North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet
- From: Dave O'Shea
- Date: Sun Mar 30 00:37:52 1997
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.
Manager, Network Operations 713-307-6760
Wiltel Communications Systems Houston, TX
From: Scott Bradner [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 3:32 PM
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: Brian_Murrell@bctel.net; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.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
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -