solution > that uses compression and encryption to get a voice transmission of > far greater quality and the most secure data transmission utilizing > the full bandwidth available on a T-1 circuit. > The most obvious benefit is the savings in cost over a > standard trunk line/PBX or fractional/integrated T-1 solution, as well > as savings on cellular service. > If you would like to set up a meeting with one of our > representatives to further discuss how this solution can benefit your > business, please follow the link below. Complete and submit the brief > form, and you will be contacted by someone in our scheduling > department for an appointment. > Thank you for your interest in Norvergence. > http://www.norvergence.com/CS_Form/form.cfm > -----Original Message----- > From: Roe Ventola > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:33 AM > To: Timothy Mack > Subject: FW: Questions about your Service > Roe Ventola > Vice-President of Sales Support > Ext 4535 > 866-217-6678 voice > 866-742-6678 Fax > Norvergence.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Rashan Thompson > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:30 AM > To: Roe Ventola; Scott Bufton; Beverly Thomas > Subject: FW: Questions about your Service > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Johnson > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:52 AM > To: customerservice > Subject: Questions about your Service > After reading your site, I am having trouble figuring out exactly what > your product is, if it is simply a VoIP solution why isn't it marketed > as such?, and what is the advantage for purchasing your > product/service over ordering either a Fractional T-1 that carries > both data and voice, or ordering two seperate T-1's for whatever > purpose? > Robert Johnson > > Robert K. Johnson Jr. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: A note I got from Vonage one day said their service would work on dial-up just as well as cable or DSL. But I had to wonder, why would anyone dial through their ISP just in order to (then) dial up a voice connection? PAT] ------------------------------ From: Phil Earnhardt Subject: Re: My Email With Norvergence Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 08:33:00 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:09:14 -0800, Robert Johnson wrote: > The Norvergence cost savings solution is not a VoIP > solution. As our website states, it is a patented hardware solution > that uses compression and encryption to get a voice transmission of > far greater quality and the most secure data transmission utilizing > the full bandwidth available on a T-1 circuit. It would be interesting to know exactly what patents Mr. Ventola is discussing. What exact patent numbers? Who owns the patents? If Norvergence doesn't own the patents, do they have some exclusive license to use them? > Robert K. Johnson Jr. --phil [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The big huge package I got from the Norvergence lawyers when they served me had several pages of exhibits inside it referring to their patents. Let me see if I can find it in my files somewhere ... The Patent was granted to them in Docket Number RM-613 and was entitled "Reliable Converged Voice, Video and Data Over Packet" and was invented by "Skemer, et al" . They asked (in the 131 page document submitted) that the Patent Appli- cation not be published pursuant to 35 USC 122 (b)(2). This was filed on 10-17-2003 by Rick Martin, Patent Attorney, of 416 Coffman Street in Longmont, CO 80501 Phone 303-651-2177 and attorney Martin asked that the filing fee of $810.00 be charged to his patent office account Deposit Account number 50-0617, and that the Director of Patents was authorized to charge/credit the above account as needed. I am not going to sit here and type in all the pages. Anyone who is interested in this invention "Reliable Converged Voice, Video and Data over Packet" invented by a Mr. Skemer, et al can inquire of the Patent Office about Docket Number RM-613 filed on 10-17-2003 or perhaps ask attorney Martin. Maybe Mr. Skemer would tell you about his scheme. Or perhaps our very own Bill Levant of Blue Bell, PA could explain some of the above mumbo-jumbo I typed in, all of which is just as clear as mud. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:43:18 -0500 (EST) From: John R. Covert Subject: Re: My Email With Norvergence > they denied it was a VoIP offering, yes say it uses compression > hmm, how about that, two mutually incompatable statements What's mutually incompatible about that? VoIP stands for "Voice over IP" meaning that the data is carried in packets specifically using the IP protocols (TCP/IP and UDP/IP). It's possible to purchase a point-to-point T1 line that is NOT in any way associated with the internet (or in which some fraction of it goes to the internet and some fraction goes point-to-point) and send data over the point-to-point portion of the T1 line using some other protocol rather than IP, possibly just raw compressed data packets. In fact, I'm familiar with products dating way back into the early 80s which could be used on point-to-point data circuits to provide compressed voice connectivity between PBXs -- long before VoIP was even invented. /john ------------------------------ From: Hank Karl Subject: Re: My Email With Norvergence Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:06:44 -0500 Organization: NETPLEX Internet Services - http://www.ntplx.net/ You don't need VoIP to do compression. VoFR uses compression but is not IP. H.320 uses compression (e.g. G.722) but not IP. On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:09:14 -0800, Robert Johnson wrote: > (pat can you remove my email address) > I emailed Norvergence to see exactly what their product offering was > about, they denied it was a VoIP offering, yes say it uses > compression ... hmm, how about that, two mutually incompatable > statements, then