Re: Opt-out ? we do know the "bounce" command...

[Gunnar Lindberg <]

Please, "age++", NOT "age--"... :-).

Although you are "speaking for just myself", that kind of reaction
falls back on everybody. It's understandable and more to it, but
nevertheless it only helps the Bad Guys - those with nice behavior
and in tie and suit that know how to do lobbying.

Why not find something common to most spam that can be made illegal.
My 0.01 ECU would be "fraud From", i.e. when a spammer sends out mail

    From xyz@localhost

which puts blame on bit.nl as well as creates a technical burden (we
have had exactly that problem for quite some time - adm.chalmers.se
is brought down at times by a large number of error bounces). It's
very common in spam and it's beyond my understanding why such behavior
should/could not be made illegal.

	Gunnar

>From owner-anti-spam-wg@localhost  Wed Jul 18 14:10:06 2001
>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 14:10:25 +0200 (CEST)
>From: Sabri Berisha sabri@localhost
>To: Gunnar Lindberg lindberg@localhost
>
>Subject: Re: Opt-out ? we do know the "bounce" command...
>In-Reply-To: <200107181200.OAA07960@localhost>
>Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107181402570.13573-100000@localhost>

>On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Gunnar Lindberg wrote:

>> My point is that Governments may not listen to us anyway, but if
>> we behave like 5 year old kids there is 100% gaurantee they won't.

>We are the techies; we are in charge. If some arrogant parliament thinks
>they can legalize theft of service they will get to see what that theft of
>service means.

>-- 
>/* Sabri Berisha CCNA,BOFH,+iO        O.O        speaking for just myself
> * Join HAL!!: www.HAL2001.org ____oOo_U_oOo____ http://www.bit.nl/~sabri
> *  "We deliver quality services, we just can't get it on the internet"
> *   Anonymous sysadmin - on IRC                                       */