Reporting Little Blue Men
linneweh at concentric.net
Thu Jan 22 06:32:01 UTC 1998
To reiterate my original position from an end-user prospective. I do not want to
purchase services from an ISP that disallows me freedom of choice to solicit
those businesses that I want to deal with. I do not care for sex spams or market
driven Microsoft email or basic solicitations that do not interest me personally
or professionaly. "That protects my right of choice."
I believe that ISP in conjunction with the NSP has the right to limit bandwidth
in my interest as a consumer of services from forced market techniques,
especially the ones that commit criminal activity in the process of spammung.
If such businesses must exist then let it be on an e-commerce network that
is private and does not invade mainstream networks and email systems.
If they can not live with that, then outright refuse service like any private
has the right to do.
Henry R. Linneweh
Dave Stoddard wrote:
> Dean Anderson <dean at av8.com> writes:
> > <snip>
> > There are several laws being violated, but
> > the FBI basically isn't getting involved in the spam wars. The first
> > violators were the anti-spammers who put in the blocking. The second
> > violators were the spammers who use relaying to get around that.
> > Anti-spammers are illegally intercepting (blocking) electronic
> > communications, and reading email, and the spammers are illegally exceeding
> > their authorization to access computers. The anti-spammers are illegally
> > preventing access to computers and networks engaged in interstate commerce.
> > Anti-spammers illegally exceed their authority to cancel usenet messages.
> Its bad enough that we have to put up with non-operational
> banter on the NANOG list, but having to deal with morons is
> particularly offensive. The court has already upheld the
> right of ISPs to block spam, and the right of ISPs to sue
> spammers on behalf of their subscribers.
> The following is an excerpt from a case on the ACLU's web site at
> http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/nov13clu.html :
> "A District Court in Pennsylvania has ruled that AOL
> is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment,
> and therefore can block unsolicited commercial e-mail
> (spam). ... Judge Weiner found that there were no
> disputes over the facts of the case, and issued a
> summary judgment opinion. He held that AOL is not a
> state actor, and is not working in conjunction with the
> government. As a wholly private actor, AOL is not
> required to open its network to Cyberpromo, and is
> therefore within its rights to block e-mail from the
> Cyberpromo's domains."
> If you really think spam does not hurt anybody, try explaining
> to your 10 year old daughter why she keeps getting email for
> "hot pussy sites" in her mail box -- this is something that a
> child should never have to deal with. For this reason,
> US Net provides one of the largest anti-spam filter lists
> on the Internet, and we gladly help other ISPs in tightening
> their mail systems down so they can eliminate nearly all spam
> coming to their site. Our list is available via email auto
> responder at spamlist at us.net -- over 700 ISPs pull this list
> regularly to block spam. Filters can not stop all spam, but
> they can have a dramatic impact on the amount of spam that
> actually gets through to your site.
> While Paul's BGP feed is excellent for blocking spam, we can
> not use it because our customers demand being able to get to
> the "entire Internet". Instead, we use filters to block mail
> coming to dial-up customers, and we provide information and
> tools to help our network customers kill spam on their own
> mail servers. We are working hard to make the Internet a
> *much* smaller place for spammers ...
> Dave Stoddard
> US Net Incorporated
> dgs at us.net
More information about the NANOG