Computer underground Digest Wed July 28 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 56 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: J

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Computer underground Digest Wed July 28 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 56 ISSN 1004-042X Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET) Archivist: Brendan Kehoe Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala Ian Dickinson Coop Eitidor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Senior CONTENTS, #5.56 (July 28 1993) File 1--Akron Anomaly BBS UpDate (Seizure Warrant) File 2--Call for Paper: Computer Network Use and Abuse Conference File 3--Credit Reports and National File 4--UPDATE #19-AB1624: PROGRAMMERS! START YOUR ENGINES! File 5--Community Network Survey Results Available Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are available at no cost electronically from The editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302) or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL 60115. Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of LAWSIG, and DL1 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;" On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG; on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG WHQ) (203) 832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy; RIPCO BBS (312) 528-5020 CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted nodes and points welcome. EUROPE: from the ComNet in LUXEMBOURG BBS (++352) 466893; In ITALY: Bits against the Empire BBS: +39-461-980493 ANONYMOUS FTP SITES: UNITED STATES: ( in /pub/cud ( in /pub/CuD/cud in /pub/mirror/cud ( in /pub/eff/cud AUSTRALIA: ( in /pub/text/CuD. EUROPE: in pub/doc/cud. (Finland) in pub/cud (United Kingdom) COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts unless absolutely necessary. DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright protections. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Jul 93 11:48:32 EDT From: David Lehrer <71756.2116@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: File 1--Akron Anomaly BBS UpDate (Seizure Warrant) ((MODERATORS' NOTE: The AKRON ANOMALY BBS was raided last summer because of allegedly "pornographic" files it possessed (for background, see CuD #5.23). Subsequent events indicated that the raid was an excessive exercise in local law enforcement zeal. Under pressure, the sysop pleaded guilty to a minor misdemeanor charge to avoid costly legal entanglements. But, the case continues to raise issues, and CuD will address some of these in a forthcoming issue. The following is an update on the case)). =-=-=-=-=-=-= Akron Anomaly =-=-=-=-=-= Newsgroups: akr.newsadmin,cle.general,oh.general,news.admin.policy, There have been some recent developments in the Akron Anomaly case. Briefly, some materials have been returned to Mark Lehrer, sysop of The Akron Anomaly BBS. These materials do not include any of the email that was on the system at the time it was seized approximately one year ago. The email is being held by the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation. =-=-=-=-= This file contains: <1> Description of property to be searched and seized (from search warrant). <2> Excerpts from the transcript of court proceedings, related to the hardware to be forfeited. <3> List of seized material (from David Lehrer). <4> Notice from chief Stahl that returned software can be picked up. <5> List of actual items returned (from David Lehrer). <6> Letter from chief Stahl saying the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation has everything else. =-=-=-=-= <1> Description of property to be searched and seized (from search warrant). Quote: PROPERTY TO BE SEARCHED AND SEIZED Computer(s) used to operate the Akron Anomaly Bulletin Board and data contained in them, computer disks and/or tapes containing data involved in the operation of the Akron Anomaly Bulletin Board, records of users of the Akron Anomaly Bulletin Board and the items they have uploaded to or downloaded from the Akron Anomaly Bulletin Board, financial records related to the operation of the Akron Anomaly Bulletin Board, and other associated items including but not limited to modems, disk drives, printers and software programs. {executed June 18, 1992} =-=-=-=-= IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT STATE OF OHIO, ) CASE NO. 92-07-1789 ) Plaintiff, ) Robert Incorvati ) Assistant Summit County vs. ) Prosecutor ) MARK LEHRER, ) Donald S. Varian ) Attorney at Law Defendant. ) - - - Visiting Judge Presiding: Lorain, Ohio--Robert J. Corts TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS March 8, 1993 {excerpts} MR. INCORVATI: {prosecutor's explanation of reducing two 2nd degree felonies to a 1st degree misdemeanor} The State of Ohio is also in possession of Mr. Lehrer's >computer system. It's my understanding that is currently in >possession of BCI and according to Rule 11F negotiations will be forfeited to BCI in Columbus. THE COURT: Now, I'm not sure I understand the charges. Pandering obscenity? MR. INCORVATI: The original charge, that's correct. THE COURT: Was that done by means of computer, is that what I understand? MR. INCORVATI: Exactly, exactly. It was a computer, computer log- on network that was available, and at the time it appeared that information that may have been accessible to that or through some work been accessible to it may have involved minors. With respect to the State's