how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
9894 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
tonydiPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-11
San Jose, CA | reply to elvey
Re: Hey SBC Techs, what's with abuse@pacbell.net? Just one question elvey....
I sent you the contact info for someone at SBC who should be willing to listen to your issue and has the power to do something about it.
Did you send any of the things you've posted here to that person? | |
 elveySpamassassin
join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA
 ·Virgin Mobile Br..
 ·Sipgate VOIP
| reply to Steve
said by Steve:
said by CCCMTech:
I do not work in abuse, I have no ties to abuse, (etc)
...which is a point that I believe has been lost in this thread.
Rick is a great support guy, but it probably doesn't come as a big surprise that SBC is a really, really big company and not all departments are even in the same states.
I think we should keep in mind that we're fortunate to have him here to help with our DSL issues, and if we have issues with SBC on spamming (as some of us do), we should address them in a way that is not quite so personal.
Please?
Steve
Yes, you make some valid points. Rick does appear to be a great support guy in general, and we are lucky to have him here.
Providing info on what users can do to avoid spam is providing support and an attempt to 'fix it'. But it's combined with an extensive effort to discredit, and shirk SBC's resonsibility to take action on, the evidence I've provided. Responding to jm8  : This thread is full of mistakes Rick has made, e.g. that spammers who host with SBC but don't spam from SBC don't need to be terminated by SBC: »/speak/print/d···;8537567
, that ID of spammers can't be made reliably and obfuscation of the issue:»/speak/print/d···;8537634 and , the "If you do not reply to spam they generally will not send another" comment, etc, etc, etc. Still don't see it? These comments mislead people into thinking that SBC is acting responsibly regarding its spammer infestations. A there's-nothing-SBC-can-do attitude is annoying and incorrect.
BTW, my last post was made before reading the 3 above it; this addresses 'em.
Tonydi: Despite the reservations I expressed privately. | |
CCCMTechPremium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Baxter, KY | As I pointed out, once we prove that the customer has violated the TOS we will term him. But again things can be spoofed and it's not as simple as saying "he spammed me, term him"
With the new "can spam" law it makes it even harder as they are now allowed to spam you until you opt out.
I have not once shrugged our responsibility, but the point your missing is the fact I have no control over it. Abuse is not my personal responsibility. I am sorry you get spammed but with current legislation, it's more difficult than it appears.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | | |
|
 SteveI know your IP addressConsultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
kudos:5 | said by CCCMTech:
With the new "can spam" law it makes it even harder as they are now allowed to spam you until you opt out.
Actually, this isn't strictly the case: "Can Spam" defines parameters that will avoid running afoul of the law, but an ISP is allowed to define its own terms of service that forbid things that are otherwise legal. There are plenty of webhosting companies that forbid adult sites, for instance. I don't believe that "Can Spam" will interfere with private contracts.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl * Security Consultant * Tustin, California USA * my web site | |
| reply to elvey
said by elvey:
said by CCCMTech:
Alright your request has been sent.
Good. I hope the intercompany request (You did send it that way, as you said you would, right?) isn't going into a black hole the way all other reports to abuse@pacbell.net do! The truth is SBC allows spammers on its network.
The topic of this thread is "Hey SBC Techs, what's with abuse@pacbell.net?" not "Hey, SBC, solve the spam problem!":D - You say you've offered to help? By sending the intercompany request? With respect to the problem at hand, you've repeatedly denied that there's a problem, even in the face of specific detailed evidence of spammers SBC is harboring! That's NOT helping.
What would you want someone to do, especially since they don't have control over certain aspects of services, as has been mentioned here by CCCM Tech. Sure spam is a problem and it happens in many ways, most of which are user generated. SBC may not catch all of its customers who abuse the privelige of e-mail services, but then again, we do have police in this country and we still have criminals who get away with serious crimes. As far as helping, I'd say that CCCM Tech did everything within his power to give you assistance and just because a small number of people in the millions of customers aren't noticed, it doesn't mean that they won't be dealt with. Part of fixing something is following the correct path, which CCCM Tech made every effort to point to and even went as far as to offer to take the information down the path for you. You have to imagine, if abuse@pacbell.net gets 1 request, there has to be a certain amount of information that has to be investigated and the complaint has to be justified. Who wants an ISP that terminates your services without valid reason, say that I sent an e-mail saying that you spammed me and then I report you and someone treats it as a valid complaint and puts your address on a list, then you get your internet service and e-mail taken from you and you didn't even do anything. So if you don't get a response, maybe they are still investigating the situation. Really, would you want them to go off half-cocked? That's not only bad business, but unethical. | |
elveySpamassassin
join:2001-02-17
San Francisco, CA Reviews:
·Virgin Mobile Br..
·Sipgate VOIP
1 edit | reply to CCCMTech
said by CCCMTech:
As I pointed out, once we prove that the customer has violated the TOS we will term him.
Already refuted in posts to this thread. quote:
But again things can be spoofed and it's not as simple as saying "he spammed me, term him"
Already addressed in posts to this thread; you plan on making the same point over and over 'till we believe it? quote:
With the new "can spam" law it makes it even harder as they are now allowed to spam you until you opt out.
Already refuted in Steve's post to this thread. Here's what the authors claim (debatably, to be sure):
quote:
While some critics argue that the new law legitimizes some forms of spam, nothing could be further from the truth. Big-time spammers inevitably will violate the CAN SPAM Act because it strikes at the heart of how their sleazy businesses work. The bill prohibits senders of commercial e-mail from hiding or disguising their identities or from using misleading subject lines. Spammers must use these deceptive tactics to avoid now-common spam filters. If they continue to do so, they will violate the law and face the consequences.
If spammers attempt to comply with the new law, Internet service providers (ISPs) will have a much easier time blocking spam messages from getting to consumers. ISP networks are private property, and ISPs can and do have policies against transmitting spam over their networks. Even if a particular e-mail complies with all of the requirements of the law, it still could be unauthorized and subject to being blocked by the ISP. So, far from legitimizing spam, the new law boosts ISPs' anti-spam efforts.
quote:
I have not once shrugged our responsibility
Already refuted in posts to this thread. quote:
Refrain:
SpamHaus is probably the most respected spammer tracking org out there.
If you looked at specific entries in a specific list, please tell me which entries in which list you looked at. I notice you're not claiming that you're not hosting spammers on these IPs, like buymarketing. Please look at the ROKSO entries (the ones in yellow) before responding, e.g. you are supporting whoaextend.com.
quote:
Two ISP services operated by telephone giant SBC Communications Inc., swbell.net and pacbell.net, have a combined 61 known spammers on their networks, according to Spamhaus. In the case of swbell.net, a large percentage of the spammers are listed by Spamhaus as especially notorious and have made its Register of Known Spam Operations list.
-from a recent Washington Post article. | |
 ARPremium,ExMod 2001-04
join:2000-09-21
Toronto, ON
1 edit | CCCMTech has forwarded a request.
It might or might not be looked at.
The SBC Online team can't do anything more about this. By their admission, it is out of their hands.
As a support issue thread, this is taken care of.
For rants against SBC, please direct your time and energy towards the Rants and Raves forum.
Thanks.
edit: Since I am a nice guy  , I'll include links where this thread might have a possible future:
1. »Scam and Phishbusters
2. »Rants, Raves, and Praise | |
|
