For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
For your convenience in reading: Subject lines are printed in RED and
Moderator replies when issued appear in BROWN.
Previous Issue (just one)
TD Extra News
TELECOM Digest Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:30:00 EDT Volume 24 : Issue 176
Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson
New Spam Scam Exploits Pope's Death (Lisa Minter)
Vonage to FCC: Qwest is Playing Nice, so SBC Should, Too (Jack Decker)
Using Existing Home Telephone Wiring (Brian E Williams)
Nextel Contract Expiration, How to Determine? (Steve)
Time Warner, Comcast buy Adelphia (Telecom dailyLead from USTA)
TC 35 Modules and 2N Gateways (dee4darek@gmail.com)
Re: AOL to Block Identity Theft Sites (Ed Clarke)
Re: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP Not Part of Emergency (JustTime)
Re: CNID Printouts on Cell Bills, was: SprintPCS Lousy Web (Justin Time)
Re: Markey Targets Credit ID Theft: Wants Security Freeze (B. Williams)
Re: ID Thief Wins Constantly! TRUE Story (Tim@Backhome.org)
Re: It Happened Again (T. Sean Weintz)
Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com)
Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam (news01@jmatt.net)
Telecom and VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) Digest for the
Internet. 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 are 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, 21 Apr 2005 03:09:24 -0400
From: lisa_minter2001@yahoo.com
Subject: New Spam Scam Exploits Pope's Death
by Sharon Gaudin
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3497551
A new spam campaign is exploiting people's interest in and grief over
the death of Pope John Paul II.
The spam claims to offer readers a free collection of books written by
the late pope. The email tells users to click on a link to receive the
gift, but the link actually takes them to a Web site offering 'free
money-making advice'.
"This is absolutely slimy," says Carole Theriault, a security
consultant with Sophos, Inc., an anti-virus and anti-spam company with
U.S. headquarters in Lynnfield, Mass. "We started seeing this scam
over the weekend, soon after the pope's funeral ... They're using the
pope's name with all the news surrounding his death and the emotional
investment to fool people."
Pope John Paul II's funeral was held Friday, April 8.
Theriault says this is just the latest example of spammers using
current headlines and emotional topics to lure people in.
"We're seeing an increasing amount of spam using current events to get
into people's inboxes," she says. "They're stealing headlines from CNN
to try to bypass simple spam filters ... It's tasteless. People don't
like being mislead. If they want a book on Pope John Paul II, they
don't want to be misdirected to a site about money-making secrets."
Theriault notes that similar spam campaigns were launched soon after
the Dec. 26 tsunami crisis.
"Spammers are prepared to plumb the depths in their attempt to get
Internet users to buy their goods or services," adds Graham Cluley,
senior technology consultant for Sophos. "The pope's death has been
mourned by millions around the world, yet for the spammers it's just
another opportunity to sell their unwanted wares."
Theriault says she doesn't think this particular campaign will be a
long-lasting one.
"We expect this particular spam campaign to die out as the stories
about the pope's death and funeral trickle from our news bulletins,"
she says. "However, we can be sure that spammers will try and
capitalise on the next world event, be it a disaster or a triumph."
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, all these complainers should
read the advice given by our resident anti-spam expert, Robert Bonomi
who would tell them (1) any real man would know how to get his
computer to do his bidding if only they would get rid of the
Microsoft stuff on it and (2) if they really can't hack it, then
give up the computer and the net totally. Sounds like a good deal to
me. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Jack Decker <jack-yahoogroups@withheld_on_request>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:47:54 -0400
Subject: Vonage to FCC: Qwest is Playing Nice, so SBC Should, Too
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=365
Vonage to FCC: Qwest is playing nice, so SBC should, too
-Posted by Russell Shaw @ 2:44 pm
[.....] Vonage claims "that SBC has agreed to begin discussions on
working cooperatively to improve 911 offerings available to customers
using VoIP," Wilhelm wrote. "However, Vonage also noted its concern
that SBC has already provided 911 interconnection access to its
unregulated VoIP affiliate.
