[Mimedefang] Re: On pinheaded ISP's (sort of OT)

[WBrown at e1b.org]

Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote on 01/31/2007 11:37:04 AM:

> David F. Skoll spake the following on 1/31/2007 8:07 AM:
> > Philip Prindeville wrote:
> > 
> >> What interest would the victim of the spam have in forging
> >> log files?  What does he have to cover up?
> > 
> > The alleged victim may not be a victim at all, but might be trying
> > to get the person he's complaining about in trouble.
> > 
> > We've had a few unfounded accusations that we've been sending
> > spam over the last few years; I'm sure it's happened to many others on
> > this list.
> > 
> You evil spammers always say that you don't send spam!  ;-)
> (Please notice the smiley, I don't want to start a war!)
> And people will report stuff that they actually "subscribed" to as spam 
when
> they tire of it.

Which is why the end recipient of the message suspected/accused of being 
spam must submit the entire message, or at least enough to substantiate 
the claim that it is spam, to their ISP and/or the sender's ISP, and/or 
the abuse addrress for the sender's domain.

Any other claim doesn't have sufficient evidence on it's own to prove 
spamming.