Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: To Spam or Not to Spam...
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:28:11 -0500
Just a note to those who responded violently to the one person's posting of
the FCC
ISP comments. It did sound familiar to me, so I poked around. Lo and
Behold, I did indeed discover that it is LEGIT. I checked
www.urbanlegends.com, and couldn't find it. Hardly Conclusive, so I went to
www.fcc.gov, and FOUND THE FORM. It is both true, and up to date. AND I
remember reading articles about it.

So, While I can agree with you complaining of getting it X times,
particularly those not in America, don't say it is FALSE without checking
your own sources.

(http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html, if you're curious)

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 2
From: "Faux Pas (Thomas)" <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:52:06 -0600
At 08:28 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Just a note to those who responded violently to the one person's posting of

That was me. I stand by my position that none of the mailing lists that
iTribe provides is a proper forum for that type of message.

True or not, the message didn't refer to any particular docket, nor any
specific place where any information could be found regarding the content
of the message. It read as a revision of the modem tax urban legend (found
under the classic section of www.urbanlegends.com), and urged people to
send e-mail to a certain address without checking on information. As it
was written, it gave out scant information - none of it detailed - and
urged readers to immediately send e-mail. In short, it was intended to
provoke an immediate response to an individual, who possibly was e-mail
bombed by people who didn't know what they were yelling about.

The message that was forwarded to everyone on this list told of the FCC
trying to charge more money for internet access. The e-mail to address
indicates that what is in question is for the Internet Access & Information
Service Provider NOI (CC Docket No. 96-263).

Internet Access & Information Service Provider NOI
The NOI seeks comment on whether the FCC should, in addition to access
charge reform, consider actions relating to the implications of information
service and Internet access provider usage of the public switched network.
In particular, in light of concerns raised over congestion on the public
switched network, the Commission seeks comment on how it can most
effectively create incentives for the deployment of services and facilities
to allow more efficient transport of data traffic to and from end users.
The Commission made no specific proposals, but tentatively concluded that
providers of information services (including Internet service providers)
should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone
companies currently assess on long-distance carriers.

Comment Date: March 24, 1997
Reply Comment Date: April 23, 1997

Let's read that part again:

The Commission made no specific proposals, but tentatively concluded that
providers of information services (including Internet service providers)
should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone
companies currently assess on long-distance carriers.

In other words, the FCC is NOT proposing that ISPs pay additional money for
access, the opposite of the initial post.

The initial post was [1] not a proper post for this mailing list, [2]
misleading, [3] irrelevant to a good portion of this mailing list, and [4]
wrong. In other words, a complete waste of time and bandwidth. It's a
bullshit post that is a revision of the 'modem tax' UL.




Thomas Deeny
Infobahn Austin
512 320 0556
Message no. 3
From: "Faux Pas (Thomas)" <thomas@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 17:02:41 -0600
At 08:28 PM 2/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>So, While I can agree with you complaining of getting it X times,
>particularly those not in America, don't say it is FALSE without checking
>your own sources.

BTW, it was false. The FCC is trying to provide incentives to companies to
develop better services and facilities to allow more efficient transport of
data traffic to and from end users. It has suggested not charging ISPs the
interstate access charge that long-distance carriers are charges. The FCC
is trying to lower costs and increase the efficiency of the internet.

The initial spam said just the opposite. In fact, all it was was the
'modem tax' urban legend. Someone heard Internet and FCC and remembered
the old urban legend.

From www.urbanlegends.com:

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Common Carrier Bureau
Enforcement Division
Informal Complaints and Public Inquiries Branch
Suite 6202
Washington, D.C. 20554
Phone: (202) 632-7553

January 1990

In Reply Refer To:
63203
ICB-FS-036

RUMORS REGARDING A COMPUTER MODEM SURCHARGE

The FCC has received letters from a number of computer modem users
expressing concern about an alleged "proposal" before the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) that would result in a surcharge for the
use of computer modems on the telephone network.

There is _no_ proposal pending before the FCC that would result in the
application of a surcharge for the use of computer modems on the telephone
network.

The FCC has been informed that various computer bulletin board systems are
encouraging computer modem users to write to the FCC and to their
congressional representatives to oppose this alleged proposal. The FCC's
Common Carrier Bureau (Bureau) staff has contacted several bulletin board
systems and requested those systems to advise their users that there is no
proposal before the FCC at this time regarding a computer modem surcharge.
Bureau staff is continuing to investigate possible sources of the surcharge
rumors and to distribute correct information to computer modem users.


Thomas Deeny
Infobahn Austin
512 320 0556
Message no. 4
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:12:22 -0500
>That was me. I stand by my position that none of the mailing lists that
>iTribe provides is a proper forum for that type of message.

Agreed.

>The Commission made no specific proposals, but tentatively concluded that
>providers of information services (including Internet service providers)
>should not be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone
>companies currently assess on long-distance carriers.
>
>In other words, the FCC is NOT proposing that ISPs pay additional money for
>access, the opposite of the initial post.
>
>The initial post was
>[1] not a proper post for this mailing list,

True, accepted, and agreed whole-heartedly.

