🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6infv8$qgf$1@samba.rahul.net>,  <kenton@nojunk.rahul.net> wrote:
>In article <6inde4$pvs$1@samba.rahul.net>,  <dold@network.rahul.net> wrote:
>>Forwarding to postmaster either inundates an innocent victim of forgery, or
>>validates your address.
>
>I disagree.  If an ISP encourages spam, they won't change unless they get
>complaints.  If they were indeed innocent (i.e., a rogue user), they
>want to hear about it so they can correct the problem and save their
>reputation.

There are dedicated spam houses whose "customers" are simply aliases
created to fool the upstream.  These people simply create a new alias,
and tell you (and the upstream when it suits them) that they have killed
a spammer account and thanks for reporting it.  Connectup fooled ACSI
for months this way.  I suspect most of Sanford Wallace's "customers"
were aliases.

Then there are clueless newbie ISPs who had no idea there was a problem and
are still forming a spam policy.

Strategies for reporting depend on which you think you've got.
Check the suspect ISP's Web site.

If it's cluttered with Bizness Oppertoonities [tm] and Spammer Ideology,
or empty, there is no point in validating your address to them.
What a bunch of "loosers."   Complain to their upstream only.

If it's an inexperienced local ISP, that'll show.  Now that you're there,
search their page for complaint addresses.  Alert the CEO and head bottle
washer, but be gentle about it.  Remember, you want them to trust you
more than they trust their spamming customer.  Make them *grateful* that
you pointed out http://maps.vix.com/rbl/candidacy.html to them.

(Dedicated spam houses sometimes masquerade as clueless newbies.
My complaint letter begins "Junk email is theft and trespass."
This seems to provoke dedicated spammers into hilarious
political diatribe, which ends the masquerade.  Witless clods they are.
So I don't mind guessing wrong now and then.)



Cameron