Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Farelf

Korean ISP response

Recommended Posts

ISP responses are infrequent and this one from Korea (SKbroadband, a Hanaro Telecom client) may be of interest since it touches on aspects of Korean regulations (compensation "for the mental and physical damage" caused by spam??? - that caught my eye). This may be just the "boilerplate" response but unfortunately it quite misses the point of the report sent - the source address is infected by the cutwail spambot according to the CBL, information that was pointed out in report notes and the owner of the server needs to know that, rather than be admonished. Similarly many other Hanaro Telecom clients are infected. Oh well, maybe the information is actually relayed. Or maybe users in Korea are meant to work that out for themselves - they don't seem to be getting the message in any event.

skbroadband.com']Thank you for contacting SKbroadband to report a "spam" email.

We received your spam report and are now in the process of taking care of it. SKbroadband, Inc. will warn those who transmitted spam mail contrary to the Article 50 of "Act on Protection of Information and Promotion of Information Communication Network" not to send spam mail any more. If a spammer does not stop sending spam mail, SKbroadband, Inc. will report spam mail transmitter to the related authorities and look into legal action to compensate for the mental and physical damage.

[Related Provisions of Laws and Regulations]

- Article 50 of the Act on Protection of Information and Promotion of Information and Communication Network

(Restriction on Transmission of Advertisement Information) -

â‘  Anyone cannot transmit the profit-based advertisement information contrary to the expressed opinion of a recipient not to receive such mails.

â‘¡ Those who want to transmit the profit-based advertisement information by e-mail under the regulation of the Article, they should indicate in such e-mails information on as in each of the following subparagraphs as specified by the enforcement regulation of the "Information and Communication Act".

  1. Purpose of transmission and main contents
  2. Name and contact information of transmitter(or sender), etc.
  3. Matters related to the opinion of denying further reception

※ for more information, please refer to the Antispam Policy of SKbroadband, Inc on website (http://www.skbroadband.com/eng/other/spam.asp)

※ We can’t manage the reports for a spam Mail sent to a wrong mail account.

So you should report to abuse[at]skbroadband.com

... their response is appreciated, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Thanks, Steve -- interesting, indeed!

<snip>

This may be just the "boilerplate" response

...Seems pretty much a certainty to me!
<snip>

it quite misses the point of the report sent

<snip>

...Not to mention this bit:
<snip>

Anyone cannot transmit the profit-based advertisement information contrary to the expressed opinion [emphasis added] of a recipient not to receive such mails.

<snip>

...Huh? I have to opt out of spam or it's okay for a spammer to send it to me? That rule needs to be revisited by the South Korean regulator or legislature that originated it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Huh? I have to opt out of spam or it's okay for a spammer to send it to me? That rule needs to be revisited by the South Korean regulator or legislature that originated it!

Good point - seems like a remake of CANSPAM, apart from the compensation bit.

Also seems to me an adequate defence from sanctions might be "It was the botmaster that done it, not me!" - similar legislation might explain the extraordinary rates of unaddressed infection effectively encouraged ("plausible deniability") in other jurisdictions (such as UA) noted by petzl (and myself) elsewhere. NOT saying the Koreans are guilty of this! - on the face of it, the fact they care to respond to (some) reports argues to the contrary. Just saying that such legislation is manifestly inadequate in the face of the realities of the spamdom now evident and its presence in the statutes is perhaps the hallmark of a lazy or inattentive legislature (at best, a corrupt one at worst).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×