Motion for a new POST NSF AUP

Forrest W. Christian forrestc at imach.com
Mon Oct 16 16:38:37 UTC 1995


On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, William Allen Simpson wrote:

> > From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso at MIT.EDU>
> > I disagree, strongly.  I think anti-spam messages, sent to the
> > postmasters of the respective ISP's that provide service to the
> > spammers, is perfectly acceptable.  Otherwise, there is no cost to the
> > ISP's for providing service to the spammers.
> >
> Good idea!  I've only been sending to the perpetrator (which sometimes
> bounces).

Heres a better solution:  Only send to the postmasters.  I was involved 
(from the "bouncing site" perspective) with a spam in which the 
perpetrator would have been charged with felonies in at least two 
states.  However, the internet community tipped the individual off by 
determining his email address and sending him email cc'd to the 
postmaster of the site.  As a result, the perpetrator wasn't caught in 
the act, and a case could not be built.

forrestc at imach.com




More information about the NANOG mailing list