case, there is indeed question as to whether in fact that is a provable point, whether the minors were involved on that. THE COURT: etc. . . . --Continued-- THE COURT: Very well. MR.VARIAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I would only add, I think, we have agreed to the facts as have been presented other than I think >there are unrelated soft disks, floppy disks that would be >returned to the defendant that are unrelated to any sexual related >matter. > The hardware, I think, is what we agreed would go to the >Bureau of Criminal Identification. I think further that it's the prosecutor's position, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we would be entering a plea to a misdemeanor and they are not requesting any jail time or any probation. If that is the fact, at this time we are prepared to enter a plea of guilty to possession of criminal tools and -- attempt to possess criminal tools. MR. INCORVATI: Attorney Varian is correct. >THE COURT: So I understand, what needs to be forfeited >specifically? >>MR. INCORVATI: The hardware itself, if you will. >THE COURT: What is that? MR. INCORVATI: Specifically, I don't know. I can tell you that it is a computer system. THE COURT: Could you tell me? >MR. VARIAN: My client would know the very best, but it's >basically a computer, a disk drive, a -- is there a printer there >-- and a printer. >MR. INCORVATI: Also have the monitor and keyboard as well. MR. VARIAN: Correct. >>THE COURT: There is not going to be any difficulty with >>identifying -- MR. VARIAN: They already have it. >MR. INCORVATI: In fact, we are in possession of it. In fact, also as attorney Varian states, we are in possession of some of the software associated with that, that is available for the defendant to pick up. THE COURT: {continuation of the plea} . . . =-=-=-=-= <3> List of seized material (from David Lehrer). MISSING ITEMS LIST: for reference: PROPERTY LISTED BY STEVE STAHL THAT HE TOOK FROM THE HOME OF DAVID LEHRER, 58 BERMONT AVE., MUNROE FALLS, OH, ON 6/18/1992 UNDER THE GUISE OF THE ABOVE SEARCH WARRANT--THIS LIST AS WRITTEN BY STAHL. ---------------------------------------------------------- Page 1- ITEM # Quantity Description of property taken 1 1 US Robotics Modem 2 1 Home Built Computer 3 1 Loop Monitor 4 1 IBM Keyboard 5 1pk of 10 3.5 DD Diskettes 6 1 Epson Printer 7 1 Leaquer Int Corp (mouse) 8 1 Archive Corp Drive (cartridge tape) ---------------------------------------------------------- Page 2- Item # 9 Misc. Wires 10 1- 5 1/4 Disc w/viruses 11 3- 3M DC 600A Data Cartridge Tapes 12 1- Letter w/check (fee) 13 1- OS2 IBM Operating System 14 1- Notebook w/documentation 15 1 pkg w/198 3 1/2 discs 16 1 pkg w/3 cases 210 5 1/4 discs 17 1 case w/59 5 1/4 discs 18 1 case w/89 5 1/4 discs 19 1 bag w/misc. records ---------------------------------------------------------- LIST OF ITEMS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED: PART A: Itemized List 1. Line Item 10: "1- 5 1/4 Disc w/ viruses" These are anti-viral programs Mark uses in his normal work activities. Stahl wouldn't recognize a 'virus' program if it bit him. 2. Line Item 11: "3- 3M DC 600A Data Cartridge Tapes" These had NO 'sexually related' matter of any kind on them. 3. Line Item 12: "Letter w/check (fee)" This is NOT 'sexually related' matter. 4. Line Item 13: "OS2 IBM Operating System" This is Mark's REGISTERED copy of IBM OS/2 Operating System. Mark is an IBM-approved beta test site for IBM's OS/2 software. 'They' returned Mark's BACKUP discs of OS/2. IBM takes a very dim view of use of mis-appropriated REGISTERED software. (and this case is posted all over their own internal network--at their request) 5. Line Item 14: "1- Notebook w/documentation" This is NOT 'sexually related' matter. 6. Line Item 19: "1 bag w/misc. records" This is NOT 'sexually related' matter. 7. Line Items 15-18: a) 5 diskette storage cases. b) Approximately 300 of the more than 560 diskettes taken contained NO 'sexually related' matter whatsoever. They DID contain an enormous library of entirely 'shareware' programs. PART B: Things Taken But Not Documented List IMPORTANT: --we want four items returned that Stahl took, but did NOT DOCUMENT on his seizure inventory list: 1) ALL E-mail of the several hundred Akron Anomaly users improperly and (my opinion) illegally taken, examined and kept by Steve Stahl. Also all FidoNet E-mail in automatic transfer and/or storage when Stahl 'pulled the plug'. 2) All copies made of data from the Akron Anomaly. Disclosure of all existent copied data and its location prior to its return. 3) The listing file from the hard disk of all users of the Akron Anomaly. 4) The detailed library file from the hard disk that identifies each of the diskettes taken by Stahl. i.e. precisely those that are shareware library and those that are input area backups. Backup copies of this missing data probably exist, either in Stahl's department or OBCI (or BOTH). I can't imagine them not making copies when checking out software that could have an auto- destruct feature. =-=-=-=-= <4> Notice from Chief Stahl that returned software can be picked up. Quote: May 5, 1993 "Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation has returned to us certain software that they have determined is to be returned to you. You need to come to the police station Monday - Friday, 7:30AM - 3:30PM to pick up and sign for this property." [signed: Steve Stahl] =-=-=-=-= <5> List of items actually returned (from David