I debated whether to send this message, and decided I would, but this
is my *last* message to procmail in this thread since it's not
directly procmail-related anymore. Apologies to those who think even
this is too much.
However, I would be happy to discuss by direct email the *ethics* of
*email* spam-killing and spam-bouncing (news.admin.net-abuse.*
focusses on Usenet spam, which has a different set of issues, and is
too high-traffic), and where I have something to contribute on
procmail recipes, I will of course chip in on the list.
As long as I'm here, I note that I got a procmail message this morning
from a guy at netvoyage.org, one of otmar's problem sites, so my
unintentional mail-bomb scenario is not far-fetched at all. :-(
"Nick" == Nick Halloway <snowe(_at_)rain(_dot_)org> writes:
Nick> Stephen J. Turnbull
<turnbull(_at_)turnbull(_dot_)sk(_dot_)tsukuba(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp>
Nick> writes:
>> The moral is that any small fast-growing ISP is going to be
>> open to this kind of abuse. Only when they get big enough to
>> seriously threaten lawsuits over violations of the AUP will
>> they be able to credibly act like Big Brother.
Nick> Rain where my account is, is small and inexpensive, and
Nick> isn't a known problem site -- I think they zap people who
Nick> spam quickly.
A qualified agreement. Rain is not a problem *any more*. Immediately
after the C&S mess, there was a problem from Rain; I'm pretty sure it
was spam, but maybe Serdar Argic, possibly mailer spew. It took a
while to correct. If you care, I can probably find it in my archives.
But anyway, Rain had a bit of growing up to do *at one time*. They've
done it, as far as I know. My point was exactly that: problem sites
do not necessarily remain so.
I suspect that "good citizen" small sites for personal use limit the
use of resources like the mailer; I think that's the solution that my
private provider (GOL.com) uses. This requires a certain invasion of
privacy (counting the number of addressees in each item), but I think
that's worthwhile. Commercial accounts with greater resources are far
more expensive, so less attractive to spammers.
As for zapping "people who spam" quickly, zapping people "who spam
quickly" (then move on to another site) is more difficult; it requires
legal muscle to threaten action *beyond* termination of a throw-away
account. I think I know how I would set this up if I were a private
provider; I can my users (students) kicked out of the U if they
violate my AUP so they don't screw around. But that satisfies the
criterion. (And that's why *.edu is not the problem it used to be.)
--
Stephen John Turnbull
University of Tsukuba Yaseppochi-Gumi
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/
Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba, 305 JAPAN
turnbull(_at_)sk(_dot_)tsukuba(_dot_)ac(_dot_)jp