If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- German Court Orders Encrypted Email Service Tutanota To Backdoor One Account
- Suspected DNC & German Parliament Hacker Used His Name As His Email Password
- Jared Kushner's Coronavirus Task Force Is Using Private Email Accounts To Conduct Official Business
- No, Google Isn't Hiding Elizabeth Warren's Emails To Promote Mayor Pete
- Caifornia Governor Vetoes Law That Would Have Mandated Retention Of State Government Emails
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
"[A] distinct problem is that some other user on a neighboring address to me really is a habitual spammer," wrote a friend. "And some Internet Service Providers will block the whole cluster of addresses, including me. When I object, [they] tell me to go back to my own provider and get rid of the spammer, and let them know when I have done so. I have done this a couple of times, but have tired of this, too."
In other words, bullying the blameless will do when the true objects of blame are next door but intractable.
While odious, cyber-geopolitically this approach -- perhaps, accidentally -- matches meatspace national policy in which the neighbors of terrorists or rogue nations are made legitimate targets if they do not immediately salute and remove the adjacent evil-doers.
While topical and incendiary, this totally misses the point. When spam is sent from an ISP, the ISP is notified that this is happening. There is no ambiguity here, it is clear that ISP X is harboring a spammer. When repeated spamming occurs and repeated notifications are ignored, other ISPs start refusing email from ISP X. This affects the customers of ISP X, who now find that they have purchased damaged goods, for all intents and purposes. But it's the behavior of their own ISP that has caused this. The policy of ISP X in harboring spammers and not booting them affects the customers of ISP X, as it should be.
This is not odious at all.
Reference: www.spews.org
[ link to this | view in thread ]