The customer, a repeat offender trading as Queensland Computer Company, has been the subject of previous reports and is a known spammer. The account was terminated following enquiries by ZDNet Australia .
However until new anti-spam laws are adopted, there is no significant action Telstra can take against the company despite its repeated breaches of the telecommunications company's acceptable usage policy (AUP).
"The ultimate action is suspension," a Telstra spokesman said. "[But] if somebody comes back in under another name there would be no record of them having breached our terms and conditions. We can't do anything".
The spokesman says the only solution is technical and it's tricky because reducing its customers' ability to send mail can stop legitimate businesses from conducting acceptable activity--like e-mailing a newsletter to its customers.
Telstra already employ connection throttling to limit the number of e-mails that can be sent over a period of time, but in this case "they were sending out e-mails at the maximum allowable level over a long period of time".
The offender had its BigPond account terminated on Wednesday. The spokesman confirmed that no legal action could be taken.
"Not as far as I'm aware and certainly this whole issue of legality has been raised several times internally and I've always been advised there is no law that can help us," he said. "We will conform to the law, and if the law provides us with some means of getting rid of spammers we will use it".
Jonathan Cohen, a partner with Melbourne law firm Jerrard and Stuk, says while there's no doubt that evading a black-ban by getting back on to an ISPs network under a different name is deceptive, there's not much that can be done.
"The Trade Practices Act isn't really designed to deal with this sort of thing," he told ZDNet Australia . "It has to be criminal conduct before you can clamp down on it. It seems impossible for the private sector to clamp down on this".
Individuals or companies that change names when they sign up for new accounts after they've been terminated are a hard bunch to go after, Cohen says.
"[Spammers are] a very nimble opponent that keep getting back in on a legal basis. If he comes in as Mickey Mouse one day and another name the next, how can you keep up?" he asked.
"I don't believe at the moment there's an offence committed under Australian law," he added. "[But] it's running pretty close to fraud".
Not everyone shies away from putting some of the blame on Telstra. General manager of CairnsNet, a Queensland ISP, says Telstra's abuse reporting system is sub-standard.
"I think it's disgusting - they're supposed to be a world class entity and they have third world procedures," he said.
Stern claims Telstra never respond to abuse reports that he files to the telco.
"I could provide you with a whole series of tracking numbers," he said.
Stern says the mere fact that Queensland Computer Company's actions will be criminal after proposed legislation is adopted makes its position indefensible.
"I think it's a very poor way of doing business... we've notified our users that we'll no longer accept e-mail from them. They should never ever consider dealing with them," he said.
Stern questions Telstra's claim that abuse reports from ISPs are automatically elevated to level 2 support, and says more needs to be done.
"How do they determine what comes from an ISP?" he asked. "It's not only more prevention but they should honour their commitment to deal with abuse reports".
"To actually go and enter our details onto a web form is not the done thing," he added. "Any other ISP will deal with it properly, except Telstra who wants us to fill in a web form. We cannot afford the time to do this sort of thing".
Even when he's used the Web form, Stern claims nothing has been done.
There are others, like Scott Buchanan, a systems engineer from hosting company Axe Group, who say Telstra's not in an easy position simply because it's so big.
"It's not just Telstra, all of the ISPs have spam problems," he said. "Because they're so big they get a disproportionate rap because of the number of customers. I think it's probably difficult for them... but it doesn't seem that they do anything visible [to fight the problem]," he said.
Legislation that introduces the right of ISPs to fine for breaches of AUPs would be welcomed by Buchanan.
"I think most ISPs today have fairly stringent AUPs that make sure their customers are doing the right things. If the [proposed] legislation supports them to the point that customers can be fined for breaching them I think that's fantastic".
Queensland Computer Company did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
T(H)elstra's ABUSE Department does NOTHING if their action has the potential to impact on revenue, negatively. So a spammer has the potential to exceed their Data volume allocation and would pay heavily for their excess, depending on the plan they signed up to use. T(H)elstra can move quickly when it suits them. Take for example the situation in 2001, when T(H)elstra claimed a small number of Broadband users were using excess bandwidth and that, they claimed impacted on other users. Bullshit. What it really meant was
T(H)elstra saw the potential to squeeze more money from its Broadband users base, so it quickly changed it contract mid-stream and capped all users and lumbered them with an exorbitant excess charge. This not only had the potential to increase T(H)elstras revenue flow, but also meant they didn't have to provide as much backbone network to support the load and thus saved them selves truck loads of money for local and international capacity, which would have been needed to support an uncapped service. The abuse department is hogtied and useless being constrained to take any effective action by marketing considerations.