Give it a rest. You won't be stopping spam. Dream on if you like. But take it off Nanog. --Dean At 04:30 PM 10/30/98 -0500, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
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."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dean Anderson wrote:
Give it a rest. You won't be stopping spam. Dream on if you like.
But take it off Nanog.
While spam is applicable to Nanog where it applies to the networking, which it does when dealing with certain issues like blocking networks and ports, this thread has "degraded" into general spam discussions. We really didn't come up with any great solutions. We will each do what we feel works best to do what we each feel needs to be done. While I disagree with Dean's assertion, I will go along with him about taking the spam discussion off Nanog. We've had our thrill. Let's go on with other things. -- -- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * -- -- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | -- -- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | -- -- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 05:42:50PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
Give it a rest. You won't be stopping spam. Dream on if you like.
I already said, at the beginning of the thread, that it's off-topic. But of course you jumped at the chance to start preaching again. As I pointed out, and as Ray Everrett-Church also pointed out, you're wrong. End of discussion, and I am not going to post anything further on this topic to NANOG. -- 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."
participants (3)
-
Dean Anderson -
Phil Howard -
Steven J. Sobol