It Continues...Sprint Is played the fool...

Tue Jan 7 03:24:16 UTC 1997

On Tue, 7 Jan 97 01:27:07 GMT, "William Allen Simpson"
<wsimpson at greendragon.com> wrote:

>
>Moreover, it was very important to me to learn about this Sprint policy
>of allowing spamming.  I'm in the middle of writing the RFP evaluation
>criteria for a fairly large network buy.  In addition to the paragraphs
>on accepting routes into its own address space for multihoming (which
>disqualified Sprint earlier), I'll add some language that:
>
> [...]
> - the service provider must have a written and enforcable policy
>   prohibiting any of its customers from sending any traffic to
>   recipients that have not requested the traffic -- including (but not
>   limited to) the sending of off-topic or unsolicited mail messages to
>   mailing list exploders, subsets of mailing list registrants, news
>   groups, and posters to news groups (termed "mail spamming").  The
>   requirement for a response to any such unsolicited message to prevent
>   future messages is unacceptable.

What about the Web spamming, i.e. all these flashy dynamic GIFs that pop up on
nearly every page and have no relation to its contents whatsoever? I don't
really request all this trashy traffic either and my my browser's downloading
them wastes my precious free hours online.

> - the service provider must have the capability of isolating any
>   external network addresses and connections within 10 minutes of
>   notification about operational problems of its other customers and
>   network connections -- including (but not limited to) broadcast
>   flooding, connection flooding, routing loops, address spoofing, mail
>   spoofing, and mail spamming.
> - The service provider will guarantee reimbursement of costs for each
>   minute (or fraction thereof) beyond the specified 10 minutes.
>
>I believe these will disqualify Sprint, too.

Together with whom? Who is left qualified, anyway?

>WSimpson at UMich.edu
>BSimpson at MorningStar.com

Dima