[plug] OT: Australian Spam and the 'proper way of dealing with it'?

[Ben Jensz]

Try submitting some of the spam to SpamCop <www.spamcop.net> (you can 
sign up for a free reporting only account).

This will parse the headers and determine whether any of the information 
is probably being faked or not and will report the abuse to the netblock 
owner.  They also have an experimental blacklist.  I purely use it for 
reporting myself, I use ordb and osirusoft for dns rbls on my work's 
mail server, the latter being the better of the two.

I personally can't see how T3Direct could possibly win anyway.  The 
internet is made up of a multitude of interconnected privately owned and 
run networks.  Unless you've got a service contract with a company to 
access or send data to their network (in this case email), you've got no 
right to be able to send email or any other data traffic to said 
networks.  If you own the network, you can block access to whoever you 
like for whatever reason you like.

Thats my interpretation anyway, I'd be interested to hear what others' 
thoughts are?


/ Ben


Daniel wrote:

>Hi,
>am I on the right track here?
>when I get unsolicited e-mails apparently from a local Australian source
>I have been waiting until I get more than one
>Checking out the source headers
>Going to Melbourne It '.au Whois' and searching for contact details for
>source isp. and e-mailing them a 'please get your customer to stop it'.
>I expect to find 'abuse at blah.net.au' and if they don't have an abuse
>e-mail I am immediately suspicious they don't want to facilitate that
>contact (domains at globalsoft.com.au)(too hard on them?)
>
>Q.  Is  this the right approach?
>
>Q.  Are there rules for isps with users hosting mailing lists that get
>them to have 'confirm subscription' e-mails before placing someone on
>the mailing list?  (Perth Glory)[Or is it just ok for them to do it as
>long as they stop when they are asked nicely?]
>
>Q.  What is the next step if an isp doesn't respond?
>(MelbourneIt search gives no results on 'spam' so I guess not spamming
>is not a condition)
>
>Despite the 'win' of the anti-spam campaign against 'Wa-ne Mans_-_-_' I
>can't help remembering he said he would appeal and yet the whole thing
>never should have got to court in the first place.
>
>The Spammer sueing the spam complainer seems like the Devil sueing God
>for making people good .... I wonder if those guys have to spend a lot
>of time sorting through spam and answering telemarketing phone calls
>during dinner. I wish them 100 religious zelots at their front door with
>each one converting them in turn.
>
>Cheers,
>Daniel.
>
>
>
>  
>