Reporting Little Blue Men

Steve Sobol sjsobol at
Sat Jan 24 01:09:40 UTC 1998

On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 07:19:54PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:

> I presume you mean cases where this law has been applied. I will look that
> up. But even if there were no cases, the law can still be applied to the
> first person caught violating them.

But there have been court cases cited that prove that you're wrong.
Compuserve v. Cyber Promotions, for example. Or any of the AOL victories.

> I'm starting to feel like I have to seek out some spammers and help them
> collect evidence for a crimminal complaint, in order to defend my honor, or
> at least my sanity from claims to the contrary.

If you feel you have to. Whatever.

> Perhaps those network providers who think (and flame) that it can't

People flame you because no matter what evidence is provided to you you
insist you're right. As another Nanog reader mentioned, there is no point in
talking to you because in your opinion, apparently everyone else is
*automatically* wrong. You do nothing for your reputation, Dean, and in fact
end up sounding like a complete idiot.

> possibly apply to their actual blocking, will send me the names and
> netblocks of the spammers they are blocking. They should write that the
> blocked packets are coming from a peer for which they have a peering
> agreement with, and would otherwise be expected to transport those packets
> to their destinations.

But in many, many cases, LIKE MINE, that's not the case! Why do you
automatically assume that?

>  Write that the packets are blocked because they are
> sent from spammers and contain spam. Or just write that they are blocked
> for an arbitrary reason. I'll take the evidence and get a crimminal
> complaint, thus either proving the application of the law.  Or disproving
> it, beyond mere speculation.  "Put up or shut up", as it were.

We're not blocking spammers at this point, Dean, so I can't really say
anything. Except that the aforementioned court cases say that the OWNERS OF

> I would also point out that the definition of "intercept" in 2510 is
> substantially *looser* than the dictionary definition.  Just reading and
> passing it on qualifies as an "intercept" according to 2510.  You don't
> actually have to block it to be intercepting according to the law.  You're
> making my point, while trying to disagree.

Well then, why hasn't every single person running an Internet-connected
computer been thrown in jail? Because -- the routers between point a and
point b on the Net MUST LOOK AT THE PACKETS to determine where to route them.

> I might be wrong, but no one has yet given an explanation of how this law
> doesn't apply. Claims that it only applies to phone companies seem to
> definitely be wrong. But there is one way to find out for sure whether it
> applies to anti-spammer network providers.

So go sue someone. Prove my point.

> I'm not a spammer. Nor am I an anti-spammer. I'm for law and order;  Laws
> that apply equally to everyone, and can't be violated without punishment
> when it suits some private purpose or agenda.

I agree with you that this should be the case. I do not agree that laws are
being violated.

> I claim that crimminals are of low moral fibre, and I'm willing to test who
> the crimminals really are.  I'll expect my postal mailbox to be full next
> week: P.O. Box 7286, Nashua, NH 03060.  I expect to find letters from the
> flamers.

As I said, Dean, you are flamed because you have been presented with
evidence, and have completely ignored it, instead trying to push your point
home. That's why you're flamed, not for your opinions. And how do I know
this? Because people have said it both on NANOG and in private e-mail to me.

I'd flip you a quarter and tell you to go buy a clue, but in order to afford
all the clues you need, you'd probably have to have a net worth close to
that of Bill Gates.

Steve Sobol - sjsobol at    NACS FAQ: 
Maintainer of the NACS.NET Tech Support Site at
   DNS guy, Postmaster, "Web Dude", and AUP Person/Spaminator (T.I.N.C.)

 128K ISDN. Flat rate. $37.50 per month. You know you want it, so why don't
 you call me? 216 619-2000, 1-888-273-NACS. "Operators are standing by!" :)

More information about the NANOG mailing list