|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
The original message confused me a little. I could (mis?)interpret it to say that mail that has been given to them, by some outside party, to be relayed to another outside party - since spammers typically attack a mail server outside their (registered via credit card) home provider, who might just whack them with an arbitrary "high message traffic" charge. In this case, so long as AT&T made the policy clear up front (perhaps by having sendmail reference it in it's greeting) I think they would be in the clear. I've been tempted to put a "$1000 per non-local origin/destination" charge message on my sendmail banner, and then have my legal department whack Krazy Kevin with a seven-digit default judgement next time he tries a spam run. Let's see ya get a mortgage with that one on your TRW, pal. Dave O'Shea Manager, Network Operations 713-307-6760 Wiltel Communications Systems Houston, TX -----Original Message----- From: Scott Bradner [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 3:32 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet -- Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (?) makes it quite illegal to screw around with mail that you have accepted for delivery. -- spammers bill of rights? kinda don't think that would have been the aim. Scott - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|