Despamming wholesale dialup

Fri Oct 30 21:30:29 UTC 1998

On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:52:19PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:

> One problem is that the wholesale provider may not have permission to do
> this. You must obtain permission from a party to the communication prior to
> interfering with it, unless it qualifies as an abuse.  

Don't start again, Dean.

> You should be aware that the pro-spammers have a bill in Congress to
> explicitly define spam as a legitimate activity, ie not an abuse.  It will
> likely be passed in this session.

Wrong. It died. Unfortunately, the telephone anti-slamming bill died with
it - the spam rider was attached to the anti-slamming bill.

>I tried to tell people a year and a half
> ago that spammers were closely associated with an advertising lobby that
> would be effective on this is issue, and that they needed to try a more
> reasonable approach. But they insisted "I was wrong". 

You're still wrong. The DMA and its members seem to be adopting a wait-and-
see attitude, although they seem to be moving towards action...

> So "Spam fighting" is now a lost cause

Whatever.

> which should not be discussed on Nanog anyway.  

Which doesn't stop you from whining about spamfighters every few months
anyhow.

-- 
Steve Sobol [sjsobol at nacs.net]
Part-time Support Droid [support at nacs.net]
NACS Spaminator [abuse at nacs.net]

Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."