North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Source address validation (was Re: UUNet Offer New Protection
- From: Paul Vixie
- Date: Mon Mar 08 00:16:39 2004
email@example.com (Dan Hollis) writes:
> This isnt the point. The point is, why should others suffer the burden of
> your clients spewing bogon/spoofed/nonsense garbage at them?
when i found out that two e-mail based service companies who had been
acquired by yahoo had stopped doing verification of e-mail addresses as
a result of that acquisition, i asked why. it turns out that yahoo's
"properties" are designed for margin rather than for sustainability, and
that the reason we all have to bear the burden of the resulting torrent
of acquaintant-spam and unverified swill is simply that yahoo knows that
most isp's are unwilling to boycott their e-mail. (though i do it here.)
earlier that same week, i complained to amazon about lack of verification
and heard this same story except this time it was from their abuse-bot.
the only amazing thing about it is how bald-faced both companies are about
shifting their costs onto the rest of the community.
so i think the non-rhetorical answer to your perhaps-rhetorical question
above is simply "because they must" (or "because we can", as you please.)
> The effect is cumulative. If everyone takes this lazy apathetic approach
> to network administration, it hurts everyone.
when we put these CEO's on a quarterly schedule for answering the question,
"what have you done for us lately?" this result was pretty much preordained.
> Its the difference between being a good neighbor and being the fat
> beerbelly neighbor with dogs barking all night and rusting camaro with no
> tires up on cinderblocks on his beercan littered lawn.
just for reference, the short form of the latter is "chickenboner" (because
of the pile of same found under their airstream's kitchen window.)
> Just because everyone else doesnt maintain a good network doesnt mean you