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.