On 27 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
As a user, I pay my ISP to forward IP packets. If there happen to be TCP segments in those packets, that's something between me and the person the packet is addressed to, ...
...and, occasionally, your ISP's "abuse desk." If this function of your ISP costs less than 1 FTE per 10,000 dialups or 1,000 T1's or 100 T3's, then your ISP is a slacker and probably a magnet for professional spammers as well.
I don't disagree with what I believe to be the goal of you offering the numbers you are (encourging provider to reduce to a minimum level the theft of service that their customers may be perpetrating a.k.a. "spamming" while balancing the costs of such a function,) but you're offering very definitive figures/labeling, and I'm curious as to what you are basing your calculations/labels on, and what the linearity of the scaling is in your opinion. Your own experience at MAPS? At MFN? Wishful thinking? Personally, I'd much rather try to justify a FTE for 1000 T-1s than I would for 10,000 dialup users. It's hard to imagine any ISP with 100,000 dialup customers succesfully justifying 10 individuals dedicated to abuse to the powers that be. I'm aware of ISPs with 1,000,000+ dialup customers that have an *admin* team of that size and seem to have a relatively good control on spam issues. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/