Lehrer). The items 'returned' by OBCI were picked up and signed for at the Munroe Falls police station on Friday, June 18, 1993 by Mark Lehrer and his father David, with an attorney accompanying to oversee this activity. Items received Friday June 18th were: 53 diskettes 27 unopened/blank 16 with a commercial label i.e. DeScribe, Sierra 10 of OS/2 software backups 1 coaster for cold drinks Period. NO E-mail was returned. =-=-=-=-= <6> Letter from Chief Stahl saying the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation has everything else. Quote: June 21, 1993 Mr. Mark Lehrer 58 Bermont Ave. Munroe Falls, Ohio 44262 Dear Mr. Lehrer, I appreciate you coming in to pick up your property on June 18, 1993. I did want to advise you that we have no more of the equipment that was seized. The rest of it was turned over to BCI. Based on your notation, it appears you feel you are entitled to other materials. We were told by the prosecutor's office that we would receive a list of items you felt you were entitled to upon completion of the case. The case was disposed of on March 8, 1993. To date we have received no list. On May 4, 1993 any re- maining equipment we had in our evidence was turned over to BCI pursuant to the court ordered disposition. If you feel additional items need to be returned, I suggest you contact them at P.O. Box 365 London, Ohio 43140, Attn: Investigations Supervisor. Sincerely, signed Steve Stahl COMMENT: Not even attorney Varian had heard of any such arrangements as this. The individual referred to at OBCI is John Lenhart, Superintendent. Note also Stahl's first letter is dated May 5th, one day after his 'contact' with OBCI to turn over his 'evidence'. David Lehrer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 93 11:31:40 EDT From: Paul Higgins Subject: File 2--Call for Paper: Computer Network Use and Abuse Conference CALL FOR PAPERS The National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (NCLS) invites proposals for original papers to be presented at a two-and-a-half-day invitational conference on "Legal, Ethical, and Technological Aspects of Computer and Network Use and Abuse." The conference, which will include 40 participants representing a diverse set of perspectives and areas of expertise, will be held in Irvine, California on December 17-19, 1993. Up to three successful applicants will receive travel expenses and room and board at the conference. Papers will be included in the conference proceedings and may be published subsequently in a book or journal symposium. The conference will focus on the ways in which the law, ethics, and technology can contribute to influencing and enforcing the bounds of acceptable behavior and fostering the development of positive human values in a shared computer environment. Primary attention will be on unwanted intrusions into computer software or networks, including unauthorized entry and dissemination of viruses through networks or shared disks. Discussions will deal with such issues as access to information, privacy, security, and equity; the role of computer users, academic institutions, industry, professional societies, government, and the law in defining and maintaining legal and ethical standards for the use of computer networks; and a policy agenda for implementing these standards. Papers are invited on any aspect of the conference theme. Especially welcome would be papers reporting on empirical research, surveys of computer users, and case studies (other than those that are already well-known). Interested persons should submit a summary or outline of no more than 500 words, together with a brief (one-page) resum and a statement (also brief) of how one's expertise or perspective might contribute to the meeting. Proposals will be reviewed by an advisory committee convened by NCLS and successful applicants will be asked to prepare papers for the meeting. Papers must be the original work of the author, not previously published, in good academic form, and between about 5,000 and 8,000 words (25-30 double-spaced pages) in length. Deadline for receipt of proposals is 5 p.m. Eastern Time, September 15, 1993. Applicants who are selected to prepare papers will be informed by October 1, 1993. Draft papers will be due December 3, 1993. Final versions of the papers, revised in light of conference discussions, will be due approximately two months after the conference. NCLS is an organization sponsored jointly by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Bar Association, dedicated to improving communication between members of the legal and scientific/technical professions and exploring issues at the intersection of law, science, and technology. Funding for this meeting has been provided by the Program on Ethics and Values Studies of the National Science Foundation. For further information please contact Deborah Runkle, Directorate for Science & Policy Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Phone: 202-326-6600. Fax: 202-289-4950. E-mail: ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 24 Jul 1993 14:13:08 EST From: Dave Banisar Subject: File 3--Credit Reports and National Credit Reports and National Security Last week, the Senate Intelligence Committee approved a provision that allows for FBI access to credit reports using only a letter instead of a judical warrant in cases that they say involved national security. There is concern that this will be subject to abuse and that the necessity has not been proven. Several