anybody else been spammed by "no-ip.com" yet?

Mon May 6 23:18:59 UTC 2002

On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 06:01:49PM -0600, forrestc at imach.com said:
[snip]
> Passing laws and putting on filters don't work.  Depending on each mail
> server admin to do the right thing doesn't work.  We need to find
> something else that will.

I'm beginning to think that fighting the spam itself is futile. What we
should perhaps be focusing on is removing access to whatever is being
spamvertised (frequently a get-rich-quick website, porn site, diet site, etc.
- but generally a website somewhere, that can have the plug pulled).

Most of the discussion so far has focused on fighting the spam, but most of
the methods feel a bit akin to moving an object tied to a rope by pushing the
rope. I may get 15 spams from 15 different originating points, with 15
different headers, but they will frequently _all_ be advertising the same
site or service. Wouldn't it be simpler to focus efforts on cutting off
service to whatever is being spamvertised? It's the single link in the chain
that, if cut, will take away the point of the spam.

Thinking out loud here ... I realize there are problems (free/throwaway hosting,
non-responsive network/hosting providers in other parts of the world, etc.
etc.), but I think focusing on removing the motivation for the spam would be
easier than trying to stop spam directly.

-- 
Scott Francis                   darkuncle@ [home:] d a r k u n c l e . n e t
Systems/Network Manager          sfrancis@ [work:]         t o n o s . c o m
GPG public key 0xCB33CCA7              illum oportet crescere me autem minui
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20020506/3c26c081/attachment.sig>