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