License To Spam?

Anonymous Coward writes: "This was posted to spam-l today: what you are looking at is a copy of a contract given to known spammers that says, 'We agree not to nuke you for spamvertizing your sites,' regardless of what the AUP says. It says people penned into these contracts are not beholden to rules against spamming." Sanford could have used one of these. Update: 11/02 5:31 PM by michael : The JPEG has been updated - looks like AT&T isn't really a big fan of spam after all. Good for them.

Does it?

[sqlrob]

Reading the contract implies to me (IANAL) that they haven't gained a thing. They are still bound by the AUP.

From the ATT (Worldnet) AUP:
Finally, you should not engage in any of the foregoing acts prohibited by these rules using another service provider.

SPAM-L URL

[dmuth]

FWIW, for those of you who aren't familliar with SPAM-L, it is an anti-spam mailing list that has been running for a few years.

I happen to maintain the FAQ for that list, it's over here [claws-and-paws.com] if anyone would like to find out more about it.

Enter the RBL

[Tackhead]

And this, kids, is why the RBL is needed.

Sadly, the RBL has a poor track record of nailing large networks due to concerns about the political effects of collateral damage. (I can think of one network whose parent company lost about 20% yesterday after splitting itself in two, as a bigger spam source than the one whose parent company split itself in four last week... Serves 'em both right.)

Unfortunately for the spamhausen (and I consider the aforementioned backbone as much a spamhaus as I do the resellers they fail to control), that doesn't mean that individual sysadmins can't block 'em.

I urge anyone with connectivity from a provider with a track record of "pink contracts" and other pro-spam measures to change their provider as soon as practical, and to block all packets from the offender at the router level.

If RBL won't do it, it's up to us to do it for ourselves.

Yuck.

[hrieke]

So, if I spam via third party gateways I'm fine. Doesn't that break the law as in unauthorized use of computer equipment? So if your email gateway is being used as a spam host, sue.

It lets them benefit from spam...

[Max Hyre]

...without actually sending it.

If I'm reading this correctly (it's kinda hard to make out) they're saying:

1. We (the client/spammer fellow-traveller) will abide by your AUP, and in return
2. You (the ISP) agree to look the other way while we provide the business outlet which is being advertised via spam from some other ISP.

In other words, we won't spam from our account, and you'll tacitly (or explicitly, given this letter) approve of spamming from elsewhere.

Disgusting.

Contacted AT&T

[CritterNYC]

I contacted [att.com] AT&T regarding this story. Let's see if they respond.

ORIGINAL LETTER

I am writing concerning an online news story posted to slashdot.org that appears to contain a contract AT&T entered into with NevadaHosting.com. The contract appears to state that AT&T is knowingly hosting sites operated by NevadaHosting.com which are advertised by spam. I would not think a host like AT&T would host sites that may be engaged in illegal activity (spamming usually involves improper use of open mail relays, i.e. unauthorized use of computer equipment).

The Story May Be Viewed Here:
http://slashdot.org/article. pl? sid=00/11/02/1213252 [slashdot.org]

The Contract May Be Viewed Here:
http://spamhaus.org/rokso/nevadahost ing .jpg [spamhaus.org]

I'm hoping this story is simply inaccurate. Please respond.

Regards,
John

Some day I hope to have a .plan.

AT&T Responded

[sconeu]

On the JPEG link [spamhaus.org], AT&T responded, saying that the contract was entered into by a sales rep (surprise!) without authorization. It further states that the agreement was terminated, and the customer disconnected.

Re:It lets them benefit from spam...

[sqlrob]

But the AUP (Worldnet's at least) says you won't SPAM, even through other providers.

Re:AT&T Responded

[sqlrob]

Hopefully the sales rep was fired as well. Tend to doubt it though