>If it's possible to identify the particular user accounts that are, or can
>be used, to send junk mail, then by all means filter just those.
 
Exactly!  You'll notice that I posted a list of known addresses used by
Carter & Siegel, so that listowners could filter *just those accounts*.
 
>Indirect.com isn't the only commercial service their customers can use.  If
>Indirect.com (itself) can't address the problem of rogue users (after a
>fair opportunity to do so), then I don't see why we shouldn't encourage
>their customers to switch to an alternative.
 
As far as I can see (or have been told), this is the first such 'rogue
user' from indirect.com.  They took care of the matter in as timely a
fashion as possible.  The posting accounts have been disabled.  I don't
think any of us want to see prior restraint exercised on Usenet/email
messages; what more, then, should we expect indirect.com to do?
 
In general, I fully agree with your approach; given a *consistent pattern*
of disregard from site administration, I would see no problem in blocking
entire sites from our lists.  However, I don't see such a pattern of dis-
regard from indirect.com; I believe that you're jumping the gun in this
particular case.
 
--Wes
 
ps> As an aside, please refrain from sending any further complaints to
    indirect.com.  It has been reported that their system has crashed
    (several times!) under the sheer bulk of electronic complaints, and
    other customers are being severely inconvenienced.  They've put a
    stop to it - for the moment, at least - and we should give them a
    chance to get back to normal.