At 08:41 PM 2/4/97 +0000, Duane Campbell wrote:
>I complained about problems with AOL on this list a few months ago and
>received a public message to stop bashing them. So I laid back. Now I've
>had it.

As you know, and has been pointed out already, this is NOT an AOL problem.
This is a problem with almost any ISP.  On an ISP account I have I can
create new names at any time.  I can have up to four mailboxes at any time.
 So, I can create one, and delete it a while later.  I do it all from a
form on a web page, and the ISP doesn't care, and I doubt they really look
at logs on such things, though I'm sure they exist (I know most of the
techies at this ISP, several are personal friends).

And of course with any POP client like Eudora, you can set the return to
anything you want.  Same for mail in browsers such as Netscape.  So, ANYone
can send mail from ANY address at ANY time.  I could toss a dozen messages
to this list in ten minutes with all phony addresses.  If I thought I
needed to prove it, I would, but I think you all know of these things.  And
this doesn't even start to consider anonymous remailers and more
sophisticated hacks, which are probably known to many of the
netlusers/netabusers we're talking about.

>In the past she has used only vile language and personal invective. In
>the latest round she has sent pornographic web site URLs to individual
>members and to the list under the headings of "Garden question" and
>"help needed", oviously intending to lead unsuspecting members to the
>pornographic material. I am wondering if this has finally crossed a

Big deal.  Who cares?  No one has to GO to the URLs.  And for almost any
porn sites (and I've seen a LOT of them since I teach university classes on
censorship and pornography) the first page the URL goes to is fairly
inoffensive (I know, in the eye of the beholder....) and you have to CHOOSE
to go further.  So, they should quickly learn to only trust URLs provided
by known folks, and should quickly avoid those from unknown folks, such as
her fake identities.

>legal line of sending UNSOLICITED pornographic material. If someone
>wants to get off on that sort of thing, I have no argument, but is it
>acceptable to send it to those who do not want it?

She isn't sending them anything offensive.  They don't have to use it.  If
someone mails you junkmail in an envelope with the usual disclaimers "adult
material inside, do not open (inside envelope) unless you want to see
sexual material", and you then choose to open it, you have no claim against
anyone since you were warned.  Same as adult shops here....they have no
window displays, and say clearly in several places what is inside.  If you
go in and are offended, well that is your problem.  I can't imagine anyone
even trying to go after someone for this except some
right-wing-or-religious zealot district attorney campaiging for something
in a VERY conservative place.

>Anyway, two questions. First, has anyone had experience in dealing with
>grossly abusive AOL clients?

Again, abusers are abusers, no matter where they have an account this week
or last.

>And second. <deep breath>  I fully believe in freedom of speech on the
>Internet. But dammit, I also have a right to have a group that can
>placidly discuss gardening without being deliberately torn apart every
>few weeks.

You do.  It is called full moderation, or confirming all subs, or both.

I think providers should control this kind of obvious abuse,
>but AOL has abdicated.

Not the ISPs problem.  Does YOUR ISPs AUP specifically list this, and if so
do they enforce it?  Any ISP with more than a few thousand customers is
guaranteed to have some lusers/abusers.


In the absence of any reply to my several
>messages to AOL yesterday -- moving from polite to frantic -- I intend
>tomorrow to contact my elected representatives at state and federal
>level.

A. Don't waste your time.  B. Are you SURE you think the government should
get into this?  Most past attempts have been ludicrous or scary.  And the
net is international anyway.

 (Hold on - I'm getting to a question.) I also plan to seek out
>and contact any agency or congressional committee that might have some
>juristiction over unsolicited pornography sent to people over telephone
>lines. Any suggestions? Any experience?

Useless.  No one is sending pornography over any phone lines. And a URL
isn't porn, even if the URL is something like
http://www.fuck.com/pussy/hotone.html  (I just made that up...fuck.com
hasn't been issued, though fucked.com, fuckup.com and others have been)
And the laws, at least so far, don't apply to the net.  Precedent says the
words themselves are most definitely not pornography.  Even the infamous
"seven words you can't say on TV" are no longer seven, as at least two of
them have been frequently heard on primetime broadcast tv, and the rest are
regularly on cable.

>Lastly, I would be interested in hearing - by private email, please --
>if I am being unreasonable in expecting that I should be able to run a
>mail list without the list and its members being constantly harassed.

A certain amount of that is a given in this life.  People flipping you off
on the highway because you're not going 20 over the limit.  Jerks whistling
and commenting on pretty young ladies walking by.  And on and on.  As the
bumper sticker says, Shit Happens.

You have the tool to control your list: Full moderation.  And use sub by
owner if you need to.  After you do that for a while, no matter how much of
a pain it is, the jerks will get tired and go away.  They COULD come back,
but worry about that if it happens.  Again, you have the techniques.  If
you don't lock your home and someone steals your computer, it is really
hard to get mad at the cops for not keeping it from happening.  Lock your
door.  And use the same tool that LISTSERV(R) gives you for just this kind
of situation.

cheers, and chill a while before really getting the feds into it, please....

cyclops, who has always believed that several lines were left out of the
sermon on the mount by prudish monks along the way.....one of them is
"Blessed are the assholes, for they shall always be with us."  There are
others.....




Dan Lester
[log in to unmask]
In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king.