"The terms and conditions of the access granted its affiliate are also
not being made public and are subject to a non-tariffed 'ancillary'
agreement," Wilhelm added. "Vonage reiterated its strong concern about
any practice that would permit an ILEC to offer 911 access to its
unregulated affiliate on a confidential and non-tariffed basis while
restricting customers of other VoIP services from receiving the same
level of access."
Full story at:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=365
How to Distribute VoIP Throughout a Home:
http://michigantelephone.mi.org/distribute.html
If you live in Michigan, subscribe to the MI-Telecom group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MI-Telecom/
------------------------------
From: BrianEWilliams <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com>
Subject: Using Existing Home Telephone Wiring
Date: 21 Apr 2005 05:50:15 -0700
I have POTS wired through the house. Is it simple to get my VoIP
service to use this wiring? The optimist in me says all I have to do
is turn off POTS, run a wire from the telephone jack on the VoIP
router, and plug it into a telephone wall jack. The realist in me says
this would be way too simple. Any thoughts?
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: You are on the right path, Brian. Just
make _absolutely_ positive that the POTS line is removed _at the
demarc_ where it cannot get in the way. Dialtone from the POTS line
colliding with dialtone from VOIP means disaster for your VOIP adapter
which will probably fry out. It probably won't hurt the telco central
office switch -- although 'they' may have to go reset a fuse
sometimes -- but it can mean death to the VOIP adapter if voltage from
the one comes in contact with the other. And don't just remove a
couple wires on a local box somewhere unless you know your house
wiring _very well_; go outside to the demarc or wherever it is and
pull the wires from central out of the way there. PAT]
------------------------------
From: steve <steven_jones_71@hotmail.com>
Subject: Nextel Contract Expiration, how to determine?
Date: 21 Apr 2005 06:00:38 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Hi,
I am trying to determine what the expiration date on my Nextel
cellular contract is. I cannot find it on my bill, or logging on to
online account management.
I would like to determine this without calling Nextel if possible, as
I'm afraid they might pull some trick and extend it if I call.
Any suggestions as to where I can obtain this info?
Thanks,
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:50:06 EDT
From: Telecom dailyLead from USTA <usta@dailylead.com>
Subject: April 21, 2005 - Time Warner, Comcast buy Adelphia
Telecom dailyLead from USTA
April 21, 2005
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21008&l=2017006
TODAY'S HEADLINES
NEWS OF THE DAY
* Time Warner, Comcast buy Adelphia
BUSINESS & INDUSTRY WATCH
* Verizon picks Motorola for FTTP gear
* Sprint's global hotspots double through deals
* Analysis: VoIP's future may be shaped this year
* EarthLink, Qualcomm, AT&T and Nokia report earnings
USTA SPOTLIGHT
* At SUPERCOMM: Register today for the IP Video Conference
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
* Vodafone takes aim at BlackBerry
* 10 telecom technologies to watch
Follow the link below to read quick summaries of these stories and others.
http://www.dailylead.com/latestIssue.jsp?i=21008&l=2017006
------------------------------
From: dee4darek@gmail.com (dee4darek@gmail.com)
Subject: TC 35 Modules and 2N Gateways
Date: 21 Apr 2005 05:45:53 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Hello,
I want to buy big amount of Siemens TC 35 modules (new or used) and
GSM gateway (2N - working on tc 35). If you have any information where
can I find please let me know, below link with TC 35 description,
http://www.datek.no/Hardware/SiemensTC35/Datasheet-TC35_module.pdf
Please answer to my email.
dee4darek@gmail.com
Regards,
Darek
------------------------------
From: Ed Clarke <clarke@cilia.org>
Subject: Re: AOL to Block Identity Theft Sites
Date: 21 Apr 2005 11:01:50 GMT
Organization: Ciliophora Associates, Inc.
Reply-To: clarke@cilia.org
On 2005-04-20, mc <mc_no_spam@uga.edu> wrote:
> In my opinion, all browsers should block or warn about references of the
> form:
> <a href="xxxxx">yyyyy</a>
> where yyyyy is a URL that does not match xxxxx.
