[8444] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave O'Shea)
Sun Mar 30 00:46:18 1997
From: "Dave O'Shea" <doshea@mail.wiltel.net>
To: "'Scott Bradner'" <sob@newdev.harvard.edu>
Cc: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 23:39:51 -0600
The original message confused me a little. I could (mis?)interpret it to =
say that mail that has been given to them, by some outside party, to be =
relayed to another outside party - since spammers typically attack a =
mail server outside their (registered via credit card) home provider, =
who might just whack them with an arbitrary "high message traffic" =
charge.
In this case, so long as AT&T made the policy clear up front (perhaps by =
having sendmail reference it in it's greeting) I think they would be in =
the clear.
I've been tempted to put a "$1000 per non-local origin/destination" =
charge message on my sendmail banner, and then have my legal department =
whack Krazy Kevin with a seven-digit default judgement next time he =
tries a spam run. Let's see ya get a mortgage with that one on your TRW, =
pal.
Dave O'Shea
Manager, Network Operations 713-307-6760
Wiltel Communications Systems Houston, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Bradner [SMTP:sob@newdev.harvard.edu]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 3:32 PM
To: jhc@lynxhub.att.com; lon@moonstar.com
Cc: Brian_Murrell@bctel.net; kevin@ascend.com; nanog@merit.edu; =
spam-list@psc.edu; spam@zorch.sf-bay.org
Subject: Re: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
--
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the
Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (?) makes it quite illegal to =
screw
around with mail that you have accepted for delivery.
--
spammers bill of rights? kinda don't think that would have been the=20
aim.
Scott
