Re: "Mail Exploders"

Wonderful tale!  I can see that -- maybe, just maybe -- AOL or
another targeted online community (a semi-moderated mailing list or even a
semi-moderated newsgroup) could be slapped for just bouncing the SPAM back
at the sender.

        I bet they could get away with it, however, if they appended a
brief polite notice that this mailing exceeds some (anti-spam) perimeters
that the subscribers of AOL (or other online community) agreed -- in their
intial subscriber contracts -- to have AOL refuse for them.

        (Which text, of course, would add to the reply mail burden for the
Spammer's IAP.)

        The only meaningful control on SPAM I can see is to start enforcing
a chain of contracts that forbid it (without reference to content) from the
backbone back through the IAPs to the users.  (I think Long-Morrow at Yale
had a nice paper on this a couple of years back.) But this sort of
auto-return mechanism could make a dent on the super-Spanners now.

        Yea for AOL!

        Suerte,
                        _Vin

>   On Nerd AOL using explosive mail, this Cyberia-L pointer:
>
>      http://infolawalert.com/stories/061496a.html
>
>   [Excerpts]
>
>   Cyber Promotions sends a collection of short ads, written
>   as if they were newspaper classifieds, to upward of 900,000
>   recipients, 600,000 of whom are America OnLine subscribers.
>
>   America OnLine contends that its computer systems have been
>   swamped by Cyber Promotion's mass mailings, especially when
>   5,000 undeliverable messages start to pile up each day. ...
>
>   When the mailings continued, an AOL employee collected a
>   bunch of Cyber Promotions's undeliverable messages and
>   redirected them to UUNET, a large Internet service provider
>   used by Cyber Promotions.
>
>   According to Cyber Promotions' complaint, this "stunt,
>   known as an 'e-mail bomb,' was knowingly and maliciously
>   sent to UUNET by AOL in order to severely tie up and/or
>   bring down UUNET's computer system." UUNET subsequently
>   cancelled Cyber Promotion's account.
>
>   According to Cyber Promotions' complaint, AOL bombed
>   another service provider used by Cyber Promotions. ...
>
>
>
>
>
>

         Vin McLellan +The Privacy Guild+ <vin@shore.net>
      53 Nichols St., Chelsea, Ma. 02150 USA Tel: (617) 884-5548
                         <*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>

Vin:

On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Vin McLellan wrote:

> semi-moderated newsgroup) could be slapped for just bouncing the SPAM back
> at the sender.

	Cyberpromotions VS AOL is about AOL returning to CyberPromotions
	E-Mail for whom there was no user on AOL.
	
	CyberPromotions had a number of "User Unknown" addresses in
	its list, as as a consequence, they bounced back to the 
	sender.    And like most bounce messages, the majority of them
	wre for individual address.

	<< In effect, CyberPromotions mailbombed itself, by having
	so many invalid addresses, that their system was swamped, 
	when those messages came back.  << I suspect that people
 	that didn't like the e-mail also contributed to that. >> >>

	This was all discussed on Listmanager several months ago. 

> that the subscribers of AOL (or other online community) agreed -- in their
> intial subscriber contracts -- to have AOL refuse for them.

           I misplaced a procmail recipe that automatically
	   returns to sender any mail that the recipient is BCC'd.
	   Very usfull for those with shell accounts.  

> a chain of contracts that forbid it (without reference to content) from the
> backbone back through the IAPs to the users.  (I think Long-Morrow at Yale

	MCI has announced that any domain that originates spam
	that travels through their system is subject to being
	cut off of their system.   They appear to be following
	through with that policy.  

	Sprint doesn't care what travels through their system.  

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com



	NETCOM --- when only the worst in internet service will suffice.