Re: re previous communication

[Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey@goldmark.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, rick wrote:

> Mr Goldberg
>
> A few points for you to note.
>
> we are not a spam freindly company

I hope that you will understand why I believe otherwise.  I reported spam
from one of your customers and you answered rudely "We don't whinge about
spam".  From that and just about everything else you have said, I
concluded that you were a spam friendly ISP.  It also appears that you
were unwilling to take any action against your spamming customer until
pressured to do so by your provider.

> we are a freindly company

Please read all of the messages that you have sent to me.  Every one of
which (with the exception of the one I am replying to now) was
gratuitously and deliberately insulting.

> we do not ever interfer with our customers or monitor their doings
> etc etc unless asked by a officer of the law, indeed to do so is
> illegal under the data protections act.

It is not illegal to prevent spam and other network abuse from your
domain.  While there is no legal requirement to stop such abuse, there
is nonetheless an obligation.  I would recommend that you follow some of
the URLs in "educational" messages I sent.

> however as a concession to your concerns we monitored over night all
> the static smtp i.p's and indeed a  I.P of our clients sent out
> about 23,000 emails last night

> the I.P is 212.87.76.184
> the customer has the domain emailsvr.com

That is the IP address and domain that I originally reported.  My original
report was from spam from "you or your customer".

> this customaer who has a static i.p. and smtp feed with us has agreed
> to cease thier actions untill such time as weather or not i can
> determin under the law if their actions are illegal.

Chances are that action is legal in the UK (there have not been any
definitive test cases).  If you choose to host sites that spam, even if
spamming is legal, you risk being blacklisted and you risk being
disconnected by your provider.  That is a business choice that you make,
and has very little to do with what I do.  Indeed, if in a few weeks you
start allowing spam again (and if your provider allows that), then it is
very unlikely that it will be me who nominates your for MAPS blacklisting.

> If their actions are not illegal i cannot take action under the
> contractual laws of this country against him,

I do not believe that that is true.  You can enforce the "TERMS" on your
customer.  If your TERMs do not forbid spamming, then you will continue to
be considered a "spam friendly ISP".  If you wish to be in the grossly
unethical and possibly illegal "spam friendly ISP" business, then you most
certainly will end up on the MAPS blacklist whether I am the one who
nominate you or not.

> if you undertake action which is to the detriment of this company i
> can however take action against you.

The only action that I have threatened is the report undisputed facts
   (1) The spam from your customer
   (2) Your responses to my report on the spam and follow up discussion
   (3) A few technical things like IP and routing information publically
       listed.
   along with my conclusion that you appear by all of the above to
   be spam-friendly ISP which is unwilling to change its ways.

I have already reported all of this to your provider, newnet.co.uk.  If
you dispute any of the facts you have had and will continue to have every
opportunity to do so.  I suspect that you will find it extremely difficult
to even begin to take any action against me for reporting undisputed
facts about your company's public behavior.

If reporting undisputed facts about your company's public behavior is
action detrimental to your company then you -- not I -- have a serious
problem.

> This company obeys the LAW, no grey areas no skuffing it
> JUST THE LAW.

By obeying JUST THE LAW and allowing spam from your customers you are
participating in grossly unethical practice.  I have reported that to your
provider and that appears to have curtailed your allowing spammers.
However, if no action had been taken on your part I would feel obligated
to report it to MAPS.

> This is not about being spam friendly it is about the law

This is about being spam friendly.  If your claim is that it is illegal to
be spam unfriendly you should do some more reading, following on from the
links that I've mentioned.  You should also enquire why just about every
other ISP in the UK is spam unfriendly if it is illegal.

> If you obey the law, if you remain ethical, and if you are polite to
> people [which you are not] you would get better results,

Please read our correspondence to date.  I am willing to stand by
everything that I have said.  Are you willing to stand by everything that
you have said, including your presonal insults?

I am intending to publish it as a case study in a failed attempt to
educate a spam friendly ISP.  If you feel that I have been insulting and
you are the wounded party then you should be happy to see the
correspondence published.  (And yes, it is perfectly legal in both the UK
and the US to publish business correspondence which I am a party to.)
Also, I will omit certain details like telephone numbers, etc.  As someone
in the US I am not bound by the DPA or the slightly more restrictive UK
publishing restrictions, I will keep my publication within both US and UK
law.

> All this aside however it was your accusation that MY COMPANY had
> deliberatly spammed that has resulted in bad communications between
> us.

My accusation from the first message onward was that "you or your
customer" was spamming.  After your response, I concluded that you were a
"spam friendly ISP".  That is, you were an ISP that willingly hosts and
protects spammers.

> this can be resolved by an apollogy from you to me directly for this
> erronious accusation.

I did not accuse you of spamming.  I reported that "you or your customers"
was spamming.  I was correct.  Based on your response to the report and
our continued corresponces, I have called you a "spam friendly ISP".

> I will have the customers email reviewed by quallified legal
> representatives and ask them to look into this issue as a courtesy to
> you, but understand me well Mr Goldberg any action by yourself which
> is to the detriment of this company will result in us meeting
> personally in the courts,

My reporting of undisputed facts about your public activities (the spam,
this correspondence, IP address) may very well be a detriment to your
company.  However, I should have nothing to fear by doing that.

> something i would wish to avoid as its a
> pain, but i will take aggressive action in the courts against you if
> you continue to threaten me and my company.

Please hire well qualified solicitors.  They will save us both trouble by
explaining to you that all I have threatened to due is report undisputed
facts about your public activety.  Because some of that reporting might
lead to dire consequences, I have given you every opportunity to change
your policy prior to reporting.

> lastly i reitterate, you have no mandate or right to lecture me or
> any other company in any way whatsoever,

I as a network user have the same right as any other network user to
report spam.  If the ISP hosting the spammer fails to take action against
spammers that they host, I have the right to report that ISP as spam
friendly.  I have the responsibility to first try to explain (educate) the
ISP as to why they should take action against spammers.

> and I would welcome the
> oppertunity to talk to you personally over the phone or in person - as
> to exactly why, and why your actions are a real threat to the freedom
> of the net community.

I thank you for the opportunity, but I would prefer to keep things in
writing, particularly as you are threatening legal action.  Additionally
there is the difficulty of an 8 hour time difference.

> and if you wish to communicate again please try to be more polite to
> me

In my messages I have accused you of being a "spam friendly ISP" and I
have claimed that you need to be "educated" about spam and are in need of
an "attitude readustment".  In your messages to me, you have called me a
"whinger", a "coward" (several times), someone who needs "help with
personal problems" and the list goes on.

Again, I ask you to reread all of our communication and consider who has
been insulting to whom.  If you lack any of our messages, I have a full
set and would be happy to provide you (and your legal advisors) with a
copy.  I believe that once competent legal advisors read the material
things will be resolved.

Additionally, you may wish to read what has been said about this case on
the Usenet newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.email, although most of that
discussion as turned toward questions of newnet.co.uk's reponses to abuse
reports in general.  I will also grant to newnet.co.uk permission (if it
is required)  to release to you all of my correspondence with them
regarding this matter.  Most of it is of a technical nature, but it
resolves the issue that emailsvr.net was indeed spamming, despite newnet's
initial scepticism regarding my claim.

It is my firm belief that the more information you (and your legal
advisors) are given, the less likely it is that you will feel either the
need or desire to threaten me with legal action.

- -j

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

iD8DBQE6QQy/bFEGZwmQvW4RAsvsAJ9QRlbsdGBT+vTm/rEfjdk6wiDrNgCeLXoW
bXu1+c0MQTyi0OFT9nargtk=
=6qDN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----