>[2] misleading,

See #4

>[3] irrelevant to a good portion of this mailing list,

True, accepted, etc....

>[4] wrong.

Well, Not really....basically, the phone companies proposed that the FCC
regulate usage of phone lines for internet access. While the FCC has not
followed their suggestion (yet), they are listening to both sides. However,
the post was still irrelevant to this group.

>In other words, a complete waste of time and bandwidth. It's a
>bullshit post that is a revision of the 'modem tax' UL.

Very different, as this is a true incident with Corporate (Ma bell and her
kids) backing. The fact that the FCC isn't a bunch of idiots is sufficient
to stop it though. I would assert:

1) It is a complete waste of YOUR time and bandwidth. I say such messages
should never be sent over newsgroups/mailing lists unless those groups
directly relate.

2) It is NOT a UL, or a revision of a UL.
3) My only complaint was that someone said it was false. It is not. That
you complain of the inappropriateness I neither dispute you nor oppose you,
but rather back you up.

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 5
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 13:32:22 +0000
|
|Just a note to those who responded violently to the one person's posting of
|the FCC
|ISP comments. It did sound familiar to me, so I poked around. Lo and
|Behold, I did indeed discover that it is LEGIT. I checked
|www.urbanlegends.com, and couldn't find it. Hardly Conclusive, so I went to
|www.fcc.gov, and FOUND THE FORM. It is both true, and up to date. AND I
|remember reading articles about it.

It is still totally irrelevant to the list however.....

|So, While I can agree with you complaining of getting it X times,
|particularly those not in America, don't say it is FALSE without checking
|your own sources.

We said it was a waste of space, spam etc...

I couldn't give a toss if it was genuine or not. It has no effect on
non-americans, and it's be blanket spammed on all the newsgroups as well
anyway.....

|(http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html, if you're curious)

Nope.... I'm not.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 6
From: Steve Collins <steve_collins@********.ALEWIFE.KODAK.COM>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam.
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:25:26 U
Mail*Link® SMTP RE>>To Spam or Not to Spam...

Ok they say there is a first time for everything. I have never =
intentionaly
flamed anyone in my life, a few miscommunications but they were cleared =
up. So
this is my first intentional Flame.

What the original poster did or did not do is at this point irrelivant. I =
saw 1
message that was somewhat off topic, has no bearing on those of you who =
live
outside of the states, and while contained some truth to it was not well
researched. This 1 message has generated better than 20 replies about Spam =
to
the list (no I havn't kept an exact count I delete them as soon as I read =
them)
All of them long and most of them far nastier thasn was necessary. I have =
also
seen in this group of messages replies from people who constsntly complain =
about
replies not being trimmed thast contained 5 to 6 X the quoted text as =
original
text they contributed. This Longwinded flamming constitutes far worse spam =
than
the original poster ever dreamed of contributing and is comming from those =
self
appointed keepers of netequitte. All of those replies to the original post =
could
have been sent directly the person who made it and not to the list which =
is another thing that many of these people constantly complain of (keeping =
OT
subjects private). I am not going to mention any names in an effort to =
keep this
from getting personal and continuing but there are some of you who seem to =
find
it necessary to flame anyone who posts something that offends your =
sensibilities
If you would just stop it or keep it private when you can't resist The =
ammount
of useless spam the rest of us have to wade through would decrease by an =
order
of magnitude.

Just my $.02 on this whole Spam issue
Steve
Message no. 7
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam.
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 09:56:01 -0700
Steve Collins wrote:
|
| Mail*Link® SMTP RE>>To Spam or Not to Spam...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of curiosity, what is this?

| Ok they say there is a first time for everything. I have never =
| intentionaly
| flamed anyone in my life, a few miscommunications but they were cleared =
| up. So
| this is my first intentional Flame.

Sorry Steve, but that wasn't a flame. It was far to
rational and didn't include any foul language. If you're
gonna flame someone you have to make sweeping generalities
and personal attacks that aren't based on any real
substance :)

-David
--
/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 8
From: Gavin Lewis <lewis@**.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: To Spam or Not to Spam...
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:37:11 +0800
>|Just a note to those who responded violently to the one person's posting of
>|the FCC
>|ISP comments. It did sound familiar to me, so I poked around. Lo and
>|Behold, I did indeed discover that it is LEGIT. I checked
>|www.urbanlegends.com, and couldn't find it. Hardly Conclusive, so I went to
>|www.fcc.gov, and FOUND THE FORM. It is both true, and up to date. AND I
>|remember reading articles about it.
>
>It is still totally irrelevant to the list however.....

Agreed ..... and he has apologised. We waste more precious band width
flaming him 101 times. :(

Gav


"In crises the most daring email: lewis@**.edu.au
course is often the safest" tel: +61 9 239 5525
fax: +61 9 239 5544
Henry A. Kissinger Gavin Lewis
The University of Notre Dame - Aust.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about To Spam or Not to Spam..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!