And what are we to do about it?
We shut off spammers who get three complaints automatically just to keep Sprint & UUNet off of our butt. THEY are the law now - doesn't matter how much a piece of spam can be charged for in your state or province or whether it is legal or not; it is Sprint & UUNet whom makes the spam laws and everyone better follow their rules or else. We host several hundred e-mail servers and filter them so no one can send out a bunch at once. We've never had a complaint yet about sending a spam from our e-mail servers. BUT, consumers under our customers will use that as a reply address and smart guys (like us) track down each piece of info you can and send it all to everyone, then we get e-mails from Sprint, and even a buddy we use to host the dns gets letters from Sprint warning they are going to shut us off...and all he is doing is hosting dns for the mailserver that wasn't even used! We had one guy we shut off that was collecting info for Best Buy but the return address was one of ours. Boy was he hot when he found out he had been shut off!!! It isn't like we called him first or anything so awhile had passed...and he faxed us his contract with Best Buy which we were then responsible for faxing to Sprint. Spam - annoying on BOTH sides of my e-mail server :-) John T. Jarrett Web Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] LogonISP -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Nick Svab Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 8:08 AM To: Swerve Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re[2]: Spamming Here's what I've done about the fax spamming (I've received 3 in the last 15 minutes to start the day)...I purchased a fax program, Symantec Winfax (but any will do) & set it to receive faxes after 1 ring & my fax machine is set to receive after 3 rings. As long as the computer is on, the fax program receives all faxes & I can view them before printing. This way I end up deleting all the junk faxes without printing. Here's what a client did to a spam faxer who took the same attitude with him as he did with you, Swerve. He took a few pieces of paper & wrote some obscenities on the them with a dark thick marker, taped them together & faxed them to the offender, but while doing so, taped the front end to the back end, creating a "loop", so that it faxed continuosly to the offender. After about an hour or so, the offender called him & asked him to stop (ironic, eh). Needless to say, he never received another fax from that company. Nick M. Svab DANIMA Technologies Inc. www.danima.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Swerve To: Chris Sweeney Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:44 AM Subject: Re: Re[2]: Spamming Thanks. U folks are lucky. In Canada, no such lack. SPAM faxing is legal. It's especially fun if you have an inexpensive fax machine with expensive ribbons. Costs me like 35 cents everytime i get a fax SPAM. > From: "Chris Sweeney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:15:51 -0500 > To: "William X Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Swerve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: Spamming > > You know in the US unsolicited faxing is illegal. It falls under the TCPA > and you the consumer can enforce it or on enough complaints the FCC will. > Check out this address http://www.fcc.gov/eb/tcd/ufax.html for updated info > on FCC fillings. > > Chris > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William X Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Swerve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 4:45 AM > Subject: Re[2]: Spamming > > >> Tuesday, Tuesday, January 29, 2002, 7:42:25 PM, Swerve wrote: >> >>> SPAM should be illegal. >>> FAX SPAM should be illegal. >> >>> Opt-in emailing with activation that requires email confirmation from > the >>> person signing up should be required for all companies and people > creating >>> and using mailing lists. >> >> No thanks, I don't want the government, any government, dictating how >> email should be used. As much as I agree with your statement that >> companies should use activation required subscription mechanisms, I >> would oppose any legislation that tries to legislate the issue of >> email like that. >> >> What I do support is adding some postal mail like restrictions on >> email, and I would support laws to accomplish this: >> >> 1) That "adult/pornographic" emails/ads are NEVER to be sent >> unsolicited, and that a set of tags be developed that they must use to >> identify the email, so that filtering can be done by families with >> children, etc. Establish strict consequences for violations, just >> like in the postal world (in the postal world, you can never send a >> sexually explicit advertisement unsolicited, and all such mailings >> must be identified as such before the recipient is exposed to the >> material, either on the outer envelope or on an inside envelope to >> protect their privacy). >> >> 2) Mandatory list removal, same as in the real world for mailing >> lists, and telemarketing call lists. >> >> 3) All advertisements must contain correct headers and correct contact >> information and removal instructions. >> >> But for any of this to work, the vigilantes must stop their crusades. >> >> But like with any extremists, there is no negotiating with them, they >> don't recognize that they can accomplish a lot more through >> compromise, then by their all or nothing approach. It's too bad too, >> since it would stand in the way of any real reform of the issue. >> >> But, as Chuck will probably come along now and say, I guess none of >> this is ontopic. Oh well :) >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> -- >> >> "There is no better way to exercise the imagination than the study of >> the law. No artist ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer >> interprets the truth." >> -- Jean Giradoux >> > >
