Subject: Re: spaming ? why not when they tolerate it :-)

From: "William Allen Simpson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 98 13:20:35 GMT

> From: "Jonathan Clark" <[email-masked]>
> I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. I don't think anyone
> could make a case that a regular user is claiming any business relationsh=
> ip
> with their ISP. If you like, part of the fee that users pay their ISPs
> is a licence to use the ISP's name in certain ways, such as in a return
> address (OK, guys, this is a stretch, don't pillory me here).
>
> As far as I can tell, the spammer in the case you attached is claiming
> no business relationship with Netcom except as a regular user. Hence
> there would be no grounds for legal action here.
>
Actually, looking at the headers on the most recent copy of this
specific spam that I received (more then a month ago), they are not a
NetCom customer -- those are bogus received lines.  So, I suspect that
NetCom has an action against Bull's Eye, should they choose to take it.

We saw a mindspring dialup customer talking to an open relay on
"hgo.net"....  Here's what the trail looked like:

  Received: from ns1.hgo.net (ns1.hgo.net [206.152.112.1])
          by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA27746
          for <[email-masked]>; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 03:56:12 -0500 (EST)
  Received: from jj3dw3.q3q3665f.com (user-36saec7.dialup.mindspring.com [205.197.57.135])
          by ns1.hgo.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id DAA15199;
          Sun, 11 Jan 1998 03:42:15 -0500 (EST)
  Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 03:42:15 -0500 (EST)
  From: zz444q <[email-masked]>
  To: <[email-masked]>
  Received: from SMTP.XServer     (Smail4.1.19.1 #20) id m0wBzN7-009vdR; Friday, January 2nd, 1998
  Received: from mail.apache.net(really [164/187]) by relay.comanche.com Wednesday, December 31st, 1997
  Received: from 32776.21445(really [80110/80111]) by relay.denmark.nl Monday, December 29th, 1997
  Received: from local.nethost.org(really [24553/24554]) by relay.SS621.net Sunday, December 28th, 1997
  Message-Id: <[email-masked]> Saturday, January 3rd, 1998
  Reply-To: [email-masked]
  Sender: [email-masked]

  Authenticated sender is <[email-masked]>
  Subject:  Monday
  Mime-Version: 1.0
  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
  Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

  EMAIL MARKETING WORKS!!

>    WHY THIS SPAMER IS ABLLE TO CONTINUE TO SEND HIS JUNK=20
>    WHY THE BIG COMPANYS ARE TOLERATING SUCH BEHAVIOUR ??
>
> You said previously that you had received this particular spam from an
> AT&T Worldnet account, but now it is coming to you from a Netcom account.
> If AT&T Worldnet was tolerating this behaviour, why do you think the
> perpetrator of this spam moved their account? Do you not consider it
> possible that perhaps we did *not* tolerate this behaviour, possibly
> because it would be a violation of our Terms and Conditions?
>
Thank you!

The problem that we've been seeing lately, when we initiated proceedings
against a person who was dialing into our sites to spam, is that the
perpetrators are minors.  In this case, it was a 14 year old who had
"stolen" a freind's account.  The police decided that they could not
prosecute.  We were advised that we could not collect damages against
the minor, or the freind of the minor.

There is apparently a bounty being given to minors, just like drug
carriers are often minors.  Someone needs to go after the spam mail
houses on inducing a minor to a criminal act, or something of that
nature.

[email-masked]
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32