nanog mailing list archives
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
From: jlewis () lewis org
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 00:15:52 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Roy wrote:
I haven not checked NJABL but some of the other other open relay testers use scenarios that are illegal (actually criminal) in California.
If you mean the use of "incorrect" from addresses, I believe that law only applies if the message(s) sent with someone else's address results in damage. I'm not here to debate the issue, and I certainly didn't mean to start such a long thread here (the same post went to spam-l, where it was nearly ignored), but I don't think 1 test message sent every 4 weeks (or less frequently) will cause damage[1]. [1] yes...I am aware of one case where were ORBZ got in some hot water over an SMTP envelope that effectively broke an outdated version of Lotus Domino. NJABL takes precautions to not repeat that mishap. Just to be safe, mayby I'll avoid visiting the People's Republic of Kalifornia. That shouldn't be so hard. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis () lewis org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
Current thread:
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Feb 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Feb 28)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse up (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Paul Vixie (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Hank Nussbacher (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Michael Lamoureux (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse jlewis (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Mar 01)
- Message not available
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Charlie Clemmer (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Andy Dills (Mar 01)
- Re: anti-spam vs network abuse Michael Lamoureux (Mar 01)