> Simple - why don't they do it?
Virtual hosts. I have half a dozen websites on a single IP; costs my
customers less for web hosting. The only time it makes a difference
is for vanity -- reverse host maps to forward host -- or for SSL.
This signature left blank.
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP Not Part of Emergency
Date: 21 Apr 2005 05:26:17 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Dave Garland wrote:
Of course. But is *sounds* like Vonage is in fact telling people.
There's no reason why the county 911 can't use CID on a non-911 line
to access their database, except that they don't want to be bothered.
The point is that CID can be blocked and is not guaranteed to be
delivered. The ANI information the 911 centers use is pretty much the
same data that feeds the telephone company billing system. That
information cannot be blocked or opted out of providing. Of course,
if you want the PSAP to use CID information to take emergency calls on
a non-emergency number and do the look-up from the CID it would be
permissible to have the PSAP lines configured for Anonymous Call
Rejection which would reject all calls that didn't have CID. That
would insure the PSAP had at least some information to work with.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On 'regular' 911, attempts to use *67
in front of it are ignored. A good way to phrase it is that on calls
to 911 the police always pay the bill (for the transit of the traffic)
and they _insist_ on getting the numbers of the calling parties, just
like on an 800 number; when someone else is paying, you get no choice
in the matter. I notice an interesting thing about Vonage and *67
also. *67 _does work_, but if you do *67-something else you'll hear
a distinct 'click' after the *67 has been dialed and a new dial tone
from some different switch it sounds like to me, jumps in and takes
the remainder of your dialing string. I dunno why ... but Vonage does
not accept *67-911 either, so there is no way the caller ID in those
cases would not get a story for its owners. PAT]
------------------------------
From: Justin Time <a_user2000@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: CNID Printouts on Cell Bills, was: SprintPCS Lousy Web
Date: 21 Apr 2005 05:46:18 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Interesting point. But couldn't the cellular companies come back
stating they had delivered the CID when the phone rang? That you
didn't record the information isn't their concern.
But again, if you use the argument that your cell phone is like an 800
number that is entitled to billing information, then the same argument
could be made for your POTS line as well. You are paying to receive
the service.
Rodgers Platt
------------------------------
From: BrianEWilliams <sorry_no_email@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Markey Targets Credit ID Theft: Wants Security Freeze
Date: 21 Apr 2005 06:43:37 -0700
Great, another PIN to remember! How about getting an email every time
my credit file is accessed? Seems like a reasonable compromise.
------------------------------
From: Tim@Backhome.org
Subject: Re: ID Thief Wins Constantly! TRUE Story
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:38:05 -0700
Organization: Cox Communications
There is a different between this criminal and a bank robber.
Innocent bystanders are in harm's way and are often shot and killed
during bank robberies.
You are rightfully offended to a point, but please don't suggest that
a thug with a gun is no more dangerous than a swindler.
Cheryl Rudow Pope wrote:
> Why The Courts Work For The Criminal and NOT The Victims! Illinois
> Now they send her on Vacation?? I am a victim of Identity Theft
> committed by a convicted felon who has done this to me several times.
> She was let off because of claims of medical conditions?? Like she
> can't be treated in prison? What is wrong here? So she can rob and
> steal from people and all she has to do when the Court system catches
> up with her is to just claim she has cancer, MS or some other staged
> up claim and she is FREE? That is what she used in both counties below
> to get off! Just think how much money these thieves can get away with!
> Like Probation is going to do a darn thing? ONLY IN AMERICA! She is no
> different from someone that robs a bank! I am OUTRAGED AT THE JUSTICE
> SYSTEM PERIOD! What exactly will stop her from doing this to me again?
> In 95 she stole my Identity and there were NO laws to prosecute
> her. NOW here we are in 2005 and have laws and alls they do is give
> her probation? PLUS she is a prior convicted FELON with a Criminal
> Background that does NOT stop!
> The felon now has 8 Current Identity Theft Charges/Check Deception
> Charges in 2 Counties, Will and Dupage. Six charges in Will and 2
> charges in Dupage. She also did prison time in 95 For Embezzelling and
> Employee Theft in Dupage County.
> I cannot believe the Judge gave her probation??? In DUPAGE COUNTY
> Dupage County Case Numbers: 04 CF 2875 04 CF 1193 February 2, 2005 she
> faced sentencing of the above cases. 1 Identity Theft and 1 Check
> Deception. I was the Identity Theft Victim.
> The Judge AGAIN gave her probation because Will County did and also
> she is claiming to have a Medical Condition? I don't care she can be
> treated in PRISON! ALSO why is she given the ROYAL treatment of being
> on Probation ?? SHE has a very LONG criminal background with drug
> conviction charges, Identity Theft charges and many more. How can a
> person on Probation for 3 years in 2 Different Counties with 8 Current
> Convictions get to travel and go on vacation when SHE got Probation
> because she claimed a so called medical condition that kept her from
> going to Jail and now a month later she takes a ski trip vacation?
> Here is the reply I got from Will County State's Attorney: On March
> 18, 2005, the defendant appeared with her attorney. The defendant
> requested the court's permission to travel to the State of Colorado
> from March 23, 2005 to April 3, 2005. Over the State's objection, the
> court granted it, provided she have her court costs paid in full. They
> are, so she did. How did she get away with this? She is Cured, FREE
> and Taking Vacations on Stolen Money! The Courts sure work for the
> criminal here!
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Will County and Dupage County are both
> in the metropolitan Chicago area; Will being south/southwest and
> Dupage being west of Cook County/Chicago respectively. But, Ms. Pope,
> you seem to infer she was due back in court or probation on April 3,
> about two weeks ago. What has happened since then? Your story does not
> surprise me, knowing how the courts in that area operate. Can you
> bring us up to date? PAT]
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: The only reason, IMO, that a criminal
uses a gun in a bank robbery rather than a computer is because he
is not smart enough. If he knows how to use a computer he likely
will not get his hands dirty with the brute force a gun implies. PAT]
------------------------------
From: T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org>
Subject: Re: It Happened Again
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:07:00 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
TELECOM Digest Editor wrote:
> Again, today, Wednesday, late evening, spam rolled in so heavily here
> at massis, about 6 or 8 messages got lost in the shuffle, including
> one from Robert Bonomi. When the last issue before this came out,
> around 7 PM Wednesday evening, it was a larger than usual issue and
> the queue totally cleared out. Then midnight Wednesday, start of
> Thursday, we were hit again with a spam attack. So if you responded
> Wednesday evening sometime and it is not here, please replace it. I
> think it is quite ironic that one of Bonomi's messages got lost this
> time around, somewhere between a couple of the phishing attacks and
> one of the 'God Bless You from Nigeria Where my Late Husand was Killed
> by the Rebels' messages.
> PAT
You might want to think about investing in a good anti-spam appliance.
Of course for that to be feasible, you must host your own email (run
your own mail server) which I am not sure you do.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Alas, I do not. The mail server is
purely part of the MIT system, besides which, I am not sure I am
smart enough to run a mail server. PAT]
------------------------------
From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: 21 Apr 2005 09:45:49 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Paul Vader wrote:
>> Well then, who IS responsible to do the job? If no such job
>> exists, why isn't one created?
> A) Why would anyone living in a free country want controls on what people
> can say?
Your question assumes there are no controls on what people can say.
That assumption is wrong -- we have many controls on what we can say.
Among other things, you may not threaten anyone, harass anyone,
disburse certain kinds of pornography or libel or slander another
person.
Further, various communication media have additional restrictions
on them. The US Mail has restrictions, as does the use of the
telephone or loudspeakers.
Spam is harassment. It requires the _receiver_ to expend time
and money to deal with it day after day.
> B) Do you really misunderstand the internet so badly that you think that
> there's any place you COULD create controls?
Any computer system has the capability of including controls.
Well-run computer systems had controls included within them right from
the start. I don't know the technical details of the Internet; nor is
there any need for me to. The fact is that the Internet has serious
problems and it's up to the people who operate it to fix it.
> C) Who says what's allowable or not? I vote for NOBODY.
See A) above. Laws already exist that determine what is
allowable or not. Sabotage via a "virus" is pretty obvious.
Further, fixing the Internet is not merely an issue of
"content" but also dealing with cost allocation and sender
identity.
> The internet doesn't exist - it's just a bunch of public ways
> connecting private networks. No website runs 'on the internet' - it's
> a peephole into private property that you get to look into. If you
> don't like what's going on inside, don't peek. *
That's flat out wrong. Pat below gives a good analogy, but
there are others. You do not have anonymity when using your
telephone -- your number is transmitted to certain recipients
whether you like it or not. The US Mail is a "public way"
connecting people, but there are laws on using it just the same,
just as there are laws on using your telephone.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Oh, sure as hell, Paul! And every
> public highway in the world has lots of private driveways attached to
> it, but there are still rules to follow in order to be on the
> highway.
Excellent point.
> Let me ask you this: In 1905, when automobiles were first beginning to
> show up in mass numbers (on the non-highways which connected the
> little towns and roads of America) were you also opposed to speed
> limits, license plates -- indeed driver's licenses -- and rules which
> pertain to hit and run, etc. A lot of people were, you know, seriously.
The extent of such motor vehicle laws remains under great debate
today -- many people oppose new public safety laws (see misc.transport.road
for passionate discussions on this issue). Many people object to being
ordered to wear their seatbelts or not use their cell phone.
But the bottom line is that as soon as there was more than one car on
the road with the potential of hitting each other (as well as people
and objects off to the side), laws were required to control use. The
more cars on the road, the more laws required.
When the Internet was a private network serving an exclusive
community, few rules were needed. But like roads, the Internet is no
longer a private enclave. People and businesses are dependent on
their computers and email to conduct business and viruses and spam
have shut whole businesses down. This is unacceptable just as
tolerating drunk drivers is unacceptable.
In the 1950s, engineers studying growing car accidents realized
certain things could be done to save lives. The auto industry fought
these tooth and nail, a fight that continues to this day. It's the
same thing with the Internet -- laws are required to protect the public
interest.
The issue is not whether laws are required, but rather what specific
laws and the degree of regulation are required.
Bob Goudreau wrote:
> inconceivable that an economy with *no one at all* in charge could not
> only work, but indeed actually work much *better* than one run in a
> top-down fashion by a select group of alleged economic experts.
Your analogy isn't true -- it's wrong to say the U.S. economy has
"no one at all" in charge. Far from it.
First off, considerable control of the economy is exercised by the
Federal Reserve in regulating banking activity and the govt itself
influences activity by tax policy.
Secondly, and more importantly, the economy operates under a complex
set of laws governing commercial activity. If I hand you a piece of
colored slip of paper printed "certified check" you have very strong
confidence that paper will convert into cash for you without question
or trouble. That doesn't happen by accident, it happens by laws
regulating the banking system.
These laws didn't happen by chance, they happened because the economy
was growing but lacked the confidence and controls to work without
undue risk. Many laws came out of the economic collapse of 1929.
Indeed, a big problem with today's Russian economy is that there are
few laws and controls on their economy. Assumptions safely made in
U.S. trade cannot be done in Russia. Everything has much higher risk.
> And so it is with the internet. It turns out that just letting
> different private networks work out for themselves the terms of how
> they wanted to connect (or not) with other such networks became far
> more attractive to customers than the old centrally controlled "walled
> garden" private commercial networks that were around in the early
> 1980s (Compuserve, the original AOL, etc.)
That arrangement has serious problems. Trying to fix said problems
is the point of our discussion.
IMHO, the private networks liked Compuserve failed because (1) they
came along too early in the PC era and (2) they were too expensive.
There was a limit on how much work could be done on a 2400 modem and
Compuserve virtually metered every keystroke. Having an email account
was of little value when no one else you knew had a computer and
account in those days.
