Dear NANOG Mailling List,
Thank you for adding your address to the Universal Remove list
This email is simply a notification that you have been added to or updated in our Universal Remove list(s). As a reminder, you submitted the following details to: www.thehitman.com
NANOG Mailling List at nanog@merit.edu
Responsible Direct Email DOES exist at Web Biz!
[ On Sun, October 19, 1997 at 18:17:42 (GMT), postmaster@thehitman.com wrote: ]
Subject: Web Biz Universal Remove List Update
Dear NANOG Mailling List,
Thank you for adding your address to the Universal Remove listThis email is simply a notification that you have been added to or updated in our Universal Remove list(s). As a reminder, you submitted the following details to: www.thehitman.com
NANOG Mailling List at nanog@merit.edu
I wonder if this was a result of me forwarding a complaint to them, or
all of us doing the same, or did someone actually take the time to go
find out what contortions they would like the minions to twist through
to get off of their lists by putting themselves on yet another list?
Responsible Direct Email DOES exist at Web Biz!
What a joke, or rather a sad commentary on the state of the marketing
industry. [I.e. a responsible direct e-mail "provider" wouldn't have
allowed any mailing lists, and esp. not technical or other special
interest mailing lists onto their master list in the first place.]
I hope everybody realizes that this is very likely to
INCREASE the amount of spam that gets sent to the nanog
list -- even if we get less from this specific company.
I think it's time we closed it off and bounced messages
from non-subscribers.
It would also be a good idea to put more pressure on the
backbone which ignores complaints about thehitman.com (you
know who I'm talking about.) I, too, would very much
prefer to have a hands-off, "we're just a backbone, it's
not our problem" attitude -- sure would mean less work for
me -- but that is just simply not possible any more.
==> I hope everybody realizes that this is very likely to
==> INCREASE the amount of spam that gets sent to the nanog
==> list -- even if we get less from this specific company.
==> I think it's time we closed it off and bounced messages
==> from non-subscribers.
The "IEMMC" crap that Sanford Wallace promoted was also an engine to
generate addresses for spam use. I know of a few people (including
myself) who tested this theory by using a very old account from which we
had never posted to Usenet, mailing lists, etc., and signed up for "less
spam" through the IEMMC site.
Almost immediately, these accounts began receiving nearly 20 spams a day.
It was pretty sad to see that certain providers who promoted the IEMMC
actually believed that it would be beneficial to users and not harmful.
/cah
That's not a valid test. Lists of addresses, many of them very old, get
used for spam all the time. I used to get spam via a school mainframe
account I'd not used for several years. That account had never done
usenet and was on very few if any mailing lists.
When IEMMC came out, I did a real test. I created a new account never
used for anything. I jumped through their hoops Jun 18, 1997, and got
confirmation I was on their remove list. That account still has not been
spammed. It has gotten one message that could be interpreted as hate
mail, but that's all:
==>> The "IEMMC" crap that Sanford Wallace promoted was also an engine to
==>> generate addresses for spam use. I know of a few people (including
==>> myself) who tested this theory by using a very old account from which we
==>
==>That's not a valid test. Lists of addresses, many of them very old, get
==>used for spam all the time. I used to get spam via a school mainframe
==>account I'd not used for several years. That account had never done
==>usenet and was on very few if any mailing lists.
This was essentially the same thing. The fact that others tried it with
the same results all points to the same conclusion.
It's possible that when you did it was quite different from when I tried
it. Namely, mine was in August, I believe.
/cah
Would there be legal issues if the peers at the NAP/MAE etc. simply
discarded traffic from the known spammer netblocks such as thehitman.com
based on an acceptable use policy that prohibits sites which support
spammer business?
If traffic can't make it to their web sites it would make it harder to
earn $ off spam even if the spam is sent from disposable accounts.
Would there be legal issues if the peers at the NAP/MAE etc. simply
discarded traffic from the known spammer netblocks such as thehitman.com
based on an acceptable use policy that prohibits sites which support
spammer business?
it's probably important to avoid the appearance of a conspiracy.
i will be blocking selected IP ranges for systems i handle, and i
will be selecting them myself -- although the company i work for may
sign up for the blackhole list (something that i thought was a done
deal but which is still being discussed.) the judge handling the
Compu$erve vs Cyberpromotions case inidicated that Compu$erve's
network was C$'s private property, and therefore Spamford is not
supposed to continue to send email into it after being told to cease
and desist.
so block those netblocks, but you probably want to pick which ones
you block on your own.
cheers,
richard
Do it as a matter of policy, no user likes spam mail, I fought that for
years on the
birdsong nntp server
/hrl
NetSurfer wrote:
There's a lot of jlewis#### accounts @AOL on the remove list,
was it by any chance one of those?
And, on a related note, didn't an AGIS press release say that
the IEMMC's list was going to be used as a filter, and not
just distributed directly to the IEMMC members?
(Yes, I have the list, as of 8/18. A friend of mine found it
on a spammer's web site. No, I won't distribute it, though I
will grep it for your address if you want.)