From: "Tim Kehres" <kehres(_at_)ima(_dot_)com>
...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=200110250552.AAA03935%40localhost.radpa
rker.com
I hope that particular example was not the message in question, because
there are special reasons that make me confident that it was unsolicited
bulk advertising.
Two issues here - first, no the message in question above is not the same as
above.
With respect to the second above issue - I am very aware of what happend -
some of our people sent single directed messages (unsolicited) to parties
they thought might be interested in what we do. They were single, short
messages, sent from real people on a one on one basis. They were sent with
valid headers, through our servers, and only one short message was ever sent
to anyone. We don't deal with unsolicited bulk advertising.
I just have not had the time or energies as of late to set the records
straight.
The "straight record" of the messages archived by Google is that they were
unsolicited, more than one and substantially identical, and therefore
"spam" or "UBE" by the definition held my most informed people.
In addition, because promoted or advocated a commercial product, they
were "UCE" or spam by the second most common definition.
The motives claimed by the senders are irrelevant. Whether the
unsolicited bulk mail is sent one at a time or with a single SMTP
transaction is irrelevant. Whether the headers are valid or you steal
service from third parties instead of only your spam targets is also
irrelevant. I and most informed people think that the contents of
the messages are irrelevant except to determine whether they are
substantially identical.
Whether International Messaging Associates Ltd should have been
disconnected by UUnet or the local Hong Kong reseller is not a matter
for public consideration, although the sorry history of spam from
UUNet and Hong Kong makes the apparently result unsurprising. However,
it is certain that such messages are sufficient to get you long term
entries in blacklists around the world.
Now that I've check my own logs and blacklists, I have discovered that
ima.com is in my blacklist because I received a substantially identical
messaeg from cecille(_at_)ima(_dot_)com on Oct 23, 2001. Ima.com will remain in
my blacklist until someone here has a reason to receive mail from
ima.com, which given Mr. Kehres's words is unlikely to be soon.
That Mr. Kehres is the technical contact for ima.com suggests that
contrary to implications I take from his words, he probably knows all
of this as well or better than I do.
Vernon Schryver vjs(_at_)rhyolite(_dot_)com