>Jim Cassell tells me that Indirect.Com (Canter & Siegel attorneys) have
>lost USENET privledges due to their indiscriminant posting of their sales
>pitch.  Apparently, their MO is to send it to a few lists at a time (maybe
>yesterday was their day to pick on statisticians?) and raise the ire of
>thousands at a time instead of millions all at once (the better to deal
>with the incoming mail, I suppose).
>
>It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to filter out *.indirect.com, unless you
>actually WANT to hear from Canter & Siegel.
>
>/s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]> (203) 486-2489 voice
>   Professor of Marketing                          (203) 486-5246 fax
 
Wait a minute!
 
Internet Direct (indirect.com) is NOT owned by Canter & Siegel.
They are a commercial service provider (similar to panix.com,
well.sf.ca.us, and netcom.com), from whom C & S purchased access.
 
Please do NOT filter *.indirect.com; you will be penalizing everyone
else who uses that service.
 
I repeat - the ONLY relationship between indirect.com and Carter &
Siegel is that of service and client.  In fact, C&S is allegedly
suing Internet Direct for improper termination of service.
 
--Wes