North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Despamming wholesale dialup
- From: Steven J. Sobol
- Date: Fri Oct 30 17:14:41 1998
On Fri, Oct 30, 1998 at 01:52:19PM -0500, Dean Anderson wrote:
> One problem is that the wholesale provider may not have permission to do
> this. You must obtain permission from a party to the communication prior to
> interfering with it, unless it qualifies as an abuse.
Don't start again, Dean.
> You should be aware that the pro-spammers have a bill in Congress to
> explicitly define spam as a legitimate activity, ie not an abuse. It will
> likely be passed in this session.
Wrong. It died. Unfortunately, the telephone anti-slamming bill died with
it - the spam rider was attached to the anti-slamming bill.
>I tried to tell people a year and a half
> ago that spammers were closely associated with an advertising lobby that
> would be effective on this is issue, and that they needed to try a more
> reasonable approach. But they insisted "I was wrong".
You're still wrong. The DMA and its members seem to be adopting a wait-and-
see attitude, although they seem to be moving towards action...
> So "Spam fighting" is now a lost cause
Whatever.
> which should not be discussed on Nanog anyway.
Which doesn't stop you from whining about spamfighters every few months
anyhow.
--
Steve Sobol [sjsobol@nacs.net]
Part-time Support Droid [support@nacs.net]
NACS Spaminator [abuse@nacs.net]
Spotted on a bumper sticker: "Possum. The other white meat."
|
