Have any providers gone on record as stating that they are going to require anti-spam policies in their future peering agreements? We have the case of a spam attack coming from Cable and Wireless CWIX.NET customer: Here is CWIX saying its ok to send in bulk unsolicited email. We are going to require that our service providers and peers argee to not pass us spam traffic, by whatever means that they want to impelement. As a stop gap, I imaging a route map to map all prefixes arriving out of AS 5683 to Null0 for the time being will a stop gap, until we can get our providers to drop peering with these idiots. I imagine we will also be pursing legal action as these people are located in state.
Here is the official response from CWIX.NET (cable wireless ex) Patrick
<excerpt>Sender: lawrence@tipa2.cwix.net Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 19:20:34 -0500 From: Lawrence Guidry Organization: Cable & Wireless Internet Exchange (CWIX) To: "Patrick Michael O'Leary" Subject: [Fwd: Ticket #92258 (craig) Spammed email to our site!
Upon investigation, your complaint appears to be without merit.
The simple act of sending commercial bulk e-mail to your clientelle is not in and of itself a violation of our AUP.
Any issues of complaint regarding plagerism towards Roy Bronson are between you and he.
Of course, please feel free to re-clarify your complaint for further consideration by us.
--- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
Ouch... IMHO thats C&W showing their newbie status (at least for the UK, they've only been operating/advertising as an ISP for a couple of months). I've copied to the UK spamstop list for info/comment. In <199801062307.RAA25700@freeside.fc.net>, on 01/06/98 at 05:07 PM, Jeremy Porter <jerry@fc.net> said:
Have any providers gone on record as stating that they are going to require anti-spam policies in their future peering agreements? We have the case of a spam attack coming from Cable and Wireless CWIX.NET customer: Here is CWIX saying its ok to send in bulk unsolicited email. We are going to require that our service providers and peers argee to not pass us spam traffic, by whatever means that they want to impelement. As a stop gap, I imaging a route map to map all prefixes arriving out of AS 5683 to Null0 for the time being will a stop gap, until we can get our providers to drop peering with these idiots.
I imagine we will also be pursing legal action as these people are located in state.
Here is the official response from CWIX.NET (cable wireless ex) Patrick
<excerpt>Sender: lawrence@tipa2.cwix.net Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 19:20:34 -0500 From: Lawrence Guidry Organization: Cable & Wireless Internet Exchange (CWIX) To: "Patrick Michael O'Leary" Subject: [Fwd: Ticket #92258 (craig) Spammed email to our site!
Upon investigation, your complaint appears to be without merit.
The simple act of sending commercial bulk e-mail to your clientelle is not in and of itself a violation of our AUP.
Any issues of complaint regarding plagerism towards Roy Bronson are between you and he.
Of course, please feel free to re-clarify your complaint for further consideration by us.
--- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
-- John Payne | VM: JOHN at RTP IBM Global Services NS | email: john@raleigh.ibm.com OpenNet Services (EMEA) | Intranet http://w3.irc.ibm.com/jpayne
participants (2)
-
Jeremy Porter -
john＠raleigh.ibm.com