Re: Despamming wholesale dialup

[Dean Anderson <dean () av8 com>]

Most of the wholesalers I know of lead one to believe they are getting a
private packet service. "just like having your own modems" But I agree with
you that if one's service definition says "no port 25", than they are
probably ok.  But many don't do that, so they may not have the permission
they need.

                --Dean

At 03:45 PM 10/30/98 -0500, Ray Everett-Church wrote:
> At 01:52 PM 10/30/98 , you wrote:
> > At 05:33 PM 10/29/98 -0500, Scott Gifford wrote:
> > >  An interesting answer to the problem you discussed above was suggested by
> > > somebody from the EFF at a spam BOF at USENIX this summer.  He suggested
> > > that by default, you filter on port 25.  But if somebody needs access for
> > > legitimate reasons, or even if they don't, have a letter they can fill out,
> > > sign, and send in which states that they will not send spam, subject to a
> > > $500/message penalty.  Then if they do, just bill them.
> >
> > One problem is that the wholesale provider may not have permission to do
> > this. You must obtain permission from a party to the communication prior to
> > interfering with it, unless it qualifies as an abuse.  
>
> Only if you have a really narrowly and poorly worded AUP/TOS contract. The
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act forbids looking at the contents
> without authorization, but carriers are protected in certain circumstances
> some cases and moreover most carriers have provisions in their contracts
> that fill in the gaps. I would be very surprised if blocking port 25 would
> be covered by ECPA... filtering it for content without authorization is a
> different matter.
>
> > You should be aware that the pro-spammers have a bill in Congress to
> > explicitly define spam as a legitimate activity, ie not an abuse.  It will
> > likely be passed in this session. I tried to tell people a year and a half
> > ago that spammers were closely associated with an advertising lobby that
> > would be effective on this is issue, and that they needed to try a more
> > reasonable approach. But they insisted "I was wrong". 
> >
> > So "Spam fighting" is now a lost cause, which should not be discussed on
> > Nanog anyway.  
> >
> >              --Dean
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >           Plain Aviation, Inc                  dean () av8 com
> >           LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP          http://www.av8.com
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Um... well you're wrong, at least on the subject of the pending
> legislation. The anti-spam lobby was successful in getting it stripped from
> the legislation which passed the House, and although Sen. Murkowski was
> interested in putting it back during the conference committee process, it
> languished there and wasn't finished before Congress adjourned. So all the
> pending spam legislation - both anti and pro - is dead for now. And yes, it
> is off topic for Nanog.  :)
>
> -Ray
>
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ray Everett-Church (RE279)    *  More info: <http://www.everett.org>
> Attorney/Internet Consultant  *  Opinion(REC) != Opinion(client(REC))
> This mail isn't legal advice. *  Outlaw Spam = <http://www.cauce.org>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> My Spam total for 1997: 6,037 pieces at 41.6 Mb. What Spam problem?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
           Plain Aviation, Inc                  dean () av8 com
           LAN/WAN/UNIX/NT/TCPIP          http://www.av8.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++