Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: Royal Back of Canada Phish coming from Google Gmail
Date: 9 Dec 2024 23:17:49 -0000
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <vj7tqt$qma$1@panix2.panix.com>
References: <vib3h8$1h71$30@gallifrey.nk.ca> <20241209111851.f08415575f43bf97d65d8276@inter-corporate.com>
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2";
	logging-data="19640"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
Bytes: 2078

Randolf Richardson =?UTF-8?B?5by15paH6YGT?=  <noc@inter-corporate.com> wrote:
>Or is there something I'm missing here?  Do you think an
>eMail provider such as Google GMail should be held
>responsible for the actions of their users?  Perhaps the
>problem is that user accounts of scammers are not being
>shut down?  (If so, then I wonder if perhaps that could
>make them liable as ongoing facilitators.)

It is expected that any provider would make basic attempts to prevent
spam.  That includes shutting down the accounts of users who have 
engendered spam complaints, as well as throttling email or shutting
down accounts when obvious spam signatures are found.  If someone is
sending thousands of messages a day to consecutive addresses, it is
worth investigating them to see if they are spamming.

gmail actually does an okay job of this but a lot of them fall through
the cracks just because of the number of users they have.  And Google
Groups, although it no longer can be used to spam Usenet, can be set up
with distribution mailing lists to send spam and Google completely
ignores those.
--scott
>
>-- 
>Randolf Richardson 張文道, CNA - noc@inter-corporate.com
>Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
>Beautiful British Columbia, Canada
>https://www.inter-corporate.com/


-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."