From: Mixmaster <mixmaster@remail.obscura.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 23:47:27 +0800
To: remailer-operators@anon.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Databasix conspiracy theories
Message-ID: <199711181511.HAA28132@sirius.infonex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Andy Dustman <andy@neptune.chem.uga.edu> wrote:

> > The remailers themselves have become the victims of forgeries.  Back during
> > the DataBasix "reign of [t]error" directed at Jeff Burchell, the "DataBasix
> > cabal" (called that by a Netcom news admin, BTW) accused the Mailmasher
> > 'nymserver of being used for "forgery" of Gary Burnore's name and address
> > to various posts.  And now, even after the cajones.com domain has apparently
> > bitten the dust, I've seen complaints of spam being received by people that's
> > been forged to look as if it had come from that domain.  In the case of the
> > Burnore forgeries, the Path: was only traceable back to the mail2news gateway,
> > so the header items implicating Mailmasher could have easily been forged just
> > as Mr. Burnore's address was.  Nevertheless, these alleged "forgeries"
> > comprised the rationale used by a DataBasix employee, Billy McClatchie, for
> > demanding the Mailmasher be shut down.
>  
> I've never really been convinced that Databasix has much to do with the
> Huge Cajones fiasco. I'm not saying nobody from there is involved, though.
> I'm just trying to keep an objective opinion on the subject.

While I have no first-hand information on that, Jeff Burchell, operator of the
Huge Cajones Remailer, reported involvement of three DataBasix staff members:
Gary L. Burnore, Belinda Bryan, and William J. McClatchie (better known by the
pseodonym "Wotan").  McClatchie was also extensively involved in the public
campaign to get Mailmasher shut down.  Jeff's "post mortem" expose' on all
this can be viewed at the following URL:

  http://calvo.teleco.ulpgc.es/listas/cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com/HTML-1997-11/msg00536.html

While it's perhaps not the kind of evidence, being circumstancial in nature,
that you'd take to court, it could certainly useful in trying to anticipate
and avoid potential future attacks.  Of the parties involved in the 
conflict(s) that led up to the remailer attacks, Burnore/DataBasix was the 
only one who had a motive to attack the remailers.  Gary's alternative theory 
on who was responsible, Ron Guilmette, is much less plausible.  Gary, for 
example, has consistently displayed a very bigoted attitude towards those who 
choose to utilize anonymity to maintain their privacy.  He would often refer 
to anonymous posters as "anonymous assholes", "cowards", "hiding behind the 
skirts of a remailer", etc.  

Let's take that first phrase -- "anonymous assholes".  If a person were to 
be arguing with a black man, and called him an "asshole", that would be 
somewhat acceptable.  But if he called him a "black asshole" or a "ni**er
asshole", he would be revealing his innate bigotry and you'd rightly call him 
a RACIST, implying that a member of that race had no right to express a
dissenting opinion.  The same applies when an ad hominem attack targets a 
poster's anonymity.  IMO, that makes him an anti-privacy bigot.  While he's
now tried to clean up his act by claiming that "remailers have their place",
he's on record as saying that they shouldn't be used for "abuse" and he's
defined anonymous criticism as "abuse".  Going back to the racism analogy, that 
statement is equivalent to the old line "Me?  A racist?  Why some of my best 
friends are ______".

Also, Gary Burnore expressed the repeated desire that anonymous posts that
were critical of him were designed to "stir up trouble" and represented
"abuse" that the remailers should have blocked.  If the remailer operators
wouldn't censor the criticism in the MESSAGEs, then killing the MESSENGER
(the remailers) would accomplish the same thing.

Belinda Bryan and Billy McClatchie, two other DataBasix staff members, issued 
even more scathing attacks on the posters' choice of anonymity, and against 
the remailer.  Upon occasion, they both referred to the remailer as the "No 
Balls Remailer" and implied that the poster had "tiny testicles".  Although
Belinda and Billy's comments were cloaked with a "no archive" header, and
Gary Burnore has recently requested that his posts be removed from the 
DejaNews archives, the essence of their comments can still be followed via 
the portions of their posts which were quoted by others in posts that remain 
archived.
  
> > That's even more evidence that the real target of the spam baiter(s) was the
> > remailers themselves.  Why else would you "attack" people, then anonymously
> > warn them of what you'd done?  Perhaps that's why the spam baiting reportedly
> > was directed not only at the DataBasix gang, but also at their detractors,
> > such as Ron Guilmette, Scott Dentice, etc. 
>      
> That the primary target of the spam-baiting campaign was the remailer net
> (one at a time), I have little doubt.

Which leaves two alternatives: either one of the participants in the Gary 
Burnore/Ron Guilmette/Netcom flame war was responsible, or the timing was 
merely coincidental.
 
> > > (There was another set of letters going around claiming to
> > > be pro-remailer, but I was always skeptical that that was the true
> > > intention.)
> >
> > Sounds like a classic, "F.U.D." disinformation campaign like another
> > anti-privacy bunch, the Co$, would engage in.  What better way to discredit
> > remailers that to, for example, send out anonymous messages saying "Preserve
> > your rights -- defend remailers!" and making it look like the message came
> > from a member of the KKK, or NAMBLA, or some other unpopular group.
>  
> Yes, and that's how it appeared to me, as well. In fact, I really would 
> doubt any other possible scenario, mainly because much of the spam-baiting
> was done to IP addresses (same people, different hosts), so IP addresses
> were basically outlawed (if you have an IP address, you've got to have a
> FQDN, right?). That and people were apparently being sent many copies of
> the "warning" (to the same address). Also, the tone of the letter seemed
> counter to what it was supposedly intended to accomplish, i.e., "there's
> nothing you can do about it, so stop whining". OTOH, I did make a public 
> request for whoever it was doing it to stop, and they did seem to stop
> rather shortly after that, though spam-baiting continued.

Yes, the multiple copy thing was quite "ingenious", in an anti-remailer sort
of way.  They could either be viewed as a "friendly" warning about "abuse"
involving the remailers, or they could be viewed as abusive themselves.  But
since they, like the spam bait, were also sent through the remailers, the
remailer net was the visible target either way!

Several things didn't add up about the whole "spam baiting" thing.  While
Burnore claimed that he and other DataBasix users were the primary targets of
the spam bait, their addresses seemed to comprise only a small percentage of
the e-mail addresses I saw "baited".  My own test indicated that inclusion of
an e-mail address in the body of a Usenet post was ineffective in attracting
UCE.  And one of the most visible opponents of spam baiting, Peter Bell, said
pretty much the same thing.  He was apparently one of the original "spam bait"
targets, and would publish daily "reports" on which addresses were being
baited.  When the technique suddenly switched from individual messages with
addresses in the headers to the format where lists of addresses were instead
in the BODY of the message, he concluded, based on his observations, that the
new technique was ineffective and announced that he was discontinuing his
daily reports.

Despite this fact, the DataBasix folks continued to claim that they were
being inundated with e-mailed spam due to the ongoing spam baiting.  Of course, 
since the new technique involved e-mail addresses in the BODY of
the post, their suggested "solution" was to filter anonymous posts that
contained any mention of the e-mail addresses of DataBasix staff members.
Since such blockage was what they'd wanted all along, this new form of spam
baiting provided the ideal excuse for demanding that Usenet posts that
contained any reference to them be blocked.  Jeff Burchell's post indicated
that he originally acceded to this demand, but later admitted that it was
ill-advised and he discontinued it.