Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG as a source of spam?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 14:00:48 -0700

> It is regrettable that the writer and apparently most of the 
> ASRG think
> that the only two available options are technical and legislative. A
> third, better option exists - industry self-regulation. 

These people are in general outright criminals peddling schemes
that are outright criminal. This is not an 'industry'.

You do not rely on people with criminal convictions for Cocaine
trafficing and money laundering abiding by self-regulation.

The guys sending penis creams, porno adverts, money making schemes,
offers to sell hijacked software, identity theft scams etc. have
this type of connection.

The quantities of 'spam' from remotely legitimate businesses is
such a small proportion of the total that we can worry about that
after the criminal spam senders are locked up.

		Phill

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Daniel Feenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 17:54:00 -0400 (EDT)

> that are outright criminal. This is not an 'industry'.

I think the original poster meant that the ISP industry would
self-regulate to prohibit opening accounts without valid credit card or
other identifying data, agree among themselves on AUP, etc. Obviously it
doesn't make sense to ask the spammers to self-regulate, but it is a real
question why the ISPs (which have many clauses in their peering
agreements) don't do anything in that direction. But they seem to have
made their decision, and it probably doesn't make sense for outsiders to
wait for them to change their collective minds.

---

From: Larry Marks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:07:58 -0700

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

>> ASRG think that the only two available options are technical and
>> legislative. A third, better option exists - industry self-regulation.
>
>
> These people are in general outright criminals peddling schemes that
> are outright criminal. This is not an 'industry'.
>
> offers to sell hijacked software, identity theft scams etc. have this
> type of connection.
>
> The quantities of 'spam' from remotely legitimate businesses is such a
> small proportion of the total that we can worry about that after the
> criminal spam senders are locked up.
>
>
> Phill

Alright. Good point. I was not sufficiently specific. The "industry
group" to which I was referring transports and delivers e-mail -
companies like AOL, MSN and the local ISP, I didn't intend to include
marketing companies, spammers, or other criminals. And I wouldn't trust
the penis people farther than I can piss ;-)

-LM

---

From: [email-masked] (Justin Mason)
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 15:13:09 -0700

> after the criminal spam senders are locked up.

I see your point, but given the prevalence of "e-pending" and
similar techniques -- where legit companies buy and trade email
addresses, often sending to scraped addrs with no opt-in --
spam from legit companies will still be a big issue, and will
remain a favoured "escape route" for the less legit spammers.
*That* is the problem with defining spam as "what big companies
don't do".  cf. Nadine.

--j.

---

From: "Eric Dean" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 19:56:43 -0400

For this reason, we are selling our product while retaining the rights to
pursue spammers.  Considering that we are based in VA, we have very tough
anti-spam laws..thanks to AOL...guess what other state is equally
tough...Washington.

I have spent a considerable amount of time educating our attorney partners.
Simple point, you spam my systems...I have a team of lawyers seeking serious
damages.

Anyone wanna do a cost break down on the bandwidth, system, storage,
administrative, attrition costs of spam?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf
> Of Hallam-Baker, Phillip
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 5:01 PM
> To: 'Larry Marks'; Shannon Jacobs; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Asrg] ASRG as a source of spam?
>
>
>