On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:52:19PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
One problem is that the wholesale provider may not have permission to do this. You must obtain permission from a party to the communication prior to interfering with it, unless it qualifies as an abuse.
Don't start again, Dean.
You should be aware that the pro-spammers have a bill in Congress to explicitly define spam as a legitimate activity, ie not an abuse. It will likely be passed in this session.
Wrong. It died. Unfortunately, the telephone anti-slamming bill died with it - the spam rider was attached to the anti-slamming bill.
I tried to tell people a year and a half ago that spammers were closely associated with an advertising lobby that would be effective on this is issue, and that they needed to try a more reasonable approach. But they insisted "I was wrong".
You're still wrong. The DMA and its members seem to be adopting a wait-and- see attitude, although they seem to be moving towards action...
So "Spam fighting" is now a lost cause
Whatever.
which should not be discussed on Nanog anyway.
Which doesn't stop you from whining about spamfighters every few months anyhow. -- Steve Sobol [sjsobol@nacs.net] Part-time Support Droid [support@nacs.net] NACS Spaminator [abuse@nacs.net] Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."