RE: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet

["Dave O'Shea" <doshea () mail wiltel net>]

The original message confused me a little. I could (mis?)interpret it to say that mail that has been given to them, by 
some outside party, to be relayed to another outside party - since spammers typically attack a mail server outside 
their (registered via credit card) home provider, who might just whack them with an arbitrary "high message traffic" 
charge.

In this case, so long as AT&T made the policy clear up front (perhaps by having sendmail reference it in it's greeting) 
I think they would be in the clear.

I've been tempted to put a "$1000 per non-local origin/destination" charge message on my sendmail banner, and then have 
my legal department whack Krazy Kevin with a seven-digit default judgement next time he tries a spam run. Let's see ya 
get a mortgage with that one on your TRW, pal.



Dave O'Shea
Manager, Network Operations                     713-307-6760
Wiltel Communications Systems                   Houston, TX


-----Original Message-----
From:   Scott Bradner [SMTP:sob () newdev harvard edu]
Sent:   Saturday, March 29, 1997 3:32 PM
To:     jhc () lynxhub att com; lon () moonstar com
Cc:     Brian_Murrell () bctel net; kevin () ascend com; nanog () merit edu; spam-list () psc edu; spam () zorch sf-bay 
org
Subject:        Re: Anti-SPAM announcement from AT&T Worldnet

--
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that the
Electronic Communications Act of 1986 (?) makes it quite illegal to screw
around with mail that you have accepted for delivery.
--

spammers bill of rights?  kinda don't think that would have been the 
aim.

Scott

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -