From: varange@crl.com (Troy Varange)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 11:40:54 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Dick Graves continues his DOS attack
In-Reply-To: <5bi90n$dr5@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <Love@147375>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Subject: Dick Graves continues his DOS attack

> The appended messages from Howard Goldstein
> <hgoldste@bbs.mpcs.com>, Stan Kalisch III <sjkiii@crl.com>,
> Chris Lewis <clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, Eric Bohlman
> <ebohlman@netcom.com>, trebor@sirius.com, Dave the
> Resurrector, and myself below show why Dave Harman,
> formerly qut@netcom.com and an572010@anon.penet.fi, now
> varange@crl.com, has targeted us. While the deranged varange
> may occasionally sound superficially plausible, his record
> is quite clear. Apologies for the length, but I figure it's
> better to have this all in one place. This article is also
> saved at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/skipsummary

This article will be saved to
http://www.crl.com/~varange/netabuse/ or the NET ABUSE -
FALSE COMPLAINTS category of my index.html.

> Since abuse@crl.com just goes to /dev/null, I'd appreciate it if
> some CRL user could confirm, as three different CRL users did
> a month ago in response to a rash of forged usenet postings
> in October (I'm appending two posts on that topic below),
> that the only account logged on to the given machines at the
> time of every incident of forged net abuse was varange@crl.com.

Six weeks or so is all the public access there is to the wtmp
file; ask Sandy or Stan if you don't know how to read it from
your own CRL account.  (How conveniant of you to accuse me of
the repulsive "Mark Wehal(sp?)" forgery past the date it can be
easily verified; why should the CRL admins drag out their backup
tapes on the account of your spurious allegations?  Anyone who
checked up Dejanews on "Mark Wehal" could have seen that some
user had forged his name as revenge spam against "Mark Wehal's"
offensive under 18 style sex spam in a few exceedingly odd
choice of newgroups, alas, "Mark Wehal" never complained about
the forgery and an unknown user may have been the instigator
of a business prank against a ligitimate electronics firm
whose street address was listed in the original sex spam.)

>  crl6  Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:14:26 -0800
>  crl6  Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:07:02 -0800
>  crl11 Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:22:59 -0800
>  crl6  Tue, 24 Dec 1996 17:10:58 -0800

Or check the Here: line of my posts for better readability
than the additional standard Date: line.

> Forged email headers follow. The full 750K text of the
> unwanted harassing email, of which I received several copies,
> is at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/skipbomb2
> and skipbomb3. I'm sure more people besides Gord McFee
> and I received copies; maybe everyone on his targets list,
> ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/qu/qut/misc/address
> 
> Personally, I think nine months of this bullshit is more than
> enough. If CRL sees no problem with this, then I don't believe
> CRL should be allowed access to our network.

"Our?"  Are you allowed to abuse the Stanford network because
you are a user, employee, or the actual admin?

If Graves is the actual admin, or is allowed to act like one,
then bona fide complaints about users conduct on the Stanford
network can't be sent directly via e-mail; send a registered
letter/return receipt to whomever is responsible (who?)

I read his post as a threat to the Stanford network.


Bogus complaints and forged posts from everyone under the sun:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[deleted]  Full article referred by myself to my web page:

http://www.crl.com/~varange/netabuse/

-- 
Cheers!