At 7:02 PM -0400 3/19/03, Ian Wilson wrote:
second shooter on a grassy knoll, but isn't there a symbiotic relationship
between SPAMMERS and ISP's. While NBTel isn't paid when a SPAMMER sends me
a message, those messages are a big reason why I have an Unlimited Usage
Plan. I think there are a lot of folks in my position who use email almost
They lose far more in time and support costs than they would gain.
Spam is a bigger headache for ISPs at this point than for end users.
You can just delete it--they have to deliver it, reject the ones they
can't deliver, deal with the complaints from the people who get it,
deal with the spammers who buy throwaway accounts, set up new systems
for blocking spam, get complaints from people because they blocked
the wrong email, set up systems for blocking outbound spammers, get
complaints from people who can't connect to their business email
anymore... the list goes on and on. I'd believe the "anti-spam
companies like spammers" conspiracy theory before I believed the
"ISPs like spammers" one. And I *work* for an anti-spam company :-).
*wilson(_at_)nbntel(_dot_)nb(_dot_)ca* make me an easy target. It seems to me
that in some
SPAM that I have looked at it appears that the sender just took the name
*wilson* and used a database of ISP's to send it. ie: there might be 40
addresses in the message, wilson(_at_)nbnet(_dot_)nb(_dot_)ca,
wilson(_at_)hotmail(_dot_)com,
wilson(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com, wilson(_at_)hks(_dot_)com, etc., etc.
They might have, or they may just be sending to the list in sorted
order. Both happen.
doesn't exist. ie somebody sends me a SPAM message and the address provided
would just bounce. Can that be detected at the Server.
Only in some limited cases (e.g. "the domain doesn't exist"). That
is one of the discussions ongoing here. It sounds like a simple
thing to do, but it turns out to have lots of complications.
I think a good place to start for SPAMMERS in a legal sense would be that
each message must contain a valid return address, and a way the person
receiving the message can reply and be removed without being directed to a
That approach has a lot of supporters. But you need to be careful
even there. Establishing penalties for people who forge the return
address has potential to be good--but it makes anonymous speech
difficult. On the other hand, legislation that said it was okay to
spam if the return address was valid could potentially make your spam
volume much, much higher.
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg