nanog mailing list archives
Re: identity theft != spam
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 13:27:15 -0400
In message <E19GMJA-0001Em-90 () roam psg com>, Randy Bush writes:
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. randy
This is actually a follow-on to an article in the 7 May Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105225593382372600-search,00.html?collection=wsjie%2F30day&vql_string=Carmack%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29 if you subscribe). A brief summary is that Earthlink was going crazy trying to stop his spam because of his other activities. Other mechanisms, like yanking his account for violating the AUP, were ineffective because of the identity thefts. Of course, I'm sure that no one on this list is surprised to hear that spammers break the law.... --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
Current thread:
- Re: identity theft != spam, (continued)
- 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 Bill Woodcock (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Bill Woodcock (May 15)
- Re: identity theft != spam Steven M. Bellovin (May 15)