From: jonathon <grafolog@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:46:47 +0800
To: Vin McLellan <vin@shore.net>
Subject: Re: "Mail Exploders"
In-Reply-To: <v02140b03adec9a570eca@[206.243.160.205]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960619152722.9011B-100000@netcom2>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	Vin:

On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Vin McLellan wrote:

> semi-moderated newsgroup) could be slapped for just bouncing the SPAM back
> at the sender.

	Cyberpromotions VS AOL is about AOL returning to CyberPromotions
	E-Mail for whom there was no user on AOL.
	
	CyberPromotions had a number of "User Unknown" addresses in
	its list, as as a consequence, they bounced back to the 
	sender.    And like most bounce messages, the majority of them
	wre for individual address.

	<< In effect, CyberPromotions mailbombed itself, by having
	so many invalid addresses, that their system was swamped, 
	when those messages came back.  << I suspect that people
 	that didn't like the e-mail also contributed to that. >> >>

	This was all discussed on Listmanager several months ago. 

> that the subscribers of AOL (or other online community) agreed -- in their
> intial subscriber contracts -- to have AOL refuse for them.

           I misplaced a procmail recipe that automatically
	   returns to sender any mail that the recipient is BCC'd.
	   Very usfull for those with shell accounts.  

> a chain of contracts that forbid it (without reference to content) from the
> backbone back through the IAPs to the users.  (I think Long-Morrow at Yale

	MCI has announced that any domain that originates spam
	that travels through their system is subject to being
	cut off of their system.   They appear to be following
	through with that policy.  

	Sprint doesn't care what travels through their system.  

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com



	NETCOM --- when only the worst in internet service will suffice.