On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Jeff Kell wrote: > > Basically, RoadRunner tried to spam themselves using my server. I mailed > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] about this, and received a canned response, enclosed. > > > > Under their logic, I feel entitled to poke and prod their customers, just > > to make sure they don't spam me. Is that fair? I promise to provide an > > opt-out if anyone complains. > > Oh no, they'll bitch, at great length. This was recently discussed on > SPAM-L ( http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=SPAM-L ).
Actually, if you go a few rounds with Mr. Herrick of rr.com, and explain that you want to do the same sort of testing under the same ground rules as security.rr.com, I think you'll find that he will not object. It is quite ironic (perhaps a sign of how bad the problem of spam on the internet has gotten) that rr.com has decided to emulate those that they have attacked in the past. I suspect we've gotten to the point now that there are more open proxies than open relays on the net, and it seems the proxies are more heavily abused. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
