OT: Email BOMB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr. Jeffrey Race]

On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 18:28:52 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> My business suffers constantly from spam emitted by UU.NET and its 
customers.>    You're missing my point.  A lot of people, and 
software, will track>spammers back to uu.net when it is not a uu.net 
customer doing the spamming.>You must understand that uu.net resells 
POP (Point of Presence) space to other[SNIP]>is right out.  They 
instead strike a contract with uu.net for uu.net to>provide the tone 
and the basic connection equipment.  They set up their radius>server, 
take a call, and sign up a spammer.>    The contract is between the 
spammer and FooNet.>    The spammer authenticates with FooNet's 
radius server.>    The spammer pays FooNet for the services he 
obtains.
>    In no way is that uu.net's problem.

Steve, I have been through this many times with UU.NET.  You 
misunderstand some basic points.

1-The contracts with the ISPs all forbid use of the facilities
  for spamming and require the ISPs to prevent it.   But UU.NET 
  does not use measures to enforce this.  There are measures to
  do this, it was all gone through in the cellular industry to
  stop fraud.  The measures are known; they are just not
  adopted.  So the contractual obligations are a dead letter.
  The reason they are a dead letter because all the costs fall
  on the victims like me and all the profits unure to UU.NET.

2-Legally it is UU.NET's  ____RESPONSIBILITY___ even if it is
  not their problem.  (It is my problem!)  If their property is
  used to injure others, and they know it and can prevent it,
  then they are legally responsible.  If you leave the key
  in your car and someone takes it for a joy ride and kills
  someone, you are legally responsible for that death because
  it is your property and you were negligent in its care.

That is exactly the situation with UU.NET's hardware.

Jeffrey Race