North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

  • From: measl
  • Date: Sat May 04 22:37:34 2002

On Sat, 4 May 2002, Forrest W. Christian wrote:

> On Sat, 4 May 2002 [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > How about something along the lines of dial accounts having their outgoing
> > SMTP connections rate limited to, oh, let's say 100 per day, and limiting the
> > maximum number of recipients on any given email to some low number, say 5?
> >
> > A customer reaches the limit, the account auto-rejects all email for 24
> > hours.
> >
> > Someone bitches?  Let them buy full rate dedicated services, with the first
> > month, last month, and a security deposit up front before service is
> > established.
> 
> The problem with this is how do you enforce this across thousands of mail
> servers, controlled by many many different organizations?

Obviously, it is a self-enforcement issue, aimed at the ISPs who do sial
services.  I firmly believe that if we could control the dial accounts in
this respect, we'd wipe out a very large portion of the problem children

The incentive to the ISP is obvious: $19.95 throw away accounts (which are
likely not paid anyway) disappear, their SpamCop nightmares disappear, and
the legitimate mass mail customer pays for commercial services.

> I'm not saying the pay-per-message option is perfect. 

I am a fan of micropayments in theory, but I do not believe that they can
ever be applied to email, attractive though it may be.  Since I don't believe
it's really possible, I choose not to burn cycles on it.

<snip>

> The bottom line is that in my opinion people need to give up *something*
> for the privlege of sending mail.

Agreed: to send it for free, they lose the right to do it in significant
volume.

>  I suggested a couple of cents per
> message.  Others reject this as "it will destroy the net".  Camram
> requires people to give up CPU cycles.  This might be an easier thing to
> swallow.

Possibly, but I doubt that you can explain this to Joe and Jane Sixpack.
 
> Passing laws and putting on filters don't work.  

Amen.

> Depending on each mail
> server admin to do the right thing doesn't work.

The problem here is defining "the right thing", no?

>  We need to find
> something else that will.

Agreed.
 
> - Forrest W. Christian ([email protected]) AC7DE

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[email protected]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...
--------------------------------------------------------------------