Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
From: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc () imach com>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:38:37 -0600 (MDT)



On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, William Allen Simpson wrote:

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
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.

forrestc () imach com



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault