North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: ** Forged spamming going on
- From: Dean Anderson
- Date: Mon Dec 21 15:18:33 1998
At 11:43 AM 12/21/1998 -0700, John Gonzalez/netMDC admin wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Dean Anderson wrote:
>-| At 11:23 AM 12/21/1998 -0500, email@example.com wrote:
>-| >Still wouldn't fix it, as AOL is the one sending me the mails (bounces).
>-| Perhaps you can get AOL to stop sending.
>-| Actually, I think this might qualify AOL for the RBL, since they are
>-| sending unsolicited mail and won't stop. Thats supposed to be the only
>-| qualifier, right?
>I doubt AOL would be put on the RBL unless they SERIOUSLY did something
>wrong. Too much legit mail comes from them. Besides, it's not their fault.
>In this instance, they are doing the sane thing. It's the spammer forging
>the domain that must be stopped. Let's blame those who deserve the blame,
>and not punish innocents.
Well, this is somewhat tongue in cheek. I'm really poking at the problems
with the definition of who gets RBL'ed. I would think that since Vixie has
some experience with standards, he would be able to come up with a better
definition. One perhaps that doesn't change day to day depending on who he
wants to block at the moment.
Although, perhaps that is what he means to do, in which case, look out AOL.
I thought at least we could get an answer as to whether Vixie will RBL AOL
for sending unsolicited mail and refusing to stop. I would hope for some
sort of explanation about how they do or don't fit his current definition.
I'm all for blaming spammers. We just found an unauthorized relay this
morning. But I'll be pursuing them with federal prosescutors, not via
Plain Aviation, Inc firstname.lastname@example.org