nanog mailing list archives
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
From: "Gary E. Miller" <gem () rellim com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:29:52 -0800 (PST)
Yo Paul! On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
However, they scanned every address in every netblock I own, looking for SMTP servers. That was abuse, that was illegal in California,
Could you please provide a citation from the CA law for this? Better yet, do you have any case law? RGDS GARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701 gem () rellim com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
Current thread:
- Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ?, (continued)
- Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? Dave Israel (Feb 27)
- Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? Kai Schlichting (Feb 27)
- Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? jlewis (Feb 27)
- Re: RIPE Down or DOSed ? Kai Schlichting (Feb 28)
- anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Feb 27)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Jack Bates (Feb 27)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse David Schwartz (Feb 27)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Roy (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Paul Vixie (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Daniel Senie (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Gary E. Miller (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Dan Hollis (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Jack Bates (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse David G. Andersen (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Richard Irving (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Len Rose (Feb 28)