Re: while i'm on the subject of filtering, here's today's list of spammers
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:55:23 -0800 From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> [...] I will not have network resources I pay for, used to spam me, or to spam others. I have the right of use and/or disposal of my own property. People who spam are committing "theft of service" and my Ip reachability matrix is better off without such people in it. [...]
Oh, great. Next, the abortion foes will try to deny the advocates access. Then, the gays versus the straights. The Jews and the Gentiles. ... -tjs
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Tim Salo wrote:
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:55:23 -0800 From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> [...] I will not have network resources I pay for, used to spam me, or to spam others. I have the right of use and/or disposal of my own property. People who spam are committing "theft of service" and my Ip reachability matrix is better off without such people in it. [...]
Oh, great. Next, the abortion foes will try to deny the advocates access. Then, the gays versus the straights. The Jews and the Gentiles. ...
-tjs
Yep, I'm concerned. I find the precedent frightening and the use of "public" resources to satisfy a "private" goal to also be frightening. Even though the "private" goal is admirable. -- Regards, Tom ________________________________________________________________________ | "The Egg Domain" | "And all you touch and all you see, | | tomg@egg.com | is all your life will ever be." | | http://www.egg.com/ | (Pink Floyd) |
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:55:09 -0800 (PST) Tom Glover <tomg@boiled.egg.com> wrote:
Yep, I'm concerned. I find the precedent frightening and the use of "public" resources to satisfy a "private" goal to also be frightening. Even though the "private" goal is admirable.
Yep, I'm concerned. I find the precedent frightening, that the protection of a "public" resource is causing such attacking responses. Nobody wants to have to filter anyone, but its the el crapola ISP's that allow spamming and such to go on that makes the need for this. If Paul's filtering causes problems for the ISP then thats their tough luck, if they sort out their spammers then they wouldn't have this problem. It might go along way to address this problem. I'm SICK of seeing the same make money fast post in the BIND, GATED and Ascend lists. Its easy to have a go at Paul but atleast he is trying to do something about it. If more people had his attitude then there wouldn't be any spamming. Put up or shut up people. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Neil J. McRae wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 03:55:09 -0800 (PST) Tom Glover <tomg@boiled.egg.com> wrote:
Yep, I'm concerned. I find the precedent frightening and the use of "public" resources to satisfy a "private" goal to also be frightening. Even though the "private" goal is admirable.
Yep, I'm concerned. I find the precedent frightening, that the protection of a "public" resource is causing such attacking responses. Nobody wants to have to filter anyone, but its the el crapola ISP's that allow spamming and such to go on that makes the need for this. If Paul's filtering causes problems for the ISP then thats their tough luck, if they sort out their spammers then they wouldn't have this problem. It might go along way to address this problem. I'm SICK of seeing the same make money fast post in the BIND, GATED and Ascend lists. Its easy to have a go at Paul but atleast he is trying to do something about it. If more people had his attitude then there wouldn't be any spamming. Put up or shut up people.
Regards, Neil. --
Thanks, Neil. I largely agree with you. Perhaps I'm hoping there is a better way. Perhaps there isn't. It appears to me that a discussion of what those ways might be could prove productive. It certainly has a better chance of proving so than slamming Paul for taking a position, and, I repeat, an admirable one at that. As an ISP I have had my share of SPAMs originating from misguided and malevolent (I differentiate between the two) customers. The malevolent ones have their accounts terminated immediately and the misguided ones get a warning (only one). Problem is that they simply move their accounts to another unsuspecting ISP and do the same thing all over again. What are the legal implications of putting up a Web site with the names, addresses, phone numbers etc. of customers (not just sites) who have SPAMmed? Then when I get a new customer I can check him against that Web site. I've considered doing that but am concerned about the legalities. Perhaps this already exists. If so, where? Like you, and many others, I've become very worried about SPAM and recent malevolent customer actions from one of my sites created all kinds of problems. I took care of it immediately but not before sites targeted me without even giving me a chance to explain. That's non-productive. I'm also quite sure the schmuck who perpetrated the SPM simply went to another ISP and will do the same thing again. That indicates the ISPs need to work smarter together to avoid this. Sorry for rambling on the NANOG list but I'm getting frustrated over this. If anyone wants to continue this discussion with me let's take it offline. -- Regards, Tom ________________________________________________________________________ | "The Egg Domain" | "And all you touch and all you see, | | tomg@egg.com | is all your life will ever be." | | http://www.egg.com/ | (Pink Floyd) |
participants (3)
-
Neil J. McRae -
salo＠msc.edu -
Tom Glover