> No one is "in charge" of the internet, any more than someone is "in
> charge" of a market economy.
> Yes, both of them need a certain amount of rules in order to function
> (e.g., consensus on which currencies/protocols are popular enough to
> merit being used to exchange value/data; rights to own physical
> property/address numbering and name-space resources; rules against
> fraudulent behavior that would deprive someone of their property,
> etc.)
Your two statements contradict each other. Either there is control or
no control. Clearly there IS control. Thus, our debate becomes not
one of having control (as some are framing it), but rather the
_degree_ of control.
> But you can't go too crazy with the rules, or else you end up
> either with rules that don't/can't get enforced (see: Prohibition, or
> the "CAN-SPAM" act) or you have to implement such an onerous
> overweening system of control that you lose the benefits of the free
> exchange of property/data (see: the North Korean economy, or the
> rigidly-controlled Chinese internet).
When mandatory seatbelt-wearing laws came out, not everybody obeyed
them. But they had the positive effect of encouraging more seatbelt
use and saved many lives. Laws and enforcement aren't perfect, but
the system overall does work.
The U.S. prospered BECAUSE of regulated trade laws (provided for
in the original Constitution), not in spite of them. People had
far higher confidence and consistency in what they were dealing with.
------------------------------
From: news01@jmatt.net
Subject: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam
Date: 21 Apr 2005 10:48:14 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I still suggest returning undelivered
> email 'to the sender'.
I used to agree with that. I thought it was irresponsible and
inexcusable for any ISP to throw away mail without notifying (or
getting previous approval from) either the recipient or the (alleged)
sender. But, after considering the potential effect on an innocent
party whose address gets forged on spam, I have reconsidered. I still
hate it when I send mail that just silently disappears with no
notification or explanation, but there are worse things that could
happen. However, I think letting the sending server handle the
notification alleviates this problem.
> If some innocent person gets a jillion pieces of mail because
> *someone else forged his email address* then maybe that person will
> get angry enough to join the effort to try and clean up the net.
I have already joined the effort to clean up the net. My website is
helping Project Honeypot identify email-harvesting bots. (
http://www.projecthoneypot.org/ )
My SMTP server is using RBL to reject a LOT of incoming spam, so I
don't have to whine about losing legitimate incoming email in a flood
of spam. And it's up to the sending servers to decide whether or not
to notify the sender. My guess is that legitimate servers will, and
spambots won't. And if anybody either gets an erroneous notification
about rejected spam that he didn't really send, or fails to get a
notification when his legitimage message didn't reach me, that's the
fault of the sending server, not mine.
I'm doing what I can to clean up the net. I don't need a jillion
pieces of mail to convince me cleaning up the net is a good thing.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: But isn't also a good idea to auto-ack
the alleged senders of the spam mail since if a person gets enough
of those they may be moved to clean out the zombies in their own
computer (if they have any, or if they don't) become angry enough to
join in the fight in a big time way? That is why I am seriously
thinking about changing my auto-ack to say 'thank you for writing me
and if you didn't write to me then welcome to the club'. 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: 620-402-0134
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 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 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved.
Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA.
************************
DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO
YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST
AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest !
************************
Visit http://www.mstm.okstate.edu and take the next step in your
career with a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management
(MSTM) degree from Oklahoma State University (OSU). This 35
credit-hour interdisciplinary program is designed to give you the
skills necessary to manage telecommunications networks, including
data, video, and voice networks.
The MSTM degree draws on the expertise of the OSU's College
of Business Administration; the College of Arts and Sciences; and the
College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology. The program has
state-of-the-art lab facilities on the Stillwater and Tulsa campus
offering hands-on learning to enhance the program curriculum. Classes
are available in Stillwater, Tulsa, or through distance learning.
Please contact Jay Boyington for additional information at
405-744-9000, mstm-osu@okstate.edu, or visit the MSTM web site at
http://www.mstm.okstate.edu
************************
---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 V24 #176
******************************
| |