From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Dec 1 09:10:43 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA21731 for chat-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:10:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from anlsun.ebr.anlw.anl.gov (anlsun.ebr.anlw.anl.gov [141.221.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA21719 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:10:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cmott@srv.net) Received: from darkstar.home (dialin1.anlw.anl.gov [141.221.254.101]) by anlsun.ebr.anlw.anl.gov (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id KAA15113 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:10:27 -0700 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 10:09:55 -0700 (MST) From: Charles Mott X-Sender: cmott@darkstar.home To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: annoying spammers... In-Reply-To: <199712011443.JAA07461@gatekeeper.itribe.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Jamie Bowden wrote: > We have the domain html.com. We have had it for over 3 years now, but > recently millions of spam messages have gone out on the net with a from > line of 1234567@html.com (the address is always some random number). All > the bounce messages come our server, despite the fact that we didn't send > them. I had to remove the server's ability to recieve mail at html.com > about 2 weeks ago, as it was getting several hundred return mails a > minute. It now routes all mail to @html.com to /dev/null. Not > that it stops my mailbox from filling up with requests from people who > don't know how to read a fscking header who send mail to us whining about > being removed from our lists. *sigh* Although you certainly have a clear civil case against the person who wrote the spam software forging html.com and the spammers actually using it, the costs of pursuing it would be too expensive. Possibly a criminal statute is being violated and you could get a U.S. attorney interested. (Just donate some money to the DNC -- they're desperate for money and have a solid record of arranging special government services for their donors.) These spammers are a huge problem. I don't think legal methods can work, either. Charles Mott