> Michael Lorrey [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
> >I'm now billing ISPs that refuse to provide information on the spammers
> >to me the
> >$500.00 fee that the CRA allows, since by concealing their identities,
> >they are in
> >effect colluding and are acessories after the fact.
> Well Mike, in the unlikely event that you're successful with this case, it
> will be the end of anonymous remailers in the US... and will just make more
> spammers move offshore. Thanks a bunch.
Not necessarily. It would not be hard at all for anonymous remailers to put a cap on the number of emails that can be sent in a given time period, or that have identical byte counts or identical subject lines or a limit on the number of 'cc:' addresses allowed on a message. If they were truly interested in contributing to a solution they would institute policies like this. Since they are not, they are colluding.
At least if they move offshore, there can definitely be some limits put on the traffic. Note the limits the telcos have put on phone traffic to the Dominican Republic and other Carribean nations (as well as some African countries) because of the amount of wire fraud that originates from those countries. I recall a few years ago that I had to establish a special connection with one of my manufacturers in St Kitts because AT&T had blocked all calling card calls to and from that island.