DECLARATIONS: The statements made herein reflect the opinion of the author, and are not the responsibility of the author's place of employment, nor of any other business entity. Any attempt by parties unhappy with the opinions expressed here to force removal of this page, either directly or through coercion of my 'upstream' providers, represents an infringement of constitutional rights and will be dealt with proactively.

So what it is with this firm called UUNet? Why are so many ordinary internet users -- folks like you and I -- becoming so angry that the mere mention of the name is enough to make the blood boil?

UUNet, a Virginia-based company, is a major communications firm and one of the 'backbone' providers of connectivity to the 'net. UUNet's business stronghold, more or less, is the east coast of the United States.

UUNet, in one form or another, is also the world's largest source of UCE -- often referred to as "bulk e-mail" or "spam" (with sincere apologies to the fine Minnesota company Hormel, Inc.) -- probably the biggest scourge on the internet today.

(If you're reading this, you likely already know something about UCE. If not, and you'd like to know more about why UCE is such a bad thing, click here.)

But on to UUNet. UUNet has become the principal harbor for 'spammers,' the bulk e-mailers that fill your e-box with crud day after day after day. And UUNet, unlike most other service providers, has to date taken a position that favors spammers. UUNet uses a network of service resellers that function under a shield of anonymity that UUNet provides, and given this anonymity, some of these resellers in turn provide connectivity to sources of the seediest 'business' practice on the net.

The spammers themselves, of course, have developed a different type of anonymity, one based on bogus registration information, 'throwaway' response accounts, and anonymous 'drop box' or answering- service feedback systems. Those most skilled at spamming are toughest to identify, though when they are, the legal penalties they pay are often substantial. (Research 'Sanford Wallace' to learn more.)

Despite the fact that millions and millions of dollars of direct and indirect internet costs can be directly attributed to UUNet, their own apparent greed for marginal income has blinded them to the immorality of their current business stance. They accept no associative responsibility for the massive, internet-wide damages caused by their customers, whether these customers are primary or secondary. They are 'just the medium,' not the active source of the UCE.

Does UUNet care that tens of thousands of man-hours are wasted on a daily basis, simply in ridding countless systems and personal computers of unwanted solicitations? Of course not.

Does UUNet ever get bothered by knowing that a multi-million-copy of something like a 'World Record Sex' video, by its very nature of being UCE, ends up in the e-boxes of tens of thousands of underage internet users? Well, maybe a little bit, but the connectivity payments UUNet receives apparently have greater motivational force. We don't know when UUNet sold its morality; we just know it's gone.

(An aside here: one of the dirty little secrets of the internet has to do with the general unprofitability of many web sites that offer on-line 'retail' products or services. The exceptions are adult-related sites, which as a category are the most profitable . . . by far. It is in the financial interest of any service provider, large or small, to provide connectivity to sites of this nature, and it is not my intent to condemn these sites. But whereas other service providers manage to balance the existence of adult sites with the greater concerns of the internet itself, UUNet, despite its size, doesn't understand the equation. They pay lip service to 'freedom of expression,' though their own actions say otherwise (see below). Perhaps it's their lack of understanding of this basic phrase that makes them want to define it -- for their paying customers, at least -- as 'freedom to advertise indiscriminately' and 'freedom to steal other's services and resources.' Does UUNet garner a larger-than-average share of its revenues from adult-site sources? Who cares? It ain't the point. Nor is the fact that the net's current largest sender of UCE (TCPS, Inc.) is a UUNet customer that sells X-rated videos, among other things. What's being sold isn't the problem; it's how it's being sold. And on this matter, UUNet's attitude to the rest of the world's internet community amounts to a whoppin' big finger in the air.)

Enjoy these nuggets of wisdom concerning UUNet:

• UUNet's corporate site includes a forum for firing off internet-abuse complaints, although until recently UUNet refused to conform to the greater internet standard of an 'abuse@' address, using 'fraud@' instead. Using this alternate address violated accepted internet protocol. Why would they do this? What was the gain? It seems the only purpose of the 'fraud@' address was to be to reduce the sheer volume of complaints UUNet received from UCE recipients, since these complaints are seldom read by real people, and virtually never acted upon. UUNet's system includes an auto-bot response promising to investigate the problem. Complainers who successfully reach the complaint-bot receive this reply. (I have a small handful myself.) But nothing ever happens.
  

• The sheer volume of complaints UUNet receives is staggering. Despite the fact that UUNet took unusual steps to limit the number of complaints it received, the trackable total is enormous. In an apparent attempt to covince complainers that UUNet indeed cared about the problem, they programmed their response-bot to include a 'problem number' for tracking purposes. As of this writing the tracking numbers are nearing 1,000,000, and should reach this unenviable mark in late August or early September of '98.

  Think about it . . . a million individual complaints! Now this is a company with a major problem.
  

• UUNet's size and internet prominence has, to date, kept it from being placed on the Realtime Blackhole List (RBL), maintained by one Paul Vixie. The RBL is an accepted internet standard for identifying 'spamhauses' (service providers that give haven to spammers -- though it should really, in good Deutsch, be called 'spamhausen'). Thousands of ISPs use the RBL as a convenient method of identifying providers who refuse to be good 'net citizens. But UUNet is among those who provide upstream support to Vixie's list . . . which to interested third parties seems a blatant conflict of interest, to the detriment of internet users everywhere.
  

• UUNet actively pursues those who protest their corporate policies. Legal action has been threatened against others who have posted pages similar to this. Some righteous -- but questionably written -- pages are now history. And it is this UUNet action, as much as anything, that has prompted the creation of this page.

  This page will stay indefinitely, as an independent opinion of a ongoing, deplorable 'net situation. However, if UUNet cares to write a specific response to the issues raised here, I will provide a link to that page. I will be fair to them, though they have seen fit to trample the rights of millions of others. Stay tuned.

So what should UUNet do? Easy. Change their corporate policies, fix the problems they have, and quit enduring the growing scorn of millions of internet users. Will this happen? Probably not soon. Might doesn't make right, but might allows one to fight the battle longer. Ultimately, though, the internet could survive without them. and the longer UUNet waits, the more painful that lesson will ultimately be. So join in the protest. Complain. Complain. Complain some more. I'm only one voice, but I'm out here. Don't let a company like this dictate the terms of your enjoyment -- or lack thereof -- on the 'net. On the internet, one voice can't be heard. A few are easy to ignore. But many voices, all together, can get things done.