From owner-freebsd-chat  Tue Aug  5 17:38:40 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA15764
          for chat-outgoing; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA15758
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:38:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.star-gate.com [127.0.0.1])
	by rah.star-gate.com (8.8.6/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA02887;
	Tue, 5 Aug 1997 17:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199708060038.RAA02887@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0gamma 1/27/96
To: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: uunet vs. internet 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:50:55 PDT."
             <199708052250.PAA22871@kithrup.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 17:38:32 -0700
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


As one that is sitting here totally defenseless against the mindless
e-mail spams , all I have to say go for it!!

Yes , I have anti-spam filters and I think they are just not enough :(

	Cheers,
	Amancio

>From The Desk Of Sean Eric Fagan :
> In article <199708052014.NAA01887.kithrup.freebsd.chat@rah.star-gate.com> you
 write:
> >Apparently, a group of sysads are cancelling all uunets postings 8)
> >Rumor has it that Uunet will strike back by using legal action.
> 
> And yours truly has been quoted in the local paper.  And will probably be
> quoted in at least another.  (Spent the first hour this morning dealing with
> reporter questions via email.)
> 
> This is not a "group of sysads" -- rather, this is a group of the spam
> cancellers.  You know, the ones who actually try to make usenet still
> readable?  (The ones who stopped for nine days a few weeks ago and watched
> as usenet became >50% spam in most newsgroups?)
> 
> In this case, a UDP (Usenet Death Penalty) was issued for uunet dial-up
> originated postings.  THis is basicly just alterdial.uu.net.
> 
> A statistic:  last thursaday (July 31), for the first time, one site
> measured more than one million usenet articles passing through it in a
> single day.
> 
> Of those one million, approx. 40% were spam, 40% were spam cancels, and 20%
> were legit. traffic.
> 
> Of the 400,000 spam articles, approx. 250,000 came from an alterdial.uu.net
> account.
> 
> People have been complaining to uunet about this for several months.  uunet
> claims it can do nothing.  So, the UDP went into play, Friday at 5PM PDT.
> 
> The press coverage has, so far, been favourable.  Except for one very
> badly-slanted article in the San Jose Mercury News, I'm sad to say.
> 
> UUNET can try legal action; it will be amusing, since most of the people
> actually doing the cancels are not in the US -- and one of them works for
> the gov't of Korea, with official sanction.
> 
> UUNET has claimed that they decided yesterday to implment some technology to
> help deal with the deluge of spam coming from them.  So the UDP may be
> called off as early as this evening.  We'll see.
>