andy, From: "Andy Dills" <andy@xecu.net>
On 23 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote:
You'd be hard pressed to frame what NJABL does in terms of "abuse", because of the intent, and because of the actual bit volume involved.
intent does not, and cannot, matter. when an isp hears a complain about spam, and seeks explaination from their spamming customer, an answer of the form "we have only the best of intentions", then the result still
has
to be service disconnection.
Therefore, in accordance with your logic, if I have a "spam in hand", and I probe your servers to determine if you're an open relay, I'm myself spamming, and that is network abuse, and my ISP should disconnect me.
So intent doesn't matter, huh?
if i parsed paul's post correctly, that is exactly what he is saying. i agree. his logic and the statement you consider ridiculous make perfect sense to me. i have *not* given anyone permission to scan my boxes by sending out mail. trying to somehow justify around this is conjecture - a conjecture that, in my mind, is equivalent to the argument that people have given permission to be mailed (and spammed) by putting their address on a website. njabl is welcome to scan me and i, in turn, am free to drop their traffic at my edge. i do the same to a multitude of abusive sources every day. paul