to control spam let's break the net?
Greg A. Woods
woods at most.weird.com
Fri Oct 31 19:50:49 UTC 1997
[ On Fri, October 31, 1997 at 11:29:07 (-0500), Robert Laughlin wrote: ]
> Subject: to control spam let's break the net?
> Well spam is bad, but I do not think this is the answer either.
I'm getting very very close to doing exactly what Karl is doing.
Currently the only remaining significant volume of spam that I receive
is via third-party relays. I currently send a far more friendly and
personal letter to the contacts for the relay site but often I never
hear back from them and more than too often I get repeat spam relayed
from the same organizations. Unfortunately it's next to impossible to
show complicacy on the part of the relay operator too, so I'm never 100%
certain if they're a victim or not when I don't receive a reply, and
sometimes I'm never sure even if I do receive a reply. A repeat offence
is often the only thing resembling evidence and since I don't go out of
my way to entrap them I never really know.
Instantly blocking their entire netblock (or the smallest matching one
if their ISP doesn't assign it) and only removing the block after
they've demonstrated their mail server can no longer be abused as a
relay by spammers is the next level of escalation and probably a much
better way of getting the attention of those that are not yet encouraged
to upgrade and/or fix their mailers.
Of course this is still not fixing the real problem. I claim the only
real answer is for dial-up providers to a) institute effective AUPs; b)
ensure direct accountability of their customers; and c) to implement
technical mechanisms that prevent their customers from even attempting
to violate the AUP, esp. in the realm of abusing other mail relays and
of sending unreasonable quantities of mail.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <gwoods at acm.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>
More information about the NANOG