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

Tue May 7 18:40:42 UTC 2002

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 01:13:34AM -0400, mjoseph at netaxs.com said:
[snip]
> The major problem I see with this is the need to verify that the
> spamvertised site actually requested or paid for the spam.  After all,
> what's to prevent me from spamming in the name of xyz.com just so I can
> see them shutdown?  More importantly, you need evidence to shut a customer
> and being spamvertised alone is not necessarily sufficient.

Obviously, there is still a need for some investigation during the spam
tracking process. I'm sure this kind of thing happens, but I think the vast
majority of spamvertised sites really are the source of the spam. It goes
without saying that there is no substitute for clue, both in the spam
fighting arena and elsewhere.

> -Mike

-- 
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/20020507/bc5eecd9/attachment.sig>