On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Sabri Berisha wrote:
And then I'm not even taking into account the fact that the UCI/Pegasus is a well-known spammer (http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html).
I imagine NAC is pretty tired of being RBL'd. Can't blame them for being eager to rid themselves of this pest.
I do not see it that way, from what is known so far, NAC for some time has been trying to either buy pegasus or force them to sign long term agreement with terms that would be very beneficial to NAC financially. Pegasus refused and decided (on its own) to get out but both NAC and pegasus were still until recently negotiating on NAC continuing to provide transit to them under new agreement. Current situation seems to be result of the breakdown of those negotiations. So it seems the parties were not eager to terminate the connectivity and transit relationship. Also knowing internal opinion of some NAC employees and principals on spews and other rbls, I doubt spews listing would have played significant role as to the current dispute, although possibly NAC did try to go after some smaller spamming customers who were probably also not paying their bills too well.
The next provider who ends up with pegasus is going to regret it.
It seems the problem pegasus has is that they tried to grow too fast and they did not have good business sence on doing certain necessary work for their network (like not relying on just one upstream so much and having renumbering done ahead of planned move). In line with that would be that they did not setup necessary process to screen and check new customers and do not have good policies on terminating spam-supporting existing ones. So perhaps rather then immediatly screem at their next upstream who will likely have gigabit traffic from them and would not be likely to terminate such lucrative contract, it would be better to first try to educate as to what are good abuse policies and how they should be enforced. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net