Re: regarding spam...

["R. DuFresne" <dufresne () sysinfo com>]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Thorkild Stray wrote:

> Another regarded problem with this is of course the anti-spammers. They
> complain about the spam. That's fine, but since they're either using
> stupid scripts or can't read headers they end up complaining to a _long_
> list of people who really are not to blame. I've seen abuse-mails with
> 50-70 entries CC'ed. None of them were to blame, and the offending relay
> wasn't notified. When you get 50-70 of them a day, it gets higly annoying
> to read your postmaster/hostmaster mail accounts. These people often dig
> up the most remarkable addresses to mail. 


Which of course speaks to the lack of standards and enforcement of any
standards on how ISP's and companies should be dealing with
abuse/security/spam related issues.  Some have an abuse@ address others
use a security@ address, some think all these reports should go to root@
or admin@ and some sites just plain have bogus whois info so you can't
reach anyone.  


Thanks,

Ron DuFresne
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        admin & senior security consultant:  sysinfo.com
                        http://sysinfo.com

"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation."
                -- Johnny Hart

testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () nfr com
http://list.nfr.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards