The last I heard on this was that the recommendation was to add "; NO UCE" to the end of your SMTP banner. At one point at least one spamware honored that.
-- Kent Hamilton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager - Systems & Networking Hunter Engineering Company > -----Original Message----- > From: Harold Hallikainen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 11:04 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [SAtalk] SMTP notification to spammers? > > > Last week I posted a section of California law that permits ISPs > to sue spammers if the spammer has been notified that the ISP does not > accept spam. The law makes mention of automatic notification by the > receivning email server, indiciating that notification would be > sufficient. However, the law implies this is a "future capability" of > email systems. One responder on this list said he/she > included something > in the HELO response on the SMTP server. Does anyone know of > any standards > in this area as to what a legally enforcible "no spam" SMTP > response would > be? I'll look forward to responses and also check with the CA Attorney > General. > > THANKS! > > Harold > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by: > With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility > Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel > http://hpc.devchannel.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Spamassassin-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
