[57888] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Open relays and open proxies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Fri Apr 25 16:18:18 2003
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:19:45 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g3k7di4dxq.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Paul Vixie wrote:
> they can be. and in spamcop's case, they usually are. for reference,
> check http://www.mail-abuse.org/standard.html and decide whether robotic
> spam complaints can or cannot often fit all of (1) (2) and (3) as shown.
>
"(1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant
because the message is equally applicable to many other potential
recipients"
The message is applicable only to the person that spamcop sends it to.
They are reporting a problem, and they are reporting it to the proper
role accounts for that problem. In most cases, the reports reach the
right place for the right problem.
"(3) the transmission and reception of the message appears to the
recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender"
Actually, the benefit is for the recipient. It is a method for SC to
inform the recipient reguarding an issue that is problematic to others.
You definately have the right to not be informed, just as they have the
right to blacklist. However, SC feels that it is beneficial to everyone
as a whole if they do inform the responsible parties concerning the
problem so that hopefully the problem can be resolved.
-Jack
