I protest in most strenous possible terms to this treatment. I absolutely DO NOT send unsolicited commercial email.
All of my mail headers are RFC 822 complaint. Most spammers put fake or bogus headers in their mails to try and cover their tracks. It is a trivial exercise to reject mails of this kind, and a common practice. (Check the From: and/or Sender: headers, and do an MX lookup on them.) For instance, Sendmail 8.9.3 supports this, among other features to cut down on spam, such as the RBL. I have legitimate headers, with which my mails can be easily traced to the source, and therefore complaints about my personal misconduct (or at least abuse of my account), can be easily traced. Why not work with ibm.net's Internet abuse staff, instead of putting a gag on all their customers? What ISP would you have me use? Yours? I thought this was a free market. Federal Express, for instance, does not refuse to deliver parcels to companies that have an exclusive contract with DHL or UPS. What if several large ISP's, such as ibm.net, CompuServe, or AOL were to implement the same policy with respect to Primenet? You would lose customers, as most people want to be able to mail their friends who happen to use those services. This policy is bad for business and bad for the Internet. Balkanization of the net is not a proper response to the problem of email abuse. This policy is unreasonable in the extreme. If your mail relay software is not sufficiently sophisticated to implement a sensible anti-spam policy, I suggest you change your software. There are many options out there, especially for Unix or Linux based systems. I am CC'ing my ISP to bring this policy of yours to their attention, if they were not already aware of it. Also note that this email is PGP-signed; hardly an auspicious tactic for a would-be spammer. I look forward to your response. On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 11:19:25PM -0400, Mail Delivery Subsystem wrote: > The original message was received at Fri, 9 Apr 1999 23:19:21 -0400 > from [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Transcript of session follows ----- > ... while talking to smtp.primenet.com.: > >>> RCPT To:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <<< 571 We do not accept e-mail directly from IBM's dialup ports because of > bulk e-mail. Please resend your e-mail via a valid mail exchanger. > 554 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Service unavailable > >>> RSET > <<< 421 Service not available, closing transmission channel > Reporting-MTA: dns; apocalypse.sequitur.org > Arrival-Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 23:19:21 -0400 > > Final-Recipient: RFC822; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Action: failed > Status: 5.5.0 > Remote-MTA: DNS; smtp.primenet.com > Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 571 We do not accept e-mail directly from IBM's dialup > ports because of bulk e-mail. Please resend your e-mail via a valid mail > exchanger. > Last-Attempt-Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 23:19:25 -0400 > Return-Path: <branden> > Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > by apocalypse.sequitur.org (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id XAA19821 > for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 9 Apr 1999 23:19:21 -0400 > From: Branden Robinson <branden> > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 23:19:15 -0400 > To: "BURReyeAN (with an I)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: right on! > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=9jxsPFA5p3P2qPhR; micalg=pgp-md5; > protocol="application/pgp-signature" > X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from BURReyeAN (with an I) on Fri, Apr 09, > 1999 at 12:53:08PM -0700 -- G. Branden Robinson | You should try building some of the Debian GNU/Linux | stuff in main that is modern...turning [EMAIL PROTECTED] | on -Wall is like turning on the pain. cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | -- James Troup
pgpow9Ek7hCA1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
