On 2/26/00 10:16 PM, Michael Holloway <[log in to unmask]> wrote...

> Hi Mike, I appreciate your CCing me on this. Switching ISPs would
> be a short-term solution to the problem, as there are few remaining
> ISPs who tolerate the SPAM-bait Null-senders is turning out to be.
> I've checked with several local ISPs, and most have either stopped
> accepting Null-sender already, or will be doing so in the very near
> future. The ivory-tower crowd still waives the anachronistic RFC
> around, but those of us whose livelyhoods depend on fighting the
> good fight against SPAM don't have that luxury. I think fixing
> LISTSERV would be a better solution all-around.

Good riddence. Anyone who thinks null senders have anything to do with
UBE and are condusive therein, or who arbitrarily decides that one of the
most basic RFCs is anachonistic is a flaming moron and has no place being
a system administrator. With the continued explosive growth of the
Internet, a lot of people are ending up in charge of systems without the
necessary skills or understanding. If they are a commercial ISP, they can
lose affected subscribers because of it, and rightfully so.

I think when I start running an ISP, I'll stop accepting any mail for my
subscribers with the word "the" in the body. After all, a far greater
percentage of UBE that I receive contains that word than uses a null
envelope sender. I'll have a significantly higher rate of positives.

> I could subscribe you, but you'd be unable to alter your subscription, or
> sign off.  I can't guarantee to be available whenever you need something
> done to your subscription.

Suggest they use your LISTSERV's web interface, if you have one. Problem
solved, other than the fact that they're paying money to a horde of
clueless idiots.


--
Adam Bailey    | Chicago, Illinois
[log in to unmask] | Finger/Web for PGP
[log in to unmask] | http://www.lull.org/adam/