From editor@telecom-digest.org Fri Jan 16 15:15:04 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p2/8.11.3) id i0GKF3x16123; Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:15:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:15:04 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200401162015.i0GKF3x16123@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 #25 TELECOM Digest Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:15:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 25 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Book Review: "Wireless Hacks", Rob Flickenger (Rob Slade) Re: Anti Spam Conference at MIT Coming Soon! (John Levine) Re: Anti Spam Conference at MIT Coming Soon! (Mark Crispin) Credit Counseling Telescam Phone Calls (Mark Crispin) Re: Caller-ID and Spying (Lisa Hancock) Re: Habeas.com and Spam? (John Bartley) Domain Registrars Sued Over URL Patent (Monty Solomon) Still Another Norvergence Complaint/Inquiry (Ken Lyle) 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rob Slade Organization: Vancouver Institute for Research into User Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:24:44 -0800 Subject: Book Review: "Wireless Hacks", Rob Flickenger BKWLSHCK.RVW 20031110 "Wireless Hacks", Rob Flickenger, 2003, 0-596-00559-8, U$24.95/C$38.95 %A Rob Flickenger %C 103 Morris Street, Suite A, Sebastopol, CA 95472 %D 2003 %G 0-596-00559-8 %I O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. %O U$24.95/C$38.95 707-829-0515 fax: 707-829-0104 nuts@ora.com %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005598/robsladesinterne http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005598/robsladesinte-21 %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0596005598/robsladesin03-20 %P 286 p. %T "Wireless Hacks" Unlike most pieces that simply list the various wireless standards, chapter one provides excellent coverage of both regulations and protocols, giving clear and practical explanations of the benefits and drawbacks of the various conventions, and recommending the best one for any particular purpose. This sets the tone for the book as a whole, providing advice and information that far exceeds details and suggestions found in other wireless works. (I must say, though, that the exegesis of Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum and Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum is still lacking.) Chapter two shows how to use Bluetooth (mostly with cell phones, Mac OS X, and Linux) for some amazing applications. Descriptions of many monitoring tools are furnished in chapter three, starting with system utilities. There is solid guidance on using these instruments in combination for best effect. Antennae, cables, and the use of minimalist equipment as routers and infrastructure is covered in chapter four. Five deals with antennae in more detail. Long distance point-to-point links are examined in chapter six. Wireless security, in chapter seven, discusses the usual WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) cracks and SSID (Station Set IDentifier) issues, but also reviews SSH (Secure SHell) and tunnelling. For anyone dealing seriously with wireless networks, there is a wealth of information collected here that you will only find elsewhere after prolonged searching. copyright Robert M. Slade, 2003 BKWLSHCK.RVW 20031110 ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade@vcn.bc.ca slade@victoria.tc.ca rslade@sun.soci.niu.edu Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months. - Oscar Wilde http://victoria.tc.ca/techrev or http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade ------------------------------ Date: 16 Jan 2004 14:03:05 -0000 From: John Levine Subject: Re: Anti Spam Conference at MIT Coming Soon! Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg NY USA > 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. Just wondering, how long ago was that? > I believe that the sole purpose of Yahoo's "anti-spam" conference is > to sabotage any legitimate attempt at blocking spam. Hmmn. Yahoo isn't putting on a conference, anti-spam, pro-spam, or otherwise. What leads you to think that they are? >> Just wondering, how long ago was that? > The whack-a-mole game with Yahoo's netblocks took place last November. Odd, I'll talk to them. >> I believe that the sole purpose of Yahoo's "anti-spam" conference is >> to sabotage any legitimate attempt at blocking spam. >> Hmmn. Yahoo isn't putting on a conference, anti-spam, pro-spam, or >> otherwise. What leads you to think that they are? > The article implied that Yahoo had called that conference. You must have read a different article than the rest of us. The one we read made it quite clear that the conference is by and at MIT. Yahoo is giving away domain keys software, but that's unrelated to the conference. Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY http://www.taugh.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:52:42 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: Mark Crispin Subject: Re: Anti Spam Conference at MIT Coming Soon! Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, John Levine wrote: >> 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. > Just wondering, how long ago was that? The whack-a-mole game with Yahoo's netblocks took place last November. As far as I know, the attack is still ongoing. Something is still hitting the SMTP port, but it's not getting anywhere because it's now blocked at the DSL modem. I can tell from the lights when there's incoming traffic but nothing outgoing. >> I believe that the sole purpose of Yahoo's "anti-spam" conference is >> to sabotage any legitimate attempt at blocking spam. > Hmmn. Yahoo isn't putting on a conference, anti-spam, pro-spam, or > otherwise. What leads you to think that they are? The article implied that Yahoo had called that conference. