nanog mailing list archives
Re: identity theft != spam
From: John Payne <john () sackheads org>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:35:13 -0400
--On Thursday, May 15, 2003 19:14 +0200 Randy Bush <randy () psg com> wrote:
what is wrong with this picture?
apart from the fact you've confused nanog with spam-l?
this exemplifies the corporate and legislative attempt to confuse spam == uce with forgery. if they can make the latter the issue, this leaves the way completely clear for unsolicited commercial email from the corporate sector which now fills our post boxes with ground trees.
Carmack stole identities to sign up for Earthlink accounts. Don't confuse this with putting someone else's email address in his ratware.
And the thing that protects us against unsolicited commercial email from the corporate sector is ISPs enforcing their AUPs. Spammers forge, steal, hijack to avoid AUP enforcement.
Current thread:
- identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Richard Welty (May 15)
- Re[2]: identity theft != spam Richard Welty (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam John Payne (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Daniel Golding (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Chris Horry (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Randy Bush (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Chris Woodfield (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Charles Sprickman (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Vadim Antonov (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Peter Galbavy (May 16)
- Re: identity theft != spam steve uurtamo (May 16)
- Re: identity theft != spam Charles Sprickman (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Richard Welty (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Bill Woodcock (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Bill Woodcock (May 15)