privacy and consumer groups sent this letter opposing the provision. I was unable to easily find the actual text but will get it after I come back from vacation. Dave Banisar CPSR Washington Office July 12, 1993 The Honorable Dennis Deconcini Chairman Senate Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate SH-211 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510-6475 Dear Chairman DeConcini; We are writing to voice our strong opposition to the Administration's legislative proposal to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain consumer credit reports in foreign counterintelligence cases. The FBI seeks a national security letter exemption to the FCRA to obtain personal information from consumer reporting agencies without a subpoena or court order. A national security letter gives the FBI the authority to obtain records without judicial approval and without providing notice to the individual that his or her records have been obtained by the Bureau. Similar FBI proposals were rejected in previous years after Congressional leaders expressed concern over the civil liberties issues raised. Although the current draft proposal is more comprehensive than those circulated in previous years, the changes and additions do not alter significantly the central character of the proposal. The Administration's 1993 proposal includes explicit limits to dissemination of obtained information within the government, penalties for violations including punitive damages, and reporting requirements. These provisions are positive changes from the legislation put forward in previous years, but they do not save the proposal from its intrinsic flaws. Therefore, the reasons for our fundamental opposition to the current proposal remain the same: 1) the FBI has not demonstrated a compelling need for access to consumer credit reports; and 2) legislation that implicates civil liberties should be addressed separately and not as part of the authorization process. There are only two instances in which Congress has authorized the FBI, in counterintelligence investigations, to obtain information about individuals pursuant to a national security letter but without a subpoena, search warrant or court order. First, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 included a provision requiring common carriers to disclose subscriber information and long distance toll records to the FBI in response to a national security letter. Second, congress included in the 1987 Intelligence Authorization Act an amendment to the Right to Financial Privacy Act (RFPA) that requires banks to provide customer records to the FBI in response to a similar letter. In that case, the FBI presented to Congress its case for obtaining financial records in foreign counter- intelligence cases and the difficulty of obtaining those records without a court order. in both instances when congress has previously authorized the national security letter, Congress recognized that the procedure departs dramatically from the procedure necessary to obtain a court order. The FBI's current proposal seeks similar access to individuals' credit records held by consumer reporting companies. The FBI has yet to adequately justify its need to add such highly personal, sensitive information to the narrow category of records subject to the national security letter exemption. The Bureau claims obtaining credit reports will allow it to more easily determine where a subject of an investigation banks -- information the FBI claims will help them effectuate their ability to access bank records under the RFPA. We opposed the national security letter exemption in the RFPA and do not endorse the FBI's slippery slope approach to ensuring that they can more easily obtain financial information in foreign counterintelligence cases. This information can be and is routinely gained without credit reports. We do not believe convenience is a sufficient justification for this significant exception to the law. The FBI further argues that obtaining banking information through a credit report is preferred because it is actually less intrusive than those investigative methods that would otherwise be used. While we too are frustrated that other information- gathering techniques are frequently too intrusive, our objections to the other techniques do not lead us to endorse yet another technique that is also intrusive and that weakens existing privacy law. Finally, we object to using the authorization process as the vehicle for pursuing this change. The national security latter exemption, because it diminishes the due process and privacy protections for individuals, must be given the most careful consideration. The FBI's proposal should be introduced as separate legislation on which public hearings can be held. only in this way can the Committee test thoroughly the FBI's case for the exemption and hear from witnesses who object to the change. We urge you to reject the FBI's proposal in its current form. We are available to work with you on this issue. Sincerely, Janiori Goldman Michelle Meier Privacy and Technology Project Consumers Union American civil Liberties Union Marc Rotenberg Evan Hendricks Computer Professionals for U.S. Privacy Council Social Responsibility cc: Members, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence The Honorable George J. Mitchell Senate Majority Leader The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr., Chairman Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman Subcommittee on Technology and the Law ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1993 10:42:07 -0700 From: Jim Warren Subject: File 4--UPDATE #19-AB1624: PROGRAMMERS! START YOUR ENGINES! July 20, 1993 Okay, all you programmers who volunteered to create readers, indexers, print utilities, etc., for California's legislative data --HERE'S YOUR FIRST CHANCE. GAIN FAME AND GLORY (if not wealth :-) ! Be the FIRST to create legislative data-handling utilities and share the source-code with the world. Do it fast, and you/it can amaze and impress legislators at the Aug. 18th Senate Rules Committee hearing on AB1624. The Legislative Data Center (LDC) has provided bill-author Bowen's office with six diskettes full of sample legislative data in the various forms in which it exists internally, at the LDC and/or the Office of State Printing (OSP). They also provided documentation-files in electronic form. With some kindly Sacramento assistance, Tim Pozar now has all of these files available across the Internet in the anonymous ftp directory (file transfer protocol) on To obtain copies of the files, use the command "ftp". Login as "anonymous" and use your mailing address as a password. Be sure to use the command "binary" to transfer the files intact. Use the command "cd pub/ldc" to change to the proper directory. Then the command "mget *" to get all of the files. After all of the files are retrieved, type the command "quit" to end the ftp session and log out of If you have ftp problems, contact Tim: Internet: FidoNet: Tim Pozar @ 1:125/555 Snail: Tim Pozar, KKSF, 77 Maiden Lane, San Francisco CA 94108 POTS: +1 415 788 2022 Radio: KC6GNJ / KAE6247 According to LCD notes that accompanied the diskettes, the files include: cgml.sou - California Generic Markup Language (CGML) parser table codes.fmt - documentation of CGML (the LDC formatting language, that does *not* give the page- or line-numbers by which amendments are defined) measures.fmt - documentation of Page II (the OSP typesetting input, which is the only source of the page- and line-numbers of printed bills) *cg.ina - introduced bill, in the Assembly, coded in CGML *cg.ams - amended bill, in the Senate, coded in CGML *.cg - Constitution part, state code or uncodified statute, coded in CGML ab????.ina - bill introduced in the Assembly, coded in Page II ab????.ams - Assembly bill amended in the Senate, coded in Page II *.pg2 - Page II tables for introduced, amended, enrolled and chaptered bills *ca - committee analysis *fa - floor analysis *cf - committee vote *fv - floor vote *s - bill status *h - bill history *ve - Governor's veto message files apparently concern the Assembly and Senate Daily Files. If you have questions AFTER you have diligently diddled these files and become totally frustrated, send specific questions to me and I'll try to scrounge up some answers. [No guarantees, though. :-) ] Let me know if/when you think you have some code working, and we'll figure out how best to gloriously - and *timely* - flaunt it in Sacramento. :-) [Note: I will be at the Telluride Tele-Community conference and mostly offline 7/22-7/26.] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 16:34:17 EDT From: Doug Schuler Subject: File 5--Community Network Survey Results Available Community Networkers, A few months ago I distributed a community network survey to several electronic forums. I stated that I'd make the survey results available electronically and I've received quite a few requests for the results. I've *finally* moved them to a site suitable for anonymous ftp. ftp to login = anonymous password = e-mail-address cd to pub/seattle-community-network/community-networks/surveys The completed surveys, explanatory information and blank surveys are also in the directory. I hope to maintain up-to-date information so completed surveys on systems not previously described or completed surveys that reflect major changes in status are welcome. I'd prefer that these be mailed to me. My address is I've received nearly 30 completed surveys so far. I hope that this information is useful. Thanks to everybody that's participated! -- Doug P.S. I've purposefully kept the survey short. I'm interested in comments on improving the survey. Completed (or nearly completed) Surveys --------------------------------------- CIAO-trail-freenet Vancouver, B.C., Canada IGC San Francisco, CA SPACECON Merritt Island, FL african-studies-bbs Madison, WI akron-regional-freenet Akron, OH boston-peace-and-justice-hotline Brighton, MA chippewa-valley-freenet Eau Claire, WI columbia-online-information-network Columbia, MO cruzio Santa Cruz, CA denver-freenet Denver, CO ecoline Burlington, VT eugene-community-network Eugene, OR FACTS Fayetteville, NC [nearly ready] heartland-freenet Peoria, IL mt-view-community-network Mountain View, CA national-capital-freenet Ottawa, Ontario, Canada new-mexico-network Albuquerque, NM rtk Washington, DC santa-cruz-county-wan Santa Cruz, CA seattle-community-network Seattle, WA [nearly ready] slo-county San Luis Obispo, CA suncoast-freenet Tampa, FL sustainable-development-info-network Cambridge, MA toronto-freenet Toronto, Ontario, Canada triangle-freenet Triangle Park, NC youngstown-freenet Youngstown, OH ++++++++++++ Thanks to David Barts and Coralee Whitcomb for help with this. ------------------------------ End of Computer Underground Digest #5.56 ************************************


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank