Dave in Fairfax wrote:
wrote:
Get it figured out? XO is hosting a bunch of spammers. That only
took me 30 seconds to figure out. Of course another fifteen seconds
spent checking out ATT shows they aren't much better. A classic
case of the pot calling the kettle black.
A pox on them all.

Couldn't agree more, but what to do? Much like voting Republican or
Democrat, big business contributes money to both and owns them as a
result. Voting Independent (any party) only works as long as business
thinks they're powerless and doesn't bother to buy them. Sorry it's
that time of the year today and the choices are terrible. As usual. I
can find a better ISP when it comes to non-spamming, but then they can't
be reached nationally.


While I am not a fan of AOL they have been consistently among the best
in the industry at keeping spammers from directly using their hosting.
Because of rather poor technical expertise spammers often relay through
AOL servers.

I'm no microsoft fan either but Hotmail nukes spammers fast, again,
their abuse staff isn't very bright but clearly the company does not
have a policy of openly supporting spammers.

Juno and United online have a good, consistant anti-spam record.

All of the ISPs that are also major telecoms have at one time or
another hosted scores of spammers. They seem to take turns wearing
the black hat, or in this case, the pink hat. MCI is currently the
worst and in recent years (when they were Worldcom) has even hosted
a DDOS against Spamhaus for several months.

If the truly white hat ISPs shunned (refused to peer with) the
spam supporting ISPS altogether it would only take about a week
to clean up most of the spam problem. That would mean inconveniencing
their users for about a week, and it would seem that AOL and such
are not willing to do that.

--

FF