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was told that Yahoo wanted the conference -- which is going on today (Friday, January 16), as I write this -- and they (Yahoo) made a gift to MIT to underwrite the costs associated with the conference and the expenses of some of the main participants, but that Yahoo was not 'in control of' nor dictating the 'direction' the conference went or the conclusions to which the participants arrived. Perhaps by Monday or Tuesday of next week, someone who participated or observed the conference will write a report to the Digest readers. All we can really do, IMO, is keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best. As much as I personally take a libertarian attitude toward the net and the people who make it up, the problems associated with spam have gotten *so bad* that something has to give. I am reminded of how our inner city neighborhoods in large cities have gotten, and comparisons to the internet. Some of the lousiest (in terms of violent crime and general filthy living conditions) in our cities *used to be* among the finest years ago. The internet used to be that way also. People in Chicago, for example, of the 1920-30's era would find it absolutely unthinkable how far certain areas of the south and west sides have disintegrated in more recent years. People who were around the net in 1980-85 would find how the net has gotten in 2003-04 to be just as 'unthinkable'. You old timers remember, I am sure, how the idea of any kind of government controls on the net back in 1980-85 would have been met with horrified messages about Hitler, et al from so many quarters. The Anarchists will take care of themselves, thank you, no government need apply. Who could have imagined in 1980-85 that there would be serious thought given to government controls on the net. It was absolutely unthinkable. But by the mid to late 1990's as the concept of government control on how email could be sent and by whom became more 'thinkable' it was mostly too late. I consider a conference like the one at MIT to be a sort of last-ditch stand or effort by the Anarchists to do their own thing, to protect their real-estate from the gangs of mauruders who have tried to take it over. And I hope pride and personal ego does not cause a null effect on the whole thing; that some compromise or consensus can be achieved. Let's just bite the bullet and do what has to be done to reform the net and restore it to its rightful glory. If at least there can be some standards set, a few things that everyone can agree on. Spam won't disappear overnight, like some magic act, but every dent made will help. The inner city neighborhoods got into their condition because the very same problems, pride, ego, politics standing in the way. We are now seeing *massive* efforts made to at least partially restore their status as decent places to live. Maybe the internet won't have to get that bad -- go that far -- before we all get our acts together. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Mark Crispin Subject: Credit Counseling Telescammers Ignoring Do-Not-Call list Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:47:13 -0800 Organization: Networks & Distributed Computing So much for the Do-Not-Call list. I've been on it since inception. At 9:29AM today I got a prerecorded telemarketing call with a useless Caller ID (404-523-0000). The robot thought that the Qwest No Solicitation announcement was a human answering the call, and proceeded to babble its spiel. By the time it rung and I picked up the phone it was at the tail end, so the only thing that I caught was that it was a prerecord for some credit counseling scam. -- Mark -- http://staff.washington.edu/mrc Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate. Si vis pacem, para bellum. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Mark, did you try 404-523-0000 to see if anyone was there? Four zeros following a prefix *can* be valid. For example, there is a NNN-0000 number here in Independence. It seems like an odd number, but they do have them and often times they are working. And also, was the credit counseling service a non-profit? Aren't there different rules for some of those places like charities and politicians? PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: Caller ID and Spying??? Date: 16 Jan 2004 11:52:59 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com desiv wrote > For the phone number, it shows my mom's number. BUT for the name, it > shows someone else's name!!! I think there's a software bug in the display. It's showing the name from one call, and the number from another. It's possible that maybe one of the calls came in without the name and simply reused the prior one. Or some strange call came in and fouled the memory. Try calling the computer with the caller-ID suppressed, or from someone who has an unlisted number. See how it handles that. If you can get a conventional simple caller-ID device, try hooking that up to the line and calling it a few times from various phones and seeing the output. ------------------------------ From: John Bartley Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:47:18 -0800 Subject: Re: Habeas.com and Spam? Correspondent 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," No, sir, it does not. It offers individual users and customers a way to pass through properly configured filters reliably, as well as an enforcement mechanism which actively pursues violators, but it relies on a) you, your sysop or ISP to properly design a filter, and b) receipients of spam abusing it's copyright to report it. > and that one > of the main uses of the website is deliver spam-free e-mail. No, their purpose is to alow its users to send spam-free e-mail. > Does anyone know if they are for real? Yes, they are. I receive many e-mails signed with Habeas, and not yet one spam. > Should I report the spam to them? I'd make sure to report these violations to Habeas at http://habeas.com/report > Should I just block anything that has Habeas headers in it? (So far, > I've never received any legitimate e-mail with Habeas headers.) No, I would not. