On Nov 20, 2007 3:11 PM, Alex Pilosov <alex@pilosoft.com> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:21:19 PST, goemon@anime.net said:
This seems a rather unwise policy on behalf of cox.net -- their customers can originate scam emails, but cox.net abuse desk apparently does not care to hear about it.
Seems to be perfectly wise if you're a business and care more about making money than getting all tangled up in pesky things like morals and ethics. It's great when you can help the balance sheet by converting "ongoing support costs" and "loss of paying customers" into what economists call "externalities" (in other words, they make the decisions, but somebody else gets to actually pay for the choices made). This is one of the threads where posting further will not be productive.
Cox abuse has been named and shamed, and hopefully, the next post we see to the thread will be from them.
As a reminder, political discussions, and discussions about spam filtering (other than operational, such as abuse@ or noc@emails) are off-topic for nanog. Please keep it this way.
Actually, filtering techniques as applies to the operational aspect of a mailer, MX to MX, are fine. -M< (BTW: Next time please run this to the MLC beforehand. Our public policy says "consensus based" and public. You forgot the consensus part.)