Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 08:29:50 +0000
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-G: Spamming


There a lot of evidence that many subscribers have received unwelcome mail
from some source or sources, sometimes unidentified, but on other occasions
associated with the names of Flynn, LRF, Phelan, and Murphy. 

There is also a lot of evidence that mail has been altered in ways which
one has to assume were deliberately designed to confuse other subscribers
who wished to use marxism-space. 

There has been no explanation of why other subscribers should not now
deeply distrust the motives of mail associated with these names. My only
"harassment" of them has been to ask pointed questions *in public*, and to
demand expulsion if they are not answered. Answering them is of course not
compulsory. But nor is it compulsory for others to subscribe to this list,
or support this list in the background if it is so misused by  subscribers
such as this group.

The post below shows three routine features of this group:

1) accusing others of what they themselves have practised - namely sending
unsolicited mail in a harassing manner

2) tampering with posts - (see the words "organized spamming" spelt the
American not the English way) appended to the post apparently from me, with
the same arrow quotation signifier in front of it.

3. in the name of democracy or marxism or for some other motive, repeatedly
introducing the threat of recourse to bourgeois courts of law with the
accompanying threat of legal costs. The use of this threat is a threat to
the entire list, and in the past has been regarded as totally out of order.
Another of my questions, which of course RC Phelan is under no compulsion
to answer is therefore this: what possible honourable or credible reason
does your group have for using repeated reference to litigation in your
contributions? Is it out of a misplaced anarchist view that you should use
the legal system to enforce every bourgeois right even against a group of
people, with many weaknesses, trying to create an internet opportunity for
the exchange of marxist ideas? Or do you have other reasons for spreading
hesitation and confusion on these lists?

Reply is not compulsory. I am merely exercises the right to ask, and given
you the opportunity to clear up some confusion, prior to the possibility of
executive action being taken. What could be fairer than that?

 

Chris Burford

London.



At 11:53 AM 12/23/97 PST, RC Phelan wrote:

>  What Chris suggests here is organized SPAMMING,which is little
>different then a group of hackers getting together and harassing
>someone.Chris speaks of "neteitequette",but now openly posts a suggestion
>to harass and attack list members offlist.What he suggests is little more
>then an attempt to JAM someones email account and cause denial of
>service.The self appointed Law enforcer now posts plans of conspiracey to
>attempt to disrupt service.Chris and his"syndicate"would be engaged in
>nothing more then harassment and abuse of an internet service provider.
>It is now clear that Chris will by his own admission go to any lengths to
>force certain list members off this list.
>  Below are some suggestions for Chris.
>
>R.C.Phelan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Chris Burford writes:
>>If for example Spoons do not bring in some basic (non-political) house
>>rules on this, I for one am seriously interested in forming a 
>>syndicate
>>with even only 10 other subscribers to this list, to undertake that 
>>each
>>time Robert posts Cockroach to us via this list, we will courteously 
>>return
>>it to him and request him to find another way of distributing it
>>(marxism-news????- private suscription?). C.B.
>>organized spamming
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Example-1.
>Actionable Trespass to Chattel
>
>On February 3, 1997 Judge James L. Graham held that defendants'
>practice of continuing to send SPAM email to service email
>addresses, after having received repeated requests to stop doing so
>from a server, constitutes an actionable trespass to chattel under
>law.
>
>I am now, like as a customer requesting that you stop sending me spam
>email. If you do not desist, you will suffer injunctions and award of
>substantial legal costs against you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---