Dear NANOG Mailling List, Thank you for adding your address to the Universal Remove list This email is simply a notification that you have been added to or updated in our Universal Remove list(s). As a reminder, you submitted the following details to: www.thehitman.com NANOG Mailling List at nanog@merit.edu Responsible Direct Email DOES exist at Web Biz!
[ On Sun, October 19, 1997 at 18:17:42 (GMT), postmaster@thehitman.com wrote: ]
Subject: Web Biz Universal Remove List Update
Dear NANOG Mailling List, Thank you for adding your address to the Universal Remove list
This email is simply a notification that you have been added to or updated in our Universal Remove list(s). As a reminder, you submitted the following details to: www.thehitman.com
NANOG Mailling List at nanog@merit.edu
I wonder if this was a result of me forwarding a complaint to them, or all of us doing the same, or did someone actually take the time to go find out what contortions they would like the minions to twist through to get off of their lists by putting themselves on yet another list?
Responsible Direct Email DOES exist at Web Biz!
What a joke, or rather a sad commentary on the state of the marketing industry. [I.e. a responsible direct e-mail "provider" wouldn't have allowed any mailing lists, and esp. not technical or other special interest mailing lists onto their master list in the first place.] -- Greg A. Woods +1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <gwoods@acm.org> <robohack!woods> Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>
On Oct 19, postmaster@thehitman.com wrote:
Dear NANOG Mailling List, Thank you for adding your address to the Universal Remove list
This email is simply a notification that you have been added to or updated in our Universal Remove list(s). As a reminder, you submitted the following details to: www.thehitman.com
NANOG Mailling List at nanog@merit.edu
Responsible Direct Email DOES exist at Web Biz!
I hope everybody realizes that this is very likely to INCREASE the amount of spam that gets sent to the nanog list -- even if we get less from this specific company. I think it's time we closed it off and bounced messages from non-subscribers. It would also be a good idea to put more pressure on the backbone which ignores complaints about thehitman.com (you know who I'm talking about.) I, too, would very much prefer to have a hands-off, "we're just a backbone, it's not our problem" attitude -- sure would mean less work for me -- but that is just simply not possible any more. ********************************************************* J.D. Falk voice: +1-650-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." *********************************************************
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, J.D. Falk wrote: ==> I hope everybody realizes that this is very likely to ==> INCREASE the amount of spam that gets sent to the nanog ==> list -- even if we get less from this specific company. ==> I think it's time we closed it off and bounced messages ==> from non-subscribers. The "IEMMC" crap that Sanford Wallace promoted was also an engine to generate addresses for spam use. I know of a few people (including myself) who tested this theory by using a very old account from which we had never posted to Usenet, mailing lists, etc., and signed up for "less spam" through the IEMMC site. Almost immediately, these accounts began receiving nearly 20 spams a day. It was pretty sad to see that certain providers who promoted the IEMMC actually believed that it would be beneficial to users and not harmful. /cah
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Craig A. Huegen wrote:
The "IEMMC" crap that Sanford Wallace promoted was also an engine to generate addresses for spam use. I know of a few people (including myself) who tested this theory by using a very old account from which we
That's not a valid test. Lists of addresses, many of them very old, get used for spam all the time. I used to get spam via a school mainframe account I'd not used for several years. That account had never done usenet and was on very few if any mailing lists. When IEMMC came out, I did a real test. I created a new account never used for anything. I jumped through their hoops Jun 18, 1997, and got confirmation I was on their remove list. That account still has not been spammed. It has gotten one message that could be interpreted as hate mail, but that's all: --
From mhobach@CYBERLYNK.NET Sat Aug 9 23:53:19 1997 Return-Path: <mhobach@CYBERLYNK.NET> Received: from powerpromo.com (ren.southwindnet.com [207.7.22.2]) by irc.aohell.org with SMTP id XAA19588 for <#####@aohell.org>; Sat, 9 Aug 1997 23:53:10 -0400 From: mhobach@CYBERLYNK.NET Message-Id: <199708100353.XAA19588@irc.aohell.org> Received: from [205.229.48.18] by powerpromo.com (SMTPD32-4.0) id AB9BDB40106; Sat, 09 Aug 1997 22:55:07 -0500 Subject: go away Date: Sat, 9 Aug 97 22:56:06 CST6CDT Status: O
and die -- The username is obviously not #####...I just didn't want it to be known. Maybe I added the account to the remove list too early, maybe they had it going to /dev/null...who knows? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
On Mon, 20 Oct 1997, Jon Lewis wrote: ==>> The "IEMMC" crap that Sanford Wallace promoted was also an engine to ==>> generate addresses for spam use. I know of a few people (including ==>> myself) who tested this theory by using a very old account from which we ==> ==>That's not a valid test. Lists of addresses, many of them very old, get ==>used for spam all the time. I used to get spam via a school mainframe ==>account I'd not used for several years. That account had never done ==>usenet and was on very few if any mailing lists. This was essentially the same thing. The fact that others tried it with the same results all points to the same conclusion. It's possible that when you did it was quite different from when I tried it. Namely, mine was in August, I believe. /cah
On Oct 20, Jon Lewis <jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net> wrote:
When IEMMC came out, I did a real test. I created a new account never used for anything. I jumped through their hoops Jun 18, 1997, and got confirmation I was on their remove list. That account still has not been spammed.
There's a lot of jlewis#### accounts @AOL on the remove list, was it by any chance one of those? And, on a related note, didn't an AGIS press release say that the IEMMC's list was going to be used as a filter, and not just distributed directly to the IEMMC members? (Yes, I have the list, as of 8/18. A friend of mine found it on a spammer's web site. No, I won't distribute it, though I will grep it for your address if you want.) ********************************************************* J.D. Falk voice: +1-650-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." *********************************************************
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Craig A. Huegen wrote: When IEMMC came out, I did a real test. I created a new account never used for anything. I jumped through their hoops Jun 18, 1997, and got confirmation I was on their remove list. That account still has not been spammed. It has gotten one message that could be interpreted as hate mail, but that's all:
I did likewise, and got the exact opposite result. I've reports going in both directions indicating no spam or suddenly receiving lots of spam to junk accounts created just for the sole purpose of testing the global-remove. I would say that overall the thing is a joke. Steve Mansfield steve@nwnet.net NorthWestNet Network Engineer 425-649-7467
On Tue, 21 Oct 1997, Steve Mansfield wrote:
I did likewise, and got the exact opposite result. I've reports going in both directions indicating no spam or suddenly receiving lots of spam to junk accounts created just for the sole purpose of testing the global-remove. I would say that overall the thing is a joke.
Someone with a supposed copy of the iemmc remove list grep'd for a regex I gave him and determined that my dummy account is not on the list. So much for responsible bulk email. As I told him, I can only guess that at first the iemmc remove list was just dumping addresses to /dev/null...and then someone involved with iemmc must have thought "gee, we have this list potentially being built that has nothing but valid and currently used email addresses...this beats skimming addresses from usenet or the web." The answer to Randy's next question is "Vixie's blackhole BGP feed". Gotta get me one of those :) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message. Florida Digital Turnpike | ______http://inorganic5.fdt.net/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key____
Would there be legal issues if the peers at the NAP/MAE etc. simply discarded traffic from the known spammer netblocks such as thehitman.com based on an acceptable use policy that prohibits sites which support spammer business? If traffic can't make it to their web sites it would make it harder to earn $ off spam even if the spam is sent from disposable accounts. - James Wilson netsurf@pixi.com
Would there be legal issues if the peers at the NAP/MAE etc. simply discarded traffic from the known spammer netblocks such as thehitman.com based on an acceptable use policy that prohibits sites which support spammer business?
it's probably important to avoid the appearance of a conspiracy. i will be blocking selected IP ranges for systems i handle, and i will be selecting them myself -- although the company i work for may sign up for the blackhole list (something that i thought was a done deal but which is still being discussed.) the judge handling the Compu$erve vs Cyberpromotions case inidicated that Compu$erve's network was C$'s private property, and therefore Spamford is not supposed to continue to send email into it after being told to cease and desist. so block those netblocks, but you probably want to pick which ones you block on your own. cheers, richard -- Richard Welty welty@inet-solutions.net http://www.inet-solutions.net/~welty/ 888-311-INET
it's probably important to avoid the appearance of a conspiracy. ... so block those netblocks, but you probably want to pick which ones you block on your own.
That is the other problem the MAPS RBL (see http://maps.vix.com/) is designed to handle. Users of the list indemnify me. I take my own risks wrt the anticompetitive or conspiratorial stuff.
Would there be legal issues if the peers at the NAP/MAE etc. simply discarded traffic from the known spammer netblocks such as thehitman.com based on an acceptable use policy that prohibits sites which support spammer business?
this is what http://maps.vix.com/ is all about.
If traffic can't make it to their web sites it would make it harder to earn $ off spam even if the spam is sent from disposable accounts.
exactly true. and it works, btw.
Do it as a matter of policy, no user likes spam mail, I fought that for years on the birdsong nntp server /hrl NetSurfer wrote:
Would there be legal issues if the peers at the NAP/MAE etc. simply discarded traffic from the known spammer netblocks such as thehitman.com based on an acceptable use policy that prohibits sites which support spammer business?
If traffic can't make it to their web sites it would make it harder to earn $ off spam even if the spam is sent from disposable accounts.
- James Wilson netsurf@pixi.com
participants (10)
-
Craig A. Huegen -
J.D. Falk -
Jon Lewis -
NetSurfer -
Paul A Vixie -
postmaster＠thehitman.com -
Richard Welty -
Steve Mansfield -
stickybit -
woods＠most.weird.com