Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 14:18:45 -0500 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: "Duane H. Hesser" <alex@androcles.com>, cat@uunet.ca, current@hub.freebsd.org, jmb@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: UU.NET, SPAM, and Cyberpromotions (was Re: usregsite.com) Message-ID: <19970523141845.49335@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <199705231636.JAA07391@phaeton.artisoft.com>; from Terry Lambert on May 05, 1997 at 09:36:16AM -0700 References: <XFMail.970522205148.alex@androcles.com> <199705231636.JAA07391@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On May 05, 1997 at 09:36:16AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > | Received: from 206.13.28.25 > | (1Cust52.Max31.Chicago.IL.MS.UU.NET [153.35.113.180]) > | by mail-gw.pacbell.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) with SMTP id EAA07399; > | Thu, 8 May 1997 04:09:14 -0700 (PDT) > > I did report it, and haven't seen anything since after the second time > I had to report it to them; I got their canned response, so it may be > that they have taken care of this one. The problem with uu.net is that they lease their dialups to various ISPs, but there's no way to discover this from the information that uu.net provides. EG: Both foo.com and bar.com contract with uu.net to allow their respective customers to connect via the above POP. Now, when one of the ISP's customers (maybe cybperpromo with a freebie account) connects, and bounces mail off of pacbell.net, there is no way to determine which ISP is responsible for the customer. The annoyed victim complains to uu.net, who (maybe) forwards the complaint on to the correct ISP, (eg: bar.com), who then (maybe) takes action against their customer. I believe that uu.net has stated that they do not take action until they have received many complaints, from differing email addresses. My suggestion would be for uu.net to provide a means for people to query their logs, identifying which ISP was ultimately responsible for the customer connecting at a particular moment. This would allow the spammee to complain directly to the ISP. > I've been mail-bombed by Cyberpromotions for complaining to their > abuse address when they failed to remove me from the lists they sell > their customers, and theier customers refused to honor (or in some > cases provide) a working "remove" address. Heh. Don't send mail to 'abuse@cyberpromo.com'. It is actually an alias for 'add-me-to-your-mailing-lists@cyberpromo.com'. You can try complaining to their upstream provider (AGIS) but they aren't too helpful either. AGIS is supposed to be implementing a 'remove-list', but it just happens to be run by the same people who operate quantcom.com, which is also a known spam domain. > Currently, I'm working on site/IP based SPAM filtering for a mail > server product that my company has sold into tens of thousands of > installations, so if they choose the install option, Cyberpromotions > and their ilk will be blocked for new installations. I have it on > good authority that similar changes are going into Post.Office and > the default sendmail distribution. Serves them right for SPAMming > their transport providers. 8-). There are also two bills that have been introduced to combat spam: One in the senate, that requires all UCE to be labeled as such, requires the sender to provide authenic contact information, and also requires the sender to maintain a remove list. It's problem, as I see it is that this is still 'opt-out', not 'opt-in', and that the remove-list is 'per-sender', meaning they can set up a new address and start anew from there. Another (better, IMHO) bill was introduced in the House that extends the junk-fax law to cover email. Write your local congresscritter to expouse your opinions on said bills. For more information, see http://www.tigerden.com/junkmail/laws.html -- Jonathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970523141845.49335>