North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Lawsuit threat against RBL users
On Thu, Nov 19, 1998 at 09:26:01AM +0000, BrandonButterworth wrote: > Some people don't know where to draw the line though, is it just the ISP > that hosts the site or all sites linked to that site and so > on until there isn't a net? The answer, IMHO... in all of these cases Provider X should shut down the dialup account. Case 1. If it's a spam on Provider X advertising a website hosted by Provider X, Provider X should shut down the website, thus removing the spammer's reason to spam. Case 2. If it's a spam on Provider X advertising a site hosted on Provider Y, Provider Y should shut down the website, thus removing the spammer's reason to spam. Case 3. If it's a spam on Provider X advertising a site hosted on Provider Y that clicks through to a site on Provider Z, Providers Y and Z should shut down the offending web sites IF AND ONLY IF it is obvious that the Y page exists to try to shield the site hosted on Z from people who aren't paying attention. This is as far as it should ever go, and you have to be extremely careful with Case 3. > This isn't hypothetical as we've been in that position, a spammers > site had a link to ours (and attached a copy of that page to a spam) > so one spamee decided we must be spammers too and filtered us. > > As an innocent 3rd party who has no control over who links to our site > (or mentions it in spam) it becomes a simple DOS (lets make a site that > links to the top 100 web sites and make up a spam) Yes, if you're just filtering blindly because you see something linked to a spamvertized site, it does end up becoming a major problem. -- Steve Sobol [[email protected]] Part-time Support Droid [[email protected]] NACS Spaminator [[email protected]] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."
|