If that were the case (and it isn't, because members with arrl.net aliases who don't advertise them don't receive much if any spam) that wouldn't cause Earthlink any problems.
 
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Goddard, Art (Dir, SW)
Sent: Tue 9/30/2003 12:08 AM
To: arrl-odv
Cc:
Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9536] And The Word From QSL.NET

And here is QSL.net taking the high ground - at least higher than ARRL...

73, Art  W6XD

----------------------------------------------------------------

>To: qsl-net@mailman.qth.net
>From: "Alan L. Waller" <k3tkj@qsl.net>
>Subject: [QSL-Net] ARRL/Earthlink
>Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:55:55 -0400
>
>Hi Ken and others....
>
>Thanks for your input on the QSL/ARRL/QTH spamming thread.
>
>Here's the basic problem with ARRL and QSL, you or a spammer can download
>the FCC database of active US
>calls.....  Append  @arrl.net  or  @qsl.net  to this list and you are
>GUARANTEED to have every user on both systems since we both only allow the
>ham call as the mail address. BTW this works for every country database
>and is especially important at QSL because of the large number of non-US
users.
>
>VERY little Spam today comes through open relays, these have been hammered
>into submission by the blackhole lists and other than a few in the Far
>East they are under reasonable control and monitored by several sites. The
>majority of Spam is relayed through OPEN PROXY SERVERS, as they are
>numerous, are usually associated with big bandwidth and are totally
>transparent to a Spammer.  You cannot trace Spam through OPS's as there is
>no logging and even if there was the owner of the OPS does not even know
>it is happening.
>
>The ARRL's position seems to be that it is not their problem to do any
>filtering for Spam at the server.
>
>QTH lists are double opt-in so as long as a spammer does not subscribe his
>drivel will bounce to the list owner. The only reason we Spam filter QTH
>is to give a bit of relief to the list owners. It is not needed to keep
>the lists Spam free.
>
>QSL has always had server Spam filtering and will always do so. I won't
>publically describe how this is done, although for the interested I will
>give you the details off list. QSL, in it's Acceptable USE Policy,
>emphasizes the fact that QSL mail  has no guarantees of delivery or
>suitability. I tell everyone who asks...if the mail is that important to
>you DO NOT use QSL. I filter spam heavily, I block abusers instantly and
>the system is not perfect.  Occasionally innocents users are blocked but
>99.9% of the messages blocked are Spam. The number of messages rejected
>daily is 6 digits so it does work.
>
>
>73, Al