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I do not think it matters any longer to report individual instances of spam; everyone knows how bad it has gotten and you just clutter up the help desks and spam report desks of the world. Its like calling the police on the west side of Chicago to report your purse was snatched. Police very politely take your report, and maybe even put out a flash bulletin on the radio ('be on the lookout for man described as thus and so') to humor you so you think they are 'going to put an end to crime'. Like with spam, it does not go away because of anyone's 'report' to a help desk somewhere. Yes, there is something to be said for keeping statistics and hope- fully assigning individual responsibility for individual crimes. But spam will be greatly reduced when the main players -- for example, at the conference today -- decide it will end. Hopefully the main players won't let personal politics and ego prevent them from doing thier jobs. PAT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 14:44:42 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Domain Registrars Sued Over URL Patent By Marguerite Reardon Staff Writer, CNET News.com Two Internet entrepreneurs are suing Network Solutions and Register.com for infringing on their e-mail and domain naming patent. Troy K. Javaher and Frank M. Weyer, operating under the newly formed company Nizza Group, on Monday filed a patent infringement lawsuit in U.S. District Court in California against the two domain registrars. The suit accuses Network Solutions and Register.com of selling rights to Web URLs and e-mail addresses that infringe on a patent that was granted to Javaher and Weyer on Dec. 20, 2003. The patent covers the method of assigning URLs and e-mail addresses of members of a group such that the "@" sign is the dot in the URL. For example, if a group used a so-called third-level URL, www.john.smith.com, the e-mail address would be john@smith.com. In the complaint, Nizza Group specifically indicates that Network Solutions and Register.com are infringing the patent by selling rights to URLs and e-mail addresses under the .name domain. The .name domain is called a third-level domain, because it uses an extra dot, as in the case of john.smith.name. Even though the database of .name domains is owned and operated by Global Name Registry (GNR), it was not named in the lawsuit. http://news.com.com/2100-1038-5141810.html [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: How in the *hell* could those turkeys have been granted a patent on December 20, *2003* for a system which has been in common use for about twenty years? What was the Patent Office thinking about when they granted the patent in that case? Maybe I could go apply for a patent on the system of Usenet newsgroups, telling them I thought of it first when I invented the Internet, then sue all the other guys who 'infringed on my ideas'. Geeze. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Ken Lyle Subject: Norvergence Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:58:01 -0500 Pat, I left you a message on your cell. Our Lawyers suggested I find all the info I can on Norvergence on the web about complaints. Your page seems to have the most on it. Like I said on your voicemail, there is no real way for me to prove who I am to you. We are a company in PA www.bscable.com We signed up for Norvergence and it immediately turned into a nightmare. I am trying to email or call everyone who complained about them on your site to find out what kind of luck they had getting out of this or if they had to sue Norvergence. Trying to get all my ducks lines up in a row. Are you allowed to send me a file of everything you had on them on your website? What if I had our Lawyer call you to prove to you that they do not represent Norvergence in any way? I take it from reading this that Norvergence is trying to sue you to take these posts down? I I don't understand how they could do that. It's free speech. Your not posting it, anyone who can access your site is posting it. They are not allowed to express their opinions? This whole thing is getting bigger and crazier the more I read into it. I thought we were alone here, but apparently we are not! Any info would be appreciated! Thank you, Ken Controller B.S. Cable Co., Inc. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You don't have to have your lawyer call me to prove anything. To get all I know at this point about Norvergence just go through the Telecom Archives ( http://telecom-digest.org ) since around the first of December searching for the articles about them; There are plenty -- most are unfavorable -- and help yourself to all you want. Especially look in the past two weeks, in the section of the Archives called TELECOM_Digest_Online through the thousand or so messages there during the past month. You'll find your letter of inquiry today in there also. Each time I send out an issue of the Digest (as I will with this one) the archives is auto-updated including the Digest Online feature. 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 #25 *****************************