complaint address

[wanda]

I'm also w/LAFN and they do a good job of screening!   Now they have
stopped any info from ATT or any telephone co. connected servers.  As a
result have missed some important messages from friends...   Guess I'll
have to get another line or use the phone, which for some stuff can be
apain & expensive.

					Wanda

Dameron
LANABA\Flutterby Press
Los Angeles



Kathleen Moon wrote:
> 
> Doug Yanega wrote:
> >
> > I shouldn't follow this up, but Kathleen said something I cannot let pass:
> >
> > >> Rest assured that Mr. Castellano will ignore complaints sent to him (only
> > >> natural, since he evidently runs the business, and Singapore and Hong Kong
> > >> are THE places for people who want to run e-mail scams - I don't think I've
> > >> seen a single honest business with a domain there in my 10+ years on the
> > >> Net), but if you complain politely to postmaster at resolver.net, that should
> > >> get someone's SERIOUS attention.
> > >
> > >True.  There is something even more effective: tell you Internet Service
> > >Provider (ISP).  That should get some good service as well: an ISP can
> > >block email coming in that originates from an offending site,  Although
> > >this situation, it coming from overseas makes it a little harder, but
> > >not much.  It works very well for spam email.
> >
> > This is NOT, in any real way, "effective", any more than unplugging your TV
> > and radio is effective in stopping wars, murders, etc. Getting the
> > offending individual's account and/or website closed IS effective, and the
> > only reason we still *have* a functional internet is because some of us
> > DON'T use killfiles and filters. A "cop-out" accomplishes nothing. I don't
> > mean to pick on Kathleen, either - this "delete button" approach is a
> > *general* problem, and while asking your ISP to set up a filter may be a
> > good backup course of action (it *is* better than simply deleting mail, as
> > most folks do), it is by no means the *first* choice.
> >         Most directly, though, in the present case such action would be
> > *truly* worthless, because the message was delivered via leps-l, so even if
> > your ISP put up a filter, you'd still see anything Mr. Castellano sent to
> > leps-l in the future. Also, as a general rule, spammers use false and/or
> > morphing addresses, so you CAN'T set up a filter. Prevention is the only
> > cure.
> 
> You may be right where newsgroup posts are concerned, but I am not
> certain about the email side of the situation.  So farm when I have
> asked the L A Free-Net to stop email spam, it has usually been quite
> effective in ferreting out the real sender, despite morphing and false
> addresses.  They have ways of finding offending email's real origins,
> and then tell the offending party to stop.  Several times, I have asked
> the techies at LAFN to do so, and they have succeeded every time in
> shutting down the sender - or at least in getting the sender to stop
> (only a couple times has this taken a second attempt).
> 
> PS: By the way, this is Pierre Plauzoles using Kathleen Moon's Internet
> access due to technical difficulties with my own.