mailing list archives
Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
From: "William Allen Simpson" <bsimpson () morningstar com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 08:13:54 GMT
From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso () MIT EDU>
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
As a matter of course, whenever I receive a spam, I will generally send
a complaint to postmaster at the originating site, or perhaps to the
ISP, if I can determine it. In fact, I'm thinking about automating this
procedure, to decrease the amount of time that it takes for me to send
I also have a template file which I use to save time.
How do you automate finding the postmaster and ISP? I cannot seem to
figure it out.
In the case of the "Janet Dove" spam, the two different months included
Received: (from news () localhost) by ixc.ixc.net (8.6.12/8.6.10) id SAA06849; Fri, 8 Sep 1995 18:27:50 -0400
From: janetdove () infosat com (Janet Dove)
Subject: ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 315+ Popular USA Titles
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 18:28:18 -0500
Organization: Association of Overseas Students, Eastern Region
Message-ID: <janetdove-0809951828180001 () pm1-49 ixc net>
Received: from [188.8.131.52] (pm1-62.ixc.net [184.108.40.206]) by cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id
EAA02068; Wed, 11 Oct 1995 04:28:53 -0400
X-Sender: For.a.prompter.reply.please.fax () If you do not have a fax smail is ok (Unverified)
Message-Id: <v0153050baca1267766ab () [205 230 67 34]>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 05:03:27 -0500
To: For.a.prompter.reply.please.fax () If you do not have a fax smail is ok
From: For.a.prompter.reply.please.fax () If you do not have a fax smail is ok (You will
get a quick reply via email within 1 business day of receipt of the info
request form below.)
Subject: *new* reply info: ===>> FREE 1 yr. Magazine Sub sent worldwide- 300+ Popular USA
As you can see, in the second they were better at hiding! But email to
janetdove didn't bounce.... And the Received tells the IP address.
As to authentication, the headers indicate "pm-", probably a PortMaster.
I _know_ PortMasters have both PAP and CHAP authentication.
Other people have talked about enforcement; as near as I can tell, this
is the only kind of enforcement on the Internet that will really work.
Yes, email reply is a good start. But, I would like to add another kind.
And the ISP's had better listen up:
The other kind is a lawsuit. It costs about $50 for an individual to
file, and $$$ (thousands) for a company to defend. And for that same
$50, I can sue _both_ the perpetrator, and an uncooperative ISP.
If the ISP fails to authenticate, and/or fails to log and identify the
perpetrator, they are clearly negligent!
P.S. Perhaps ISP's should consider writing into their customer's
contracts some legal language saying that if the ISP receives too many
complaints, that the customer is liable for the cost of processing the
complaints caused by that customer --- the ISP can decide to waive the
fee if the complaints are caused by some mail forgery or other
We talked about this last year. If they haven't done it by now, they
have only themselves to blame....
Bill.Simpson () um cc umich edu
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2