North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: to control spam let's break the net?
[ On Fri, October 31, 1997 at 11:29:07 (-0500), Robert Laughlin wrote: ] > Subject: to control spam let's break the net? > > Well spam is bad, but I do not think this is the answer either. I'm getting very very close to doing exactly what Karl is doing. Currently the only remaining significant volume of spam that I receive is via third-party relays. I currently send a far more friendly and personal letter to the contacts for the relay site but often I never hear back from them and more than too often I get repeat spam relayed from the same organizations. Unfortunately it's next to impossible to show complicacy on the part of the relay operator too, so I'm never 100% certain if they're a victim or not when I don't receive a reply, and sometimes I'm never sure even if I do receive a reply. A repeat offence is often the only thing resembling evidence and since I don't go out of my way to entrap them I never really know. Instantly blocking their entire netblock (or the smallest matching one if their ISP doesn't assign it) and only removing the block after they've demonstrated their mail server can no longer be abused as a relay by spammers is the next level of escalation and probably a much better way of getting the attention of those that are not yet encouraged to upgrade and/or fix their mailers. Of course this is still not fixing the real problem. I claim the only real answer is for dial-up providers to a) institute effective AUPs; b) ensure direct accountability of their customers; and c) to implement technical mechanisms that prevent their customers from even attempting to violate the AUP, esp. in the realm of abusing other mail relays and of sending unreasonable quantities of mail. -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <[email protected]> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <[email protected]>; Secrets of the Weird <[email protected]>