From: howardk@iswest.com (Howard Knight) Subject: Re: COMPUSERVE under Full Active UDP Date: 1997/11/19 Message-ID: <64u21r$m5b$1@feedme.news.iswest.net> References: <64tm4m$67b@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> Organization: Internet Specialties West, Inc. Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet Mark Hittinger (bugs@freebsd.netcom.com) wrote: : How can such an action against Compuserve be taken when the "consensus : of spam statistics" show them in the noise level? I would hope that : in the future actions are taken on the basis of appearing consistently : above the noise level (as the UUNET UDP #1 did), after a significant : amount of debate (as the UUNET UDP #1 did), with enough people signing : off on it before implementation (as in UUNET UDP #1) so that it is obviously : not a personal vendetta, and with a declaration beforehand of what will : be sufficient action to end the UDP. The CompuServe problem has been discussed in here, on and off, for many weeks. Durring those threads of discussion, it was discovered that CSI does not have an AUP (acceptible use policy) that prohibits spamming. Yes, they have promised one. However, this "promise" came about after many weeks of complaining to them. And then, they say it will take up to two more weeks, just to announce what they are going to do! As far as the noise level goes, I can _assure_ you that there is _pleanty_ of noise coming out of CSI. I haven't calculated the numbers out yet, but my guess is that they rank number three, on average, behind METROSUPPORT.COM (being UDPed), and NETZILLA.NET (being UDPed). I may be wrong, but the point is, CSI is consistently at the top, and has been for many weeks. Top that off with neglegent lack of response and the harboring of five of the top mega-spammers (Jerry "'Zilla" Reynolds, Kevin (SpamJunkie) Freeman, Tommy "The Terrorist" Bridges, Michael "Cyber World" Lunnin, and WoodSide. This is a problem. A really really _bad_ problem! Perhaps we should have given them more warning. But, in my book, they have had pleanty of time to come up with an AUP. When CSI received their first spam complaint, they should have acted to come up with an AUP. But instead, they ignored all of our e-mails, and never took the problem seriously until it had already gotten out of hand. Do you think we should put up with this while we wait for the suits at CSI to get a clue? I say, No! Howard