Update on mail bombing threats--not so funny
allan at bellsouth.net
Fri Jan 10 11:15:33 UTC 1997
Mike Leber wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 1997, Allan Chong wrote:
> > Even despite the inevitable chargebacks, many spammers would decide that
> > fighting with the credit card company isn't worth it.
> Uh, you have this backwards. If you read most credit card merchant
> agreements, online services have no recourse, without a physical signature
> from the customer, against chargebacks for online service. This is
> because they are treated as phone orders where the presumption is in the
> customers favor.
By chargeback, I meant to the merchant. But it still was a hassle
on a simple chargeback I did. I probably wasted 5 hours writing
letters and on the phone to make it stick.
The technical reasons Vadim gives are essential, to ensure that
everything is as it appears, but what does the ISP do when one
of their users does something. Most don't have any clear cut
policy. When the spam is coming from the network of a paying
business customer, operators often have to start tiptoeing lightly.
We're going to see more balkanization of the net as operators have to
start deciding between the good ISPs and bad ISPs.
3 posts in a day. I must be getting old and grumpy.
More information about the NANOG