North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, William Allen Simpson wrote: > > From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email protected]> > > I disagree, strongly. I think anti-spam messages, sent to the > > postmasters of the respective ISP's that provide service to the > > spammers, is perfectly acceptable. Otherwise, there is no cost to the > > ISP's for providing service to the spammers. > > > Good idea! I've only been sending to the perpetrator (which sometimes > bounces). Heres a better solution: Only send to the postmasters. I was involved (from the "bouncing site" perspective) with a spam in which the perpetrator would have been charged with felonies in at least two states. However, the internet community tipped the individual off by determining his email address and sending him email cc'd to the postmaster of the site. As a result, the perpetrator wasn't caught in the act, and a case could not be built. [email protected]
|