Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: discussion: November 2000:
[aclug-L] Re: Reverse the Aging Process 10-20 Years!

[aclug-L] Re: Reverse the Aging Process 10-20 Years!

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [aclug-L] Re: Reverse the Aging Process 10-20 Years!
From: Steven Saner <ssaner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:26:14 -0600
Reply-to: discussion@xxxxxxxxx

Well, I recommed that you be very careful about this. Most spam does
not have a valid email address on it that actually belongs to the
person that sent the spam. If you do this, you likely will be sending
your retaliation to someone that does not deserve it.

The following is for your information and for anyone else that might
be reading this. I in no way imply that you do not know these things...

I can tell you as an administrator of an ISP, the only thing worse
than spam are people complaining about spam that don't have a clue
what they are doing. My collegues and I respond to at least 50 bogus
spam complaints for every 1 that actually came from a customer of

The ONLY header on a spam that you can really trust is the "Received:"
header that your own system adds to the message. This is sufficient to
identify the system that delivered the message to you, and is where
you should focus your energy. By replying to every site that appears
in every header (as many people do), you effectively punish victim
sites who were framed to make it appear that they are harboring
spammers, or allowing spam to be relayed.

On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 10:31:45AM -0600, james l wrote:
> I am thinking about sending the following message to the next spam I get, and
> then following the policy, comments?
> James L
> I recieved spam from you. If I recieve another, I will take actions which
> will be very annoying to you, and perfectly legal. One item I am thinking of
> doing to spammers is creating a half megabyte file with the word REMOVE in
> the body. If you have a slow connection, this will lead to an excruciatingly
> long time to download (1.2 minutes at optimum 56K conditions, and given that
> most connections are much slower say 3-10K per second, it would take 6-22
> minutes), and may also cause you to lose mail if you have mail quotas. This
> is your only warning, repeated offences will lead to sending 2^(N-1) 500KB
> messages. I asume no responsibility for any disruption to your mail, and any
> trouble it causes you, as you have caused disruption of my mail, and troubled
> me. 
> Sincerly, James Lancaster 
> If you are recieving this message in error, simply make sure you don't send
> me spam (and I read the source of mails, so don't try to hide behind another
> e-mail account.)
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]