Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?

der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG> Mon, 22 June 2009 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mouse@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F174D3A6B3E for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.26
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.26 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.281, BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_CHILDPRN1=1.15]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XiNVlPBlLsl5 for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C64A3A6DD8 for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 04:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from mouse@localhost) by Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA20457; Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:28:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Message-Id: <200906221128.HAA20457@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Erik-Conspiracy: There is no Conspiracy - and if there were I wouldn't be part of it anyway.
X-Message-Flag: Microsoft: the company who gave us the botnet zombies.
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:20:46 -0400 (EDT)
To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <9112777.1871245190785748.JavaMail.franck@iphone-4.genius.local> <> <> <> <200906180105.VAA21834@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <> <200906182044.QAA05200@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <> <200906190149.VAA06902@Sparkle.Rodents-Montreal.ORG> <> <> <> <>
Subject: Re: [Asrg] What are the IPs that sends mail for a domain?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Id: Anti-Spam Research Group - IRTF <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:28:15 -0000

> As for forcefully disabling accounts, one needs a legal authority to
> break a commercial agreement.

Maybe that's why ISP/client contracts - at least in my admittedly
limited experience - permit the ISP to terminate service for any reason
whatever and be liable for, at most, the last billing period's charges:
to permit them the latitude to cut off abusers without having to go
through the legal system first.  (Of course, taking advantage of that
frivolously is an excellent way to lose their customer base, and I'm
sure they know it.)

> For some reasons, they tend to move quicker for child porn than
> spammers.  Last time I talked about spam to our postal police, the
> first thing he said has been "me too".  Since we lack police
> resources for snatches and rapes, I felt arrogant asking them to go
> after my spammer, and gave up.

If your legal system does not provide for private right of action
against spammers, it needs fixing, and this is exactly why.

It also points up part of why depending on meatspace law to deal with
net offenses is a bad idea.

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B