On 03/19/02, Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Accordingly, at least one of us would like to hear about how the
> obfuscation of personal recipient email address and MX details makes a
> challenge for an abuser's abuse desk. I'd really like to be cooperative
> in this matter, but my reasoning is yet unable to understand how these
> obfuscations interfere with anyone identifying the *_source_* of the
> abuse; and I do maintain that the identity of the target victim is
> irrelevant to whether or not an AUP violation has occurred.
Well, let's take an increasingly common example. An ISP gets
a complaint about one of their customers. The customer says
all of their lists are opt-in. The ISP asks for proof. The
customer says "sure, we keep everything in this database,
what's the address?"
If the complaint is munged, there's no way to tell...and
unless there're a large number of complaints or other real
evidence, most providers will give their paying customers
the benefit of the doubt.
This is even more true when those paying customers are (or
pretend to be) big companies with lots of lawyers.
I know I'm biased, 'cause I've been doing abuse work since
before most ISP's even had acceptable use policies...but it
seems to me that making things harder on ISP abuse desks is
silly, especially when the supposed positive effects of the
munging are almost entirely imaginary.
--
J.D. Falk <incekt> once I typed "sendmail -jd"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and my hair turned blue.
_______________________________________________
spamcon-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers
Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body
of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
