E. Seth Miller wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> 
> > Personally, whenever I receive UCE, I take a moment to look at the headers
> > and write to the appropriate postmasters. I almost always get a reply back
> > that says that the systems in question don't tolerate spam and have already
> > expunged the account in question.
> 
> I agree that this is a good method, but the most recent left no such
> option.  I don't know if anybody else noticed this, but (and this is what
> REALLY offended me) the "from:" address was port-mac68k@netbsd.ORG, as was
> the "to:" address.  Kinda rude, if you ask me.  Moreover, I think that
> constitutes fraud, and I have to wonder if we want to do anything about
> it.  (Or, for that matter, if we CAN do anything about it.  I'm not sure
> of the subtleties involved, or how we might track down the twits in
> question...)
> 
> > Closing the list is escalation, and implied acceptance of the existence of
> > UCE. Cutting off spam at the source is resolution.
> 
> I agree, but it's rather difficult when we don't know what the source
> is...

Ok, I hate to contribute to this muck, but you _can_ tell exactly where
this mail was coming from (to some degree of precision) if you look at the
full headers of the message.  Just looking at the From: field is pretty
useless.  If you follow all of the SMTP stuff, though, this particular
message appeared to come from a machine on a dialup line run by
SouthWestern Bell (at least that's where a preliminary glance at it seemed
to indicate).  I'm sure that a message sent to postmaster@swbell.net
complaining about them letting this kind of SPAM pass through their
network will be met with a reasonable response.

Later.

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - MD6                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.