North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: while i'm on the subject of filtering, here's today's list of spammers
- From: Brett D. Watson
- Date: Thu Feb 20 03:14:13 1997
> > No, it isn't. You have guests and other users. If you have IP customers,
> > then they have guests and other online users. By accepting spam you allow
> > your resources (which you offer for cooperative reasons) to be used in a
> > noncooperative way. If you have downstream customers you are subjecting
> > them to the same abuse.
> We offer our customers Internet access, and when they complain about
> spammers we do something about it. However, what we do affects only our
> network and our customers. It does not affect the world as a whole?
why does everyone keep insinuating that paul is blocking root level
name service from the whole world? that's essentially the argument
and it's completely off base.
i can admit that *maybe* it's not even reasonable (even after my
last post) to block *any* entity from reaching a single root name
server but this is turning into a tar and feathering of paul for
"affecting the world as a whole" which is way out of proportion.
> > connections.
> Again, you can't block everyone. Why you feel it necessary to impose your
> social mores on the net as a whole is beyond me.
sigh. when has he imposed his social mores on anyone here? paul
blackholes spam sites *within* his own network which he pays for. he
happens to run a public root name server (one of many) and the spam
sites are denied access to part of the public resource (root name
you can *actively* (as opposed to passively or without your
permission) take this list of networks from paul via a bgp peering
session and block access from spammers within your own network.
so where in that scenario is paul forcing morals on anyone? or
blocking the "whole world" from reaching a root name server in his
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -