At 02:04 AM 8/26/98 +1000, Adam Todd wrote:
ISPs sell customers a TCP/IP connection to the Internet. To me that means taking my IP datagrams and delivering them to where I address them. I
UUNET sells connections to users that allows them to deliver packets? Only problem is so many places block more and more UUNET traffic every day. Eventually UUNET will have to do something about it's inability to transit anything except the backbones and it's a pretty lonely world out there on your own.
Yes, it certainly is lonely. You isolate yourselves, too. From purely that point of view, it is the smaller group that harmed the most by isolation. So, are you larger or smaller than UUnet? As I have pointed out numerous times previously, your tactics are fatally flawed and damage the cause more than help it. You're losing your battles, pretty much as I expected, for pretty much the reasons I explained previously. It's too bad. Some spam regulation would be a good thing, I think, but the radicals are making that impossible. --Dean ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dean Anderson wrote:
At 02:04 AM 8/26/98 +1000, Adam Todd wrote:
ISPs sell customers a TCP/IP connection to the Internet. To me that means taking my IP datagrams and delivering them to where I address them. I
UUNET sells connections to users that allows them to deliver packets? Only problem is so many places block more and more UUNET traffic every day. Eventually UUNET will have to do something about it's inability to transit anything except the backbones and it's a pretty lonely world out there on your own.
Yes, it certainly is lonely. You isolate yourselves, too. From purely that point of view, it is the smaller group that harmed the most by isolation. So, are you larger or smaller than UUnet?
That's the wrong question. The correct question is: So, are the collective set of all spam haters larger or smaller than UUnet? The answer is, of course, larger. Perhaps. just perhaps, the e-mail address space will end up partitioning itself into to camps, those where spam is blocked, and those where spam is not blocked, with no apparent gateway between them. Now you decide which you want to be in. I know there will be LOTS of people who will ONLY be in the blocked network. I find it hard to imagine someone actually WANTING to be in the UNblocked network ONLY. Probably many people will have a way in both so they can talk to everyone, but eventually it will be obvious that migration to the blocked network will have the least cost to the customers. Then the spammers can just spam each other (if they are on long enough to even read e-mail, which I doubt). Adam has indicated he already blocked UU.net. I am considering it. If UU.net and most of the others would just block spam, we wouldn't have this debate at all. But I can assure you, spam haters _will_ _not_ just decide to accept spam; the change _must_ happen at the sending side to avoid heading down the path of partitioning.
As I have pointed out numerous times previously, your tactics are fatally flawed and damage the cause more than help it. You're losing your battles, pretty much as I expected, for pretty much the reasons I explained previously. It's too bad. Some spam regulation would be a good thing, I think, but the radicals are making that impossible.
Spam regulation, as much as we'd like to have it, just can't happen. It is not practical principly because there is no single jurisdiction that can do it and make it stick. And that's even before all the free speech issues in the US, and the bungling when writing the text of the laws or regulations. I hardly trust US regulators and/or congresspeople to get it right, much less every government in the whole world, and that is what it would take to stop the spam by means of regulation and law. -- Phil Howard | blow4me9@no1where.org no35ads7@no2where.net stop5681@noplace2.edu phil | no63ads2@noplace9.com stop5205@nowhere6.com stop1462@spam5mer.edu at | crash128@no95ads3.edu stop7ads@no2place.edu stop3897@no94ads8.com ipal | end0it22@noplace7.net end7it73@nowhere8.org no0way62@no71ads0.org dot | a3b2c7d1@lame4ads.net suck1it1@nowhere4.net w5x2y8z2@noplace1.net net | stop6it5@anyplace.com eat80me0@anywhere.com w9x6y2z3@dumbads7.edu
Dean Anderson
At 02:04 AM 8/26/98 +1000, Adam Todd wrote:
ISPs sell customers a TCP/IP connection to the Internet. To me that means taking my IP datagrams and delivering them to where I address them. I
UUNET sells connections to users that allows them to deliver packets? Only problem is so many places block more and more UUNET traffic every day. Eventually UUNET will have to do something about it's inability to transit anything except the backbones and it's a pretty lonely world out there on your own.
Yes, it certainly is lonely. You isolate yourselves, too. From purely that point of view, it is the smaller group that harmed the most by isolation. So, are you larger or smaller than UUnet?
As I have pointed out numerous times previously, your tactics are fatally flawed and damage the cause more than help it. You're losing your battles, pretty much as I expected, for pretty much the reasons I explained previously. It's too bad. Some spam regulation would be a good thing, I think, but the radicals are making that impossible.
--Dean
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Plain Aviation, Inc dean@av8.com LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP http://www.av8.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-- Phil Howard | suck5it8@no33ads3.com end8it71@s5p6a1m9.edu ads6suck@spammer6.edu phil | crash673@anyplace.com no4way86@no4where.edu a4b6c9d2@noplace9.edu at | stop2259@no36ads0.edu ads8suck@nowhere2.net crash366@spam2mer.net ipal | end8ads1@anywhere.org end2ads0@dumb7ads.net eat30me9@s9p7a6m7.net dot | a2b5c4d1@no09ads5.net blow9me5@spammer3.com no24ads5@s8p5a2m2.net net | stop4it1@noplace1.net suck7it3@dumbads4.edu stop1309@spam2mer.org
I think ELM launched this mail already, as it didn't give me a prompt at all. Maybe this is a good time to find a better mail client; ELM has been a pain (but please do not suggest PINE). Anyway, this thread on spam has focused on whether it is appropriate for an ISP to block access from dialups to SMTP servers beyond the ISP servers. I recently received several copies of spam from dialups at ATT Canada on one of my outside accounts, and I sent reports to their abuse department about each instance. I also told them that I block such access, and that I recommended that they, too, block it. I got usual responses from them, and responded back to one of them restating my suggestion. Today I got this response from them. It looks like they have decided that this is going to help reduce the volume of spam, especially via customers of ISP using their dialup network. | From: "S Security" <abuse@attcanada.net> | To: "Phil Howard" <philh@best.com> | Subject: Re: UCE report --- time to disable this | Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 17:38:29 -0400 | | This message is intended as an update to ISPs and individual users regarding | the International Drivers License/University Diploma/Pheromes spam | originating from a downstream ISP of ATTCANADA.NET. | | The spammer is believed to be running a mail server on his own PC. His mail | never touches our mail server. As such his mail has not subject to our own | mail server spam controls, which strictly monitor and limit outgoing mail | volumes. He has evaded the controls of our downstream as well. | | We also believe the effort is less so to generate sales for the rather | dubious products they are offering but to encourage you to make a long | distance phone call, either by calling about the products or calling Plus | Net Marketing The calls are most likely re-routed overseas to generate | settlement toll. | | Today AT&T Canada has taken steps to prevent users dialed into our network | from generating SPAM on their Personal Computers. Effective immediately | filters are being put in place so that mail from our dial-in network must be | relayed through pre-authorized mail servers configured with anti-spam | software. Access to transmit mail via other mail servers on the Internet | whether secured or otherwise has been disabled. | | AT&T Canada takes the issue of spamming very seriously, and have no desire | to profit or participate in any ongoing spamming activity. We share in the | Internet wide responsibility to eliminate SPAM. Our own Terms of Service | allow for immediate termination and financial penalties for repeat | offenders. | | Again, we re-iterate that the spammer was never a direct customer of AT&T | Canada. He abused good faith offers from a downstream ISP and established | at least 15 accounts with them over the last few weeks. He has also abused | netcom.ca and other ISPs as well. | | We expect the addition of these filters will allow us to control the flow of | messages from our site more effectively, even from a downstream ISP. | | Thank you very much for your attention. My applause and thanks to ATT Canada for taking this brave move. Now when a customer of some ISP in Canada not yet using ATT Canada is impacted by their ISP being mail filtered due to spam sourcing, there is another ISP to send them to that actually carries out an anti-spam policy. -- Phil Howard | eat92me9@lame6ads.edu stop7it0@lame8ads.org suck9it4@anywhere.com phil | stop0ads@s8p6a6m5.org no6spam4@dumb9ads.edu end8it17@dumb8ads.edu at | no7way29@dumb5ads.org ads9suck@noplace2.org w1x7y7z5@lame7ads.org ipal | suck1it1@dumb4ads.net end9ads2@dumb1ads.net crash301@anywhere.edu dot | no63ads8@anywhere.net stop8it3@anyplace.com a2b2c4d8@lame9ads.net net | a5b3c1d4@lame6ads.net eat77me6@spammer8.net eat6this@nowhere5.org
participants (2)
-
Dean Anderson -
Phil Howard