Subject: Re: Notice - Scam Alert

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 08:12:51 -0600 (MDT)

> From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>

> Dear editor,
>
> I looked at your web site and while I agree this is a good idea
> and it was nice to see some of the well-known scams listed,
> your message is considered spam and is considered improper on
> the ietf mailing list and, more generally, on the mail service 
> through which it was sent. 
>
> Your business plan may be in jeopardy if you are prosecuted
> for spamming, no matter how noble the intent. The fact that
> ...

A lot of spam using similar wording, supposedly warning about "scams" has
been sent from various domains starting about a year ago.  I am personally
convinced that this message was merely a new instance of the old "scam
alert" spam, but from a new domain.  

As far as I can recall, the World Currency Cartel spammers have been quiet
since their activies and certain actions of various law enforcement
agencies were written up in the "Wall Street Journal" last spring or
summer.  Have you seen any World Currency Cartel spam lately?  As I recall,
the "scam alert" spam was always a little short on genuine news.

Finally, notice the administrative and billing contacts for FlimFlam.com.
Few legitimate domains have contact names at free email outfits (excepting,
of course,the free email outfits themselves), but plenty of spammers use
them.

I've already complained to Uunet and simple.net, the hosts of the
FlimFlam.com, and to flash.net, the source of the spam.  It would not hurt
if others would also complain.   Too many ISP's care only when spam bothers
them personally, i.e. if they get a lot of complaints.

Most spam today seems to come form Uunet dialups, with larger Uunet
customers and CompuSpam a close second.  Yes, some of the dialups might
be resold by others and the perps. may not be direct customers of Uunet.
Nevertheless, if Uunet would impose real sanctions on its customers, the
Uunet part of the spam problem would be radically improved.  Merely
cancelling a throw-away account does not qualify as a sanction.  $500/day
or $50 per validated complaint is real and effective, as Earthlink has
demonstrated.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:26:49 -0400

Vernon,

With regard to UUNet, for the most part, all of the port capacity
for UUNet provided on a wholesale basis to others who validate
the callers, etc (e.g. Microsoft, AOL). Even the billing is done
by the third parties so defending against repeat violators may
mean tracking down use of the same credit card to open/re-open
abused accounts. Even the individual dial-up users of CompuServe
are now under AOL management, as I understand the three-way
business arrangement between CompuServe, UUNet and AOL.

Perhaps the most effective way to deal with this is to covey
these ideas to the principal resellers of UUNet's dial up facilities.

Vint

>Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]
=================================================================
If you are using any email address other than [email-masked],
please change your address book to use that address exclusively.

See you at INET'99, San Jose, CA, June 25-29,1999 
http://www.isoc.org/inet99/

---

From: "vinton g. cerf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 13:26:49 -0400

Vernon,

Vint