4 Dec
2003
4 Dec
'03
7:26 p.m.
just me wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Petri Helenius wrote:
And I refer you to the blocks which are properly registered down to the /29 level and you are saying that if you are a good citizen collateral damage is recommended regardless because antispammers are either lazy or technically incompetent or like their ego boosted by intentional collateral damage?
Pete
Can you explain to the less hyperbolic among us, why I should be obligated to exchange packets with a provider who hosts abusive customers.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. That said, IMHO you are free to do what you want as an individual, but collusion by a group to block a provider (even one with abusive customers) smells a lot like restraint of trade. Tony