TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam

Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam

Scott Dorsey (
17 Apr 2005 14:18:25 -0400

Danny Burstein <> wrote:

> In <> Lisa Minter <> writes:

>> From here, Jeremy Jaynes, a Raleigh businessman who rose to No. 8 on
>> a list of "spam kingpins," broke the nation's toughest spam law by
>> churning out more than 100,000 unsolicited e-mails a month. In fact,
>> he was moving closer to 10 million a day.

> Ok, this guy contracted for high speed internet connectivity from someone
> or another.

I believe it was uunet.

> Why did anyone else accept any packets from this organization?

Because uunet is very large. They provide service to a lot of
spammers. They do not disconnect spammers. But they are large enough
that we cannot just refuse all service from them.

Note that Jaynes also used a lot of offshore servers in China and Korea
as well.

> Let the spammer continue to pay the local company. And let the two of
> them send all the garbage they want to each other. There's no
> requirement (barring a few unique circumstances) for anyone else to
> answer the doorbell when they ring.

The problem is that very large backbone sites are providing service to
spammers, or peering with other large backbone providers who do. When
uunet and sprintlink take spam problems seriously, spam will be
reduced dramatically. As long as uunet and sprintlink ignore
complaints about their spamming users, as long as they continue to
peer with Kornet and Hananet spam factories, then we will have spam.
As long as verio and hang up on people asking for the abuse
desk on the phone, we will have spam.


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

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Sure you can cut off UUNET the same way
you can cut of MCI. Just do it ... call their bluff ... let _them_
deal with their legitimate customers who are no longer able to get
through. Yes, they both have lots of legitimate customers, but in any
kind of serious medical procedure, for example, we don't think about
how long the patient will be in the operating room or how long they
will be in intensive care recovering. We concern ourselves with what
their life will be like when they are fully recovered and back to
normal. And our net has some very serious, I suspect deadly cancerous
growths that have been going of for years. So what if cutting off
UUNET and MCI leaves a shambles of email and the net _for a few days_.
Things are pretty much a shambles now anyway, aren't they? Oh, I know
that MCI (and probably Vint Cerf) will scream and carry on about it,
as will UUNET and others similarly situated. But it is time _we_ took
the net back over, and my belief is it would not take too many days
of simply refusing to handle _any_ of their traffic until things began
to change for the better. Just cut them, and be done with it, and hope
they are back with us sometime soon under more reasonable terms. PAT]

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Barry Margolin: "Re: Last Laugh! Honesty on the Internet"
Go to Previous message: Tony P.: "Re: Spam Hits Us Hard Today - Message Losses"
May be in reply to: Lisa Minter: "Getting Serious About the War on Spam"
Next in thread: Robert Bonomi: "Re: Getting Serious About the War on Spam"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page