From owner-freebsd-chat Fri May 23 20:17:10 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id UAA02856 for chat-outgoing; Fri, 23 May 1997 20:17:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lightning.tbe.net (qmailr@lightning.tbe.net [208.208.122.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA02848 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 20:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 15626 invoked from network); 24 May 1997 03:13:34 -0000 Received: from port3.go-pc.com (HELO bc.bythehand.net) (206.20.105.142) by lightning.tbe.net with SMTP; 24 May 1997 03:13:34 -0000 Message-ID: <33865D9D.46C9@bythehand.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 23:16:45 -0400 From: Bernard Courtney Reply-To: bc@bythehand.com Organization: Internet Creations By The Hand X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joerg Wunsch CC: chat@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: UU.NET, SPAM, and Cyberpromotions (was Re: usregsite.com) References: <199705231636.JAA07391@phaeton.artisoft.com> <19970523141845.49335@right.PCS> <19970523224702.NL51483@uriah.heep.sax.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk J Wunsch wrote: > > (Moved to -chat) > > As Jonathan Lemon wrote: > > > > I did report it, and haven't seen anything since after the second time > > > I had to report it to them; I got their canned response, so it may be > > > that they have taken care of this one. > > > > The problem with uu.net is that they lease their dialups to various > > ISPs, but there's no way to discover this from the information that > > uu.net provides. > > > The annoyed victim complains to uu.net, ... > > Well, but uu.net is in charge for this entire domain, and as long as > they don't even install MXes for their subdomains, so you could > complain e.g. at postmaster@foo.bar.ca.uu.net, i can't feel with them. > > I've tried a few times to resolve MXes for the lower-level uu.net > subdomains, but it really looks the first level you could send mail to > again is uu.net itself. So they have to bear the complaints then. > > -- > cheers, J"org > > joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE > Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) Af far as I know UU Net is very good with taking action against customers who abuse their service, but only if they have a definative way of finding them. I would have to side against UU Net on this one because if they took a few more responciable steps toward identifing users, they would not have this problem at all with their domains. But I don't think that UU Net is deserves all of the blame, the goverment MUST implement some laws regarding the use of Internet e-mail (such as the laws regarding abuse of the telephone network) and have fines for the people and businesses that abuse this laws. I think that it is not fair for all ISP's to have to "fend for themselves" in preventing spam from over running their servers. Bernard