I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but the fact of the matter is, if SPEWS behavior is abusive towards a network, that network does have a limited recourse: null-route SPEWS. Thus, the more providers they anger, the less network they can reach. Some users may complain, but if SPEWS is abusing your customer base, I think it's a valid response. It's a powerful threat, and incentive for SPEWs to play fair. On 6/20/2002 at 20:33:43 +0100, Chrisy Luke said:
Steven J. Sobol wrote (on Jun 20):
If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming - whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation may work if the collateral damage caused by escalation is enough to get the spammers' neighbors to complain to the ISP.
Can't find the terrorists you're looking for so start killing bystanders until someone submits? Sounds militia to me.
The service providers are not the enemies. If you treat them like enemies then enemies they will become.
Perhaps we should move mail transfer to a peering model. You wanna send email to my SMTP server? Where's the peering contract? BGP-equivalent for SMTP anyone?
-C (tired of getting bounces for email I never sent!)
if SPEWS behavior is abusive towards a network, that network does have a limited recourse: null-route SPEWS.
Looks like at least one person recently has had the same idea: http://www.anti-spews.org Seems like a tough road to hoe. By null routing entire netblocks associated with SPEWS, I'd guess that the folks providing bandwidth, DNS, etc. for SPEWS would be more likely to cave to the pressure long before the SPEWS admins themselves. The thing that comes to mind for me is that null routing might present all kinds of legal issues, but at least those might force SPEWS out of hiding to address them. Who knows? - Drew
participants (2)
-
Dave Israel -
Drew Linsalata