again, I think TELECOM Digest Readers ought to see > for themselves. > From: Timothy Mack > Subject: RE: Questions about your Service Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:09:00 -0500 > Mr. Johnson, > The Norvergence cost savings solution is not a VoIP > solution. As our website states, it is a patented hardware solution > that uses compression and encryption to get a voice transmission of > far greater quality and the most secure data transmission utilizing > the full bandwidth available on a T-1 circuit. > The most obvious benefit is the savings in cost over a > standard trunk line/PBX or fractional/integrated T-1 solution, as well > as savings on cellular service. > If you would like to set up a meeting with one of our > representatives to further discuss how this solution can benefit your > business, please follow the link below. Complete and submit the brief > form, and you will be contacted by someone in our scheduling > department for an appointment. > Thank you for your interest in Norvergence. > http://www.norvergence.com/CS_Form/form.cfm > -----Original Message----- > From: Roe Ventola > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:33 AM > To: Timothy Mack > Subject: FW: Questions about your Service > Roe Ventola > Vice-President of Sales Support > Ext 4535 > 866-217-6678 voice > 866-742-6678 Fax > Norvergence.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Rashan Thompson > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:30 AM > To: Roe Ventola; Scott Bufton; Beverly Thomas > Subject: FW: Questions about your Service > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Johnson > Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:52 AM > To: customerservice > Subject: Questions about your Service > After reading your site, I am having trouble figuring out exactly what > your product is, if it is simply a VoIP solution why isn't it marketed > as such?, and what is the advantage for purchasing your > product/service over ordering either a Fractional T-1 that carries > both data and voice, or ordering two seperate T-1's for whatever > purpose? > Robert Johnson > > Robert K. Johnson Jr. ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Anti Spam Conference at MIT Coming Soon! Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:26:50 -0800 Organization: University of Washington On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Monty Solomon wrote: > Yahoo's Risky Antispam Gambit > It's bypassing the Internet's standards body and implementing its own > tech solution, a unilateral move that many experts criticize. Yahoo is one of the biggest spammers. My private domain at home was hit with a denial of service attack from their bulk.scd##.yahoo.com domains. Hundreds of SMTP connections in rapid fire, all to an address ("ashutosh") that doesn't even exist, swamped my DSL line. When I blackholed that netblock at my router, Yahoo moved the origin of the spam to a different netblock; the familiar whack-a-mole game. I finally had to search out all of Yahoo's netblocks and block them all. I contacted Yahoo repeatedly to get them to stop, and ran up against a brick wall every time. It was clear that they didn't care. I believe that the sole purpose of Yahoo's "anti-spam" conference is to sabotage any legitimate attempt at blocking spam. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:25:18 -0600 From: Gordon S. Hlavenka Reply-To: nospam@crashelectronics.com Organization: Crash Electronics Subject: Last Laugh! Simple.Net -- The Fine Print Today I got one of those "Cash this and sign up" checks in the mail. This one was for $3.25 (whoopee) from Simple.net -- cashing the check would sign me up for internet dialup at $17.95/month. Of course I ripped it and tossed it, but for some reason I decided to read the "Terms of Offer" sheet it came with. Wow! Here's an interesting quote: > This fee will be billed... preferably on your local phone bill > through ESBI, Integretel, ACI or other. Alternatively, the fee may > be billed directly by invoice, on your utility bill, credit card, or > by other methods. You also agree that we may bill the fee by ACH > debit from the account that the enclosed check has been deposited > into ... I love that they've invented a check that _takes money out_ of your account when you deposit it; the last time I heard of something like that was in the Infocom game "Bureaucracy" (by Douglas Adams of HGTTG fame). Can you imagine the fun you'd have once you gave Integretel authorization to dip straight into your checking account? I shudder to think. As I said I already ripped the check. Now, I think I'll go burn the pieces, just to be on the safe side. Gordon S. Hlavenka http://www.crashelectronics.com "If we imagined he could _find_ the car, we could pretend it might be fixed." - Calvin [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Gordon, you live around the Chicago area don't you ... if I lived there I would have taken that check for $3.25 to one of the currency exchanges on the south side of Chicago and cashed it there; just scribbled some name on the back side of it and offered the cashier a tip of a dollar so so for her assistance. Maybe Simple.net would have sent their ACHs to the currency exchange's bank account. The company must have assumed you were sort of simple also! PAT] ------------------------------ 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 networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-330-6774 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the second oldest e-zine/ mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2003 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. If you donate at least fifty dollars per year we will send you our two-CD set of the entire Telecom Archives; this is every word published in this Digest since our beginning in 1981. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #22 *****************************