Subject: RE: [Asrg] define spam

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 20:12:56 -0800

> My claim could easily be disproved.  

Nobody else who has looked at the data seems to agree with you
and our data from honeypots is that you are wrong. But this
is the first time you have not come out and accused me of being
an outright liar for saying that 1) there is a lot of forgery
taking place and 2) a lot more forgery would take place if
people whitelisted companies like hotmail etc. who rate limit.

> The disagreement concerns the existence of bazillions of people whose
> free provider addresses are being forged into most spam every day.
> I claim most of those people do not exist, unless you think using your
> own address in spam is forgery.

I am beginning to suspect that your real issue here is hatred
of all those unworthy Internet users from those free accounts.

The listing of freeserve and the other UK ISPs pretty much 
suggests that is the case. These are not ISPs like bluelight 
that are advert supported, they are actually supported through
a chargeback from the local calling charge rate. So freeserve
users actually pay for their connection but it is bundled in the
local call charge they have to pay anyway.

But hey, better list them, just in case someone gets onto 
that free dialup account and starts spamming the net at 56Kbs..

		Phill

PS: Isn't is a bit childish to blacklist everyone in the 
group who disagrees with you?
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg