---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 98 12:53:56 PST From: security@mci.net Subject: Mail Bomb MCI Data Systems Security ============================================================================== This message is in response to a complaint regarding a mail bomb attack that originated from your site. (207.71.209.129) This attack is considered to be malicious and we would very much appreciate an investigation on the matter. You will find all the relevant information included in the note below. Please look into this matter and let us know your findings. If you have any questions or concerns, we can be reached at any of the addresses/numbers below. Because of the content of the message, it will also be forwarded to our Spam Complaints Department. Thank you for the cooperation. ============================================================================== data-systems-security@mci.com | Internet: security@mci.net Voice: (408) 922-6004 | Fax: (408) 922-8870 http://ird.security.mci.net Toll Free: (888) 860-3382 ----- Begin Included Message ----- >From mike@mbs.valinet.com Thu Feb 5 11:57:35 1998 From: Mike Message-Id: <199802051957.OAA20326@mbs.valinet.com> Subject: here's the headers To: security@mci.net Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 14:57:21 -0500 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1042 X-Lines: 41 Status: RO MCI Security, This is the message that was sent to one of our people 446 times before I stopped them. Michael Warchut > > Return-Path: support@solidoak.com > > Received: from acorn.solidoak.com (acorn.solidoak.com [207.71.209.129]) = > by mbs.valinet.com (8.8.8/8.7.1) with ESMTP id KAA09732 for = > ; Thu, 5 Feb 1998 10:57:16 -0500 (EST) > > Received: from TECRA750.solidoak.com ([207.71.209.150]) > > by acorn.solidoak.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1 release PO205e > > ID# 0-40055U100L100S0) with SMTP id AAA173 for ; > > Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:56:31 -0800 > > From: support@solidoak.com (Technical Support) > > To: > > X-Mailer: Re:PLY Windows 950.8.1.12 Solid Oak Software, Inc. > > Organization: Solid Oak Software, Inc. > > X-Sender: SOS Technical Support > > Subject: Re: your crap > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"us-ascii" > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 07:56:31 -0800 > > Message-ID: <19980205155631514.AAA173@TECRA750.solidoak.com> > > X-UIDL: 84f0254a320ad8a3c5ac6d5f249f76f8 > > >Do not send us any more e-mail! > > > >On 02/05/98 10:44am you wrote... > >>Mr.Milburn, > >> You have stated over and over again that your software is > > > >>for use by parents. And that individuals other than parents, should not be > > > >>involving themselves in the fight against your just above legal censoring > >>techniques. > >>I, myself am a parent. I have two children who love to surf the Internet, > >>and while I seek to protect them from inappropriate material, I certainly > >>would not want someone else making the decisions on what my children > >>should or should not view for me. Which is exactly what your software > >>does. It does not allow the parents to make the choices about what their > >>children access, that list is already predefined within the software and > >>to top it all off, you encrypt the list so that the parents cannot even > >>view it. This I find completely preposterous. That would be like the video > > > >>clerk telling me I could only rent G rated movies, because I have children > > > >>under the age of thirteen in my household. Therefore, I am not entitled to > > > >>rent a PG-13 movie or above. The PG stands for parental guidance. Which > >>means, that if I determine that my child is mature enough to view the > >>movie, he may. It does not mean that anyone under the age of thirteen is > >>banned from seeing it. > >>In essence, this is what you have done with your software. You have taken > >>the "parental guidance" out of it. A parent is not allowed to determine > >>which sites on your list are or are not appropriate as they are not > >>allowed to view the list that your software operates from. > >>I, for one, am not opposed to my children learning about diversity, yet > >>you have blocked The National Organization for Women, who's key issues > >>include Racial and Ethnic Diversity as well as issues concerning Violence > >>Against Women, which unfortunately in their younger days my children had > >>to deal with firsthand. If it were not for Organizations like N.O.W. many > >>women would not be able to find the resources the need to escape abusive > >>relationships, thus allowing the children to suffer further. > >>You have also banned The Human Awareness Institute which teaches > >>individuals to prosper in healthier, happier, more emotionally balanced > >>relationships. This is something I WANT my children to learn. After all, > >>what is the alternative? For them to learn to wither in unhealthy, > >>unhappy, emotionally leeching, abusive relationships? > >>We live in an area that is extremely diverse and has a large gay > >>population. Although, some homophobia still exists in the community, it is > > > >>starting to be dispelled by the amount of information available in > >>cyberspace about the gay/lesbian community. Not so if you are using > >>CYBERsitter however. I think that based upon the extraordinarily large > >>number of gay/lesbian sites that you have banned, we can see where the > >>main homophobia exists. (Looked in a mirror lately, Mr. Millburn?) > >>I truly think that you need to re-evaluate your motives in distributing > >>this product. If the product is not based upon your own agendas but merely > > > >>to help parents in protecting their children, then you need to revamp your > > > >>product so that it allows parents to decide what is appropriate for the > >>children. By decoding your banned lists and making your product more > >>"parent-friendly". > >>It is not groups fighting anti-censorship that are causing you to lose > >>revenue. It is your own product. Anit-censorship Organizations and many > >>other individuals and organizations are merely bringing attention to > >>faults which already exist within your product. Faults that the consumer > >>would discover for themselves once they purchased it. If I were you, I > >>would take the complaints you get to heart and use them to make your > >>product better, rather than trying to shut down every single site that > >>airs a complaint about your company's software. > >>I, for one fully intend to make it known how your software operates. I > >>have many friends on many domains who are willing to help me inform > >>consumers about your product. If you feel it necessary to track us down, > >>and block each and every one of us, then I wish you luck in your > >>endeavors. But it might make it necessary to add the word CYBERsitter to > >>your list of banned words, and just what would that do to your business? > >>Sincerely, > >>Sarah K. Salls > >> > > > ----- End Included Message -----