North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
- From: Greg A. Woods
- Date: Fri Oct 31 20:33:59 1997
[ On Fri, October 31, 1997 at 15:09:57 (-1000), email@example.com wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Spam Control Considered Harmful
> If your contract with them states that you will charge their credit card
> $500 for spamming and they agree to the contract, I'll bet they won't spam
> from the account. All of a sudden the account is not "throw away"
That's what I'd like to see indeed!
Unfortunately there are lots of more-or-less legal ways out of such
things, not to mention the illegal ways. They could easily use a
temporary card, or even run it up to the limit before spamming, etc.,
etc. I too would like to think there are ways to encourage users to
follow the AUP, but in the end hard technical limits are still the best.
Mabye you have to be like the phone company and charge a $500 deposit on
all new accounts until some history has been established that indicates
you're at least trustworthy on the surface.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>