[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Attitude Readjustment [Was: Chemical attractant, for men andwomen...]

Hash: SHA1

Dear Mr Woolley,

Thank you for your response.  I ask that you read my message below
carefully.  I think that you have have been misinformed about the nature
of my initial complaint and follow-up "lecture".  [After nearly finishing
composing this, I received a message from newnet.co.uk informing me that I
have have been mistaken in my original report.  However, almost all of
this still applies.]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 sales@snet.co.uk wrote:

> Mr Goldberg
> You cyber hero.....
> Your email has been brought to my attention.

Oh.  I never got the name of the person I was dealing with before.  I have
always reported my real name (and provided real contact information in my

> This company does not and never will "spam".

Are you claiming that I was mistaken (or lying) in my original report of
the spam I reported with appears to have come from ?

Is that not one of your IP addresses?

If there was some technical error and you or your customer did not send
spam then that is something that needs to be sorted out.  Whoever, when I
reported it, all I was told was "don't whinge about spam."

Just as I was nearly finished with this response, someone from
newnet.co.uk has told me that he believes that the IP address was forged.
There are a number of reasons why I think that he is mistaken, but if he
is correct then we have both been the victims of the actions of a spammer.
At either rate, I believe that what I have to say still applies.
Obviously, I would not go ahead with a MAPS nomination if there is good
reason to believe that I've got the fact wrong.  Also such a nomination
would never be successful, despite the fact that you "talk" like a spam
friendly ISP.

> Accusations of such is slander.

If my report is erroneous it would be extremely useful for you to
point out how.  I do not believe that I got it wrong.  The original spam
was sent to you and quoted fully in your first reply.  [Someone at newnet
does think that it may be erronous.  We are currently looking into that.]

I initially reported to snet alone my reason for believing that one of
your customers originated spam.  You had the opportunity then to say that
my analysis of the spam was mistaken.  You still have that opportunity.
However, no one denied the spam.  I was just told to not worry about spam.

> Calling us uneducated and telling us that "you require an "attitude
> readjustment".  is insulting.

The intention was not to insult, but I agree that among other things it is
insulting.  Unfortunately, I don't see any way to proceed without that.
Your response to me know shows that you do need the education.

Although not relevant, I have avoided all deliberate insults and have
refrained from reacting to any.  Every message I've recieved from your
organization has been remarkably insulting, including the first one which
was a response to the initial spam report.

> To do it from the safety of time and distance over the net is the act
> of a coward.

I am hardly going to fly to Gatwick to report this personally.  But I have
done nothing anonymously.  I have used my real name.  My ".sig" contains a
URL which gives complete real contact information.  I have PGP signed my
previous message (and this one) so that I cannot later repudiate anything
I say here.

> You do not know us

I know what is on your website.  I know that I got spam which appears to
have originated from one of your customers.  I know that when I reported
the spam you told me to not whinge about spam.

I conclude from that that you are a spam-friendly ISP.  I also conclude
from the content of your responses that you are a spam-friendly ISP out of
ignorance and stupidity instead of out of malice.

> You do not know me


> You do not know what I have done for the betterment of all humans as a whole


> You do not know my ethic or code,

I do know that you are associated with (head of?) a spam-friendly ISP.

> and you definitely do not have a mandate to lecture people on ethical
> principals.

You show every indiciation of being a spam-friendly ISP.  I not only have
a mandate as a netuser to try to stop that, I have a responsibility.

> Cowards and bullies are the two things I hate the most, and you are both.

I repeat that I have not acted anonymously.  I did informed you as to what
happens to spam-friendly ISPs.  If you continue to remain a spam-friendly
ISP then it doesn't matter whether I nominate you for MAPS blocking,
because someone else will.

> lastly to imagine that you can issue threats and expect to have no
> repercussions taken against you is the act of a fool.

I have "threatened" to do only two things:

  (1) Report all of these events, discussions and your replies to
      your provider, newnet.co.uk.  I have been carrying that out.
      It is up to newnet.co.uk to decide the merits of that.

  (2) Nominate you for MAPS.  Note that all I can do is make the
      nomination.  The procedure is far from automatic.  If MAPS thinks
      that there is merit in the case, they will attempt to contact you
      and "educate" you prior to adding you to the list.  If they
      do go ahead and add you to their list, then it is up to other
      network providers to make use of the list as they wish.  So, for
      example, freeserve blocks all Email from MAPS listed addresses,
      Teleglobe blocks all network traffic entirely.  Other providers do

      If you wish to sue me, then you have to first show that the evidence
      I based my nomination is in erronous, and second that the error is
      due to malice or gross negligence.  I believe that it is not
      erronous.  Either way, my website listed below gives full contact
      and identifying information.

      If you wish to sue MAPS, please visit their website for
      instructions.  They are seeking test cases.

      If you wish to sue providers who block based on MAPS, take it up
      with the individual providers.

> I hope this will give you pause for thought, it is not wise to issue
> threats against a person or a companies livelihood, and I can assure
> you Mr Goldberg; to threaten me or My company is the very last thing
> you should ever do.

I am informing you of the consequences of being a spam-friendly ISP.  If
the issue is not resolved, then I will go ahead with a MAPS nomination
(and if I don't someone else surely will).  [However, I won't report until
the issue of whether this is a sophisticated forgery is resolved.] All of
the information that I provide to MAPS (the original spam, this exchange,
and the results of looking up some things in public DNS and whois records)
will be cc'ed to you.  If there is some material error, you will continue
to have every opportunity to correct that.

> I hope you get your personal issues sorted out... because I think you need
> help.
> Never the less I wish you seasons greetings and do hope you can find some
> joy in the coming new year

You may find this hard to believe, but likewise.

> Sir I am
> W.Woolley
> Director Stirling Networks Ltd
[JPG: remainder of address omitted]

And I am Jeffrey P. Goldberg

Full contact information can be found at the website quoted below (as it
has been in every single message that I've sent).

> p.s. You will note that i include our address in the real world, for unlike
> yourself I am not a cyber hero, indeed i am as far away from the geek as you
> could possibly imagine.

Full contact information can be found at the website quoted below (as it
has been in every single message that I've sent).  Let me make it even
more explicit:


That contains real information, giving a mailing address (though not my
home address) and a mini-biography, previous address.  Elsewhere on the
sites there are photos of me and my house, and contacts for family

That URL has been in every single message I've sent to you.  I don't know
where you got the idea that I am acting anonymously.

- -j

[JPG: question possibly revealing personal details of W Woolley omitted]

- -- 
Jeffrey Goldberg
I have recently moved, see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice

Version: GnuPG v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.9.0 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/