Newsom Busted Trying To Manufacture Green Protest Against Gore?

The funny thing is that it's hard enough to organize and get people out to REAL protests, so how many would have even shown up for this FAKE one???

Next - be on the look out for FAKE GREENS protesting anyway, despite all this exposing and the inevitable media blackout (beyond imc and matts site, frontlines, etc).

If we see anyone wearing Green and protesting, someone should try to interview them and see who they really are. Are they actually registered Green? Are they residents of SF? Will they give a real name?

Just in case . . .

This is very underhanded behavior by Newsom but I do wonder if the IP mentioned was really in an email or instead a result of IP logging on this site. There isnt anything wrong with IP logging for exactly this type of situation but considering the heated debates editors on this site get into with other members of the activist community the lack of privacy should be stated upfront.

Al Gore can explain the email messup to Gavin Newsom. After all, AL GORE INVENTED THE INTERNET, DIDN'T HE?
(at least he says so)

Bill Grates III


p.s. actually it was me, hehe, the innovator, hehe.

Where, exactly, did Al Gore say that? Be specific.

Click here:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

In "Al Gore, an Owner's Manual" by Alexander Cockburn, published by Verso Press in Aug.2000, on pg. 3 it says:
"He [i.e. Al Gore] is a stretcher in every sense of the word, either with full-flown fibs or the expansion of some modest achievement into impossible vainglory. He claimed to have created the Inernet, a ludicrous pretension, alothough he would have been safe and truthful in describing his early support for federal funding for the internet."
I highly recommend this book if you want to know all the incredible dirt about this evil man, Al Gore.

For example, did you know he got worse grades as an undergraduate than George "Shrub" Bush?

ciao,
Bill G. iii

or the U'wa.

Folks:

I have already emailed the Chronicle and demanded they cover this story.

I suggest that you all do the same and get them to tell the truth about Gagging Nuisence--er-Gavin Newsom.

I didn't catch whether the other ones did, but the Channel 7 news 'update' had it in there, amongst the high school and construction site fires.

Phil Matier tried to point out that the IP address was linked to him, but he just continues to say he's not connected.

But now he's trying to redirect it, and is of course using it to grandstand. Matier is bringing up the Alioto endorsement to give Newsom a platform to try to smooth it over.

Basically Matier is trying to humanize Newsom . . . making a lot of jokes about it. And no one really takes him to task to account for the fact that the evidence is so strong.

Look out for Newsom infiltrators in the campaign . . . who knows what they could try at this point.

The ip address 216.100.140.9 is a DSL line connected to either a computer or a router (as of Mon. AM 12/1/03) because it is responding to pings. At what physical location is this DSL installed? What computers are connected to it?
This line can be traced by SBC/Pacbell under orders from the DA's office or other enforcement agencies, or... maybe by one of you reading this email. hehe

your Pal,
Bill Grates iii

p.s. i use linux

If attachment doesn't work properly, here's the text trace info:
OPEN FILE FULL SCREEN TO SEE TABLES PROPERLY
==================================================
=== VisualRoute report on 01-Dec-03 7:56:21 AM ===
==================================================

Report for 216.100.140.9 [adsl-216-100-140-9.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net]

