TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses

Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses

Scott Dorsey (kludge@panix.com)
17 Apr 2005 14:12:39 -0400

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Do the 'spam interest groups' have that powerful of a lobby to keep
> such bills from passing? Or are there other Internet activists who,
> for their own reasons, are opposed to such laws and regulation?

For the most part, if backbone sites had taken spam seriously a decade
ago, it would never have become a problem. The reason we have spam
today is mostly because major backbone sites are not willing to
disconnect customers who provide service to spammers.

Just refusing service from the two largest Korean ISPs would probably
cut down spam by half. But there are plenty of backbone sites peering
with them.

The vast majority of spam comes from a fairly small number of people.
If everyone here went out and shot someone on the ROKSO list, there
would be no spam problem at all.

--scott

"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Tony P.: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
Go to Previous message: Charles.B.Wilber@Dartmouth.EDU: "Re: New Technology Poses 911 Peril VOIP Not Part of Emergency"
May be in reply to: TELECOM Digest Editor: "Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
Next in thread: Tony P.: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page