Analysis: '216.100.140.9' [adsl-216-100-140-9.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net] was found in 16 hops (TTL=109).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Hop | %Loss | IP Address | Node Name | Location | Tzone | ms | Graph | Network |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 4 | | 12.124.35.57 | - | | | 19 | x-- | 12.124.35.0 |
| 5 | | 12.123.13.154 | gbr6-p80.sffca.ip.att.net | San Francisco, CA, USA | -08:00 | 23 | x-- | 12.123.13.0 |
| 6 | | 12.122.11.77 | tbr1-p013601.sffca.ip.att.net | San Francisco, CA, USA | -08:00 | 31 | -x | 12.122.11.0 |
| 7 | | 12.123.13.190 | ggr2-p300.sffca.ip.att.net | San Francisco, CA, USA | -08:00 | 21 | x-- | 12.123.13.0 |
| 8 | | 144.232.9.205 | sl-st21-sj-15-2-1620xT1.sprintlink.net | San Jose, CA, USA | -08:00 | 19 | x- | 144.232.9.0 |
| 9 | | 144.232.9.241 | sl-bb25-sj-2-0.sprintlink.net | San Jose, CA, USA | -08:00 | 21 | x- | 144.232.9.0 |
| 10 | | 144.232.3.249 | sl-bb23-sj-15-0.sprintlink.net | San Jose, CA, USA | -08:00 | 28 | -x- | 144.232.3.0 |
| 11 | 10 | 144.232.0.250 | sl-gw19-sj-15-0.sprintlink.net | San Jose, CA, USA | -08:00 | 74 | --x------- | 144.232.0.0 |
| 12 | | 144.228.44.50 | sl-swb-88-0.sprintlink.net | - | | 46 | -x- | 144.228.44.0 |
| 13 | | 151.164.243.1 | bb2-p2-0.snfc21.sbcglobal.net | | | 21 | x-- | 151.164.243.0 |
| 14 | 10 | 64.161.124.227 | dist1-vlan35.snfc21.pbi.net | San Francisco, CA, USA | -08:00 | 24 | x- | 64.161.124.0 |
| 15 | | 206.171.134.137 | rback6-fe2-0.snfc21.pbi.net | San Francisco, CA, USA | -08:00 | 20 | x- | 206.171.134.0 |
| 16 | | 216.100.140.9 | adsl-216-100-140-9.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net | San Francisco, CA, USA | -08:00 | 30 | -x- | 216.100.140.0 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roundtrip time to 216.100.140.9, average = 30ms, min = 25ms, max = 80ms -- 01-Dec-03 7:56:21 AM

*******
info for 216.100.140.9
SBC Internet Services, Inc. (PACBELL2-DOM)
PO Box 940972
Plano, TX 75075
US

Domain Name: PACBELL.NET

Administrative Contact:
Pacific Bell Internet (PDA-ORG) dns-admin [at] sbis.sbc.com
Pacific Bell Internet
303 Second Street, Suite 830
San Francisco, CA 94107
US
800-463-8724 fax: - - 415-442-4999
Technical Contact:
Pacific Bell Internet NetCenter (PB401-ORG) trouble [at] PBI.NET
303 2ND ST STE 830
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107-1327
US
1-800-4NETPBI (463-8724) fax: - (415) 442-4999

Record expires on 06-Apr-2010.
Record created on 05-Apr-1996.
Database last updated on 1-Dec-2003 10:57:07 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS1.PBI.NET 206.13.28.11
NS2.PBI.NET 206.13.29.11

*****
here is the arin.net output:
Search results for: 216.100.140.9

Pac Bell Internet Services PBI-NET-6 (NET-216-100-0-0-1)
216.100.0.0 - 216.103.255.255
GavinNewsomFor SBC216100140008030228 (NET-216-100-140-8-1)
216.100.140.8 - 216.100.140.15

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-11-30 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

I was one of the people who received the message from the
Newsom campaign.

The IP address 216.100.140.9 was recorded by the Web-mail
client operated by everyone.net. They have to do that, because
Web-mail clients are so widely abused by the Nigeria scammers
and other spam gangs. That particular Web-mail client operates
under the name "http://www.spl.at" and I suppose the Newsom
people thought that made it anonymous somehow. Here are the
last two lines of the header I received:
...
X-Originating-Ip: [216.100.140.9]
Message-Id: <20031126190934.E90A63942 [at] sitemail.everyone.net>
...

(I spend quite a lot of time analyzing and reporting the spam
I receive. It's practically a reflex for me to look for IP addresses
in the headers and bodies of my email. It takes less than a
minute to generate a spam report, and you can often get the
spammer's email or Web hosting account shut down.
It's a satisfying little hobby.)

At first, I thought someone might be trying to discredit
the Newsom campaign, because this stunt was *so*
unsophisticated! Other Internet tricks the Dems have pulled
over the years have been much more clever.

So I was curious and looked up the source.
The address 216.100.140.9 is in a DSL range owned
by SBC. So then I looked up the Newsom campaign in
Google, just to verify that http://www.gavinnewsom.com is real
and not some joke site. Then I queried the domain name
system. To what computer should email for gavinnewsom.com
be sent? The answer came back,
"gavinnewsom.com mail is handled by mail.gavinnewsom.com."
What's the IP address of "mail.gavinnewsom.com"?
"mail.gavinnewsom.com has address 216.100.140.9" (!)

Finally, just to be sure, I opened a TCP/IP session to the
email port at that address to see if there was really an email
server there. The response was:
"220 gavinnewsom.com MailSite ESMTP Receiver Version 5.2.5.0 Ready"
That is, the computer listening for email at 216.100.140.9
calls *itself* gavinnewsom.com when you talk to it.

According to D. J. Bernstein's survey, that banner comes from
a commercial email server software product called
Rockliffe MailSite. The Rockliffe site confirms this is an
email server for the Microsoft Windows platform.
Here's a free clue for the Newsom campaign. It is unwise to
expose your Microsoft server directly to the Internet. Serious IT
people use unix for email service because it's a lot sturdier.
Cheaper, too.


Cameron Spitzer in San Jose
(software snob)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/01/BAG5E3DG7O1.DTL

isn't it amazing that this comes out after Matt gained endorsements from two pro-growth builders? interesting that once Matt was being called a "sell out" by some of his followers, this e-mail story comes out. sounds very republican. the vast right wing conspiracy is alive and well in SF, thanks to the green party.

Matt was being called a sell out by members of the Newsom/Getty propaganda team, pretending to be Matt's followers. As this email scandal demonstrates conclusively, the Newsom gang are lying SOBs who should never be taken at their word.

See also:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1555696.php

and

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1555696_comment.php#1555703

Matt Gonzalez is the most honest and decent human being alive. Give me a break. MG is no different than any other politician.

gavin
by brother d-day Friday October 31, 2003 at 03:03 PM

which way to the newsom victory party?...go gavin, the next mayor of s.f.

hey right-winger. thanks for proving my theory. Newsom is supported by some pretty disgusting human beings.

The greens have nothing to do with this stuff. Greens are the democratic wing of the Democratic Party. They stand behind Gonzalez not because he's a gree but because he is a democrat. Gonzalez supports average folks and small businesses against corporate monopolies and oligopolies.

Republican operatives specialize in dirty tricks and disinformation because their message is unpalatable as it is. Newsom just carries the ignominious banner onward. He can't help himself.

So you are saying that the originating SMTP server is known, but what was the originating client? Is this just another case of an abused open relay? Let's be clear that mail.gavinnewsom.com is not the sender but merely the post-office that sent the email to the final recipients. Right?

Yeah, Matt's a politician, and to some degree he has to play the game. I'm totallly cynical and jaded, but I have to say that I actually beleive this guy wants to do the right thing, enough so that I am giving up my precious time to volunteer for his campaign, something I NEVER thought I'd do because I generally dislike politicians.

I'd like to clarify a few things: I'm a supporter, not a follower.

The endorsements that "d-day" was referring to were Walter Wong and Joe O'Donahue. Unlike Gavin Newsom, Matt Gonzalez did not seek endorsements from Wong and O'Donahue. Gavin tried and tried, and failed while Matt, who has most often voted against the interests of O'Donahue, receives an unsolicited endorsement. What gives?

What gives and what is unusual about Matt Gonzalez as a politician is that he is respected and trusted by people whose political and economic interests he opposes. Supervisor Tony Hall is a man whose politics could not be farther away from that of Gonzalez. The two have rarely shared a similar position in a vote before the Board. Yet Hall respects Gonzalez because he recognizes that Matt is guided by his principles. Board Supervisor Aaron Peskin spoke a couple of weeks ago about how heavy pressures that come to bear on elected politicians from monied, powerful special interests, how these pressures can move one away from their principles. "I may have wavered," said Peskin. "Matt has never waivered."

There is nothing that big business interests in this city would like better than have you just sit home on Tuesday the 9th complaing to Pete Wilson's image on your TV screen that, "all politicians are shit, the same, and nothing really matters anyway." That way, the more conservative absentee voters in the city will have their man. Or just as good, as one of the over 60% of renters in this city, you could cast a vote against your own interests by voting for Newsom.

Gonzalez during his tenure on the Board of Supervisors has voted consistently for the rights, while Newsom has consistenly voted in the interest of developers no matter what the cost may be to the vast majority of San Francisco citizens.

To contrast the two, let's look at Gonzalez:

In 2001, with (03.02.2001) #010060, Gonzalez voted with the board to amend the ' "Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance" by adding a new section to impose a temporary moratorium on landlord pass through of capital improvement, rehabilitation and energy conservation costs to tenants."

In 2002, with (11.21.2001) #011102 "Changed the formula used by the Jobs/Housing Linkage Program to increase the number of affordable housing units housing developer[s] are required to build when participating in the program."

He also voted for the rights of neighborhood residents and against developer interests when with (08.08.2003) #030351 he worked to amend the San Francisco Planning Code to "require any new retail coffee store, pharmaceutical and personal toiletries store, or prescription drug service be subject to neighborhood notification and review."

Matt has the endorsement also of the San Francisco Tenant's Union, who highlight some aspects of Newsom's record as a member of the Board of Supervisors (http://www.sftu.org/nogavin.doc).

Some shining points in the career of Gavin Newsom:

'July 22, 2003 Voted against proposal to strengthen rent control by giving tenants more seats on the SF Rent Board.
November, 2002 One of 2 Supervisors (Hall) to support massive condominium conversion and rent control repeal measure (Prop R) on the November 2002 ballot.
October 7, 2002 One of 3 Supervisors (Hall, Maxwell) to rubber-stamp all of Willie Brown's nominations to the Planning Commission and Board of Permit Appeals.

March, 2002 Prohibited from voting on limits to new "live/work" units because he is a developer of "live/work" units.

April 15, 2002 Voted against controls on "big box" projects, like Ikea or Home Depot. Specifically voted against neighborhood notice and approval requirements.

March 18, 2002 Opposed requiring developers to include affordable housing in their developments (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance).

"February 11, 2002 One of 2 Supervisors (Hall) to vote against additional protections for tenants, especially senior tenants, from evictions and pass-through of capital improvements.

August 20, 2001 Again voted against requiring developers to include more affordable housing. (He and Hall opposed resolution to Planning Commission).

July 23, 2001 Voted against public power. He and Hall voted to prevent the voters from deciding on the ballot whether or not we should have public power.

July 9, 2001 Voted against limiting evictions for condo conversions. One of 3 Supervisors (Hall, Yee) to vote in support of the Mayor's veto of Tenant protection Legislation.

April 2, 2001 Voted to allow evictions of seniors under the Ellis Act. One of 3 Supervisors (Hall, Yee) voting against a resolution urging the State Legislature to amend the Ellis Act to prevent the eviction of senior tenants under Ellis.

February 20, 2001 Voted against a temporary ban on rent increases for capital improvements.

The Tenant's Union also states that "Prior To 2001, Newsom—a landlord—was prohibited from voting on most landlord/tenant measures. In 2001, the conflict of interest law was changed, allowing him to vote. During this time he could not vote on a measure to limit OMI evictions of senior, disabled and terminally ill tenants, but indicated if he could he would vote against those protections.'

Just thought I'd try to clarify some issues.

To the person who asked several times whether the IP that sent the email was the newsom system, or if it had been owned by someone relaying through it:

the header in question is "X-Originating-IP."

Assuming we're seeingu accurate headers, and at least one of the people who's posted this info is someone I don't think would play games with them, then that IP is in fact that IP that the email originated from.

If you traceroute to http://www.gavinnewsom.com you get taken off to 64.227.147.227 which is an IP address that a shop called Interland runs. They're a hosting service.

But, if you traceroute to mail.gavinnewsom.com, you arrive at 216.100.140.9, which is an ADSL connection in San Ramon, California.

At that IP, someone is running a mailserver on a Windows box, and that genius went ahead and used that machine to send out a Really Stupid Email. It doesn't look to me as if that mail came through the mailserver proper, but rather from a web browser on the machine that hosts the mail server.

Ooops.

It's probably someone's home or small business system, and they probably can't afford a dedicated mail-only server. From the looks of the netblock, they also haven't bothered to afford a router that can map a single public internet address to the mailserver and then do outbound comms on their other public addresses.

Ooops again.

two related videos ... and an article below ...

Mayor Brown in his own words - video
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/12/1663137.php

related article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/27/MNGUO3BQH91.DTL

Gavin's slick new commercial
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1662723.php

I appreciate the techie explanation, rogue, but what the hell does "oops" mean? That it did come from Newsom or not? Part of explaining complex systems is understanding them. The other (more important) part is making other people understand them. Please make me understand.

The term is a racist term to refer to Native American persons as thieves, please do not use this term.
thanks
Anti